INDEX // mb Ideas on Publishing Books in Canada (and other attempts to write good)

Well, I keep on tooting my web2.0 horn for the Walrus. I think they’ve been consistently ahead of many, many other publications (especially in Canada) in terms of their embrace of web2.0 social and participatory approaches and tools. Most of my students have more dynamic blogs than many professionally produced magazine websites. It is remarkable, for example, how few magazines are using Content Management Systems, favouring instead costly custom builds that leave them suckered to pay through the teeth for the tiniest change. Otherwise, their sites are being mismanaged by the wrong stakeholders who lack a working (current) knowledge of RIGHT NOW web philosophies. The people who really get all this are active in the spaces where change is happening. you shouldn’t have to pay somebody to install RSS, nor should you have to consult a web designer to install a bookmarking tool (or change the design of recognisable icons that users are familiar with into some elegant but totally invisible element buried on the page). I’m going to applaud the Walrus for leading the way simply by ADOPTING the right now stuff. Whether or not people appreciate this yet is another matter. Give them time.

Posted by Melanie McBride on 1 March 2009 @ 2pm

OK, here’s a suggestion: Walrus TV. Get beyond the usual Youtube channel and start making dynamic media. Give the CBC a run for their money. Do interviews with authors, gadabouts, contrarians, politicos. WTV.

Posted by Melanie McBride on 1 March 2009 @ 3pm

My students and I have discussed this site and we agree that the simplest and most effective change would be to reorganize the content that’s already there. There is a *ton* of content (everything is archived) but it’s organized by issue, which is ridiculous from a web perspective. I’d like to see every article tagged so that readers can browse by topic, and while they’re in there, they could make the heds more web- and SEO-friendly. I know there are articles I’m interested in there that I just can’t find.

Posted by Kat Tancock on 2 March 2009 @ 5pm

I think there are a few issues at play here: Content, features and usability. I agree with Kat – and think tags could be put to good use for this purpose. But I also don’t want to see the Walrus looking like one of the many overly produced, corporate-look-and-feel magazines swimming with intrusive flash advertisements. One other thing I really like about the Walrus online is the fact that they have branded in every major social space. Few Canadian mags are doing that part well – and those who are have the Walrus to thank for being such an early adopter publication. While there’s always room for improvement for any site, the Walrus is still at the bottom of my list of Canadian magazines in need of improvement.

Posted by Melanie on 3 March 2009 @ 12pm

This little contest is fun, but you should really talk to someone at the Walrus itself, which might give you a bit more insight into the thinking behind their website. And other key points, like the fact that redesigning digital content alongside print content costs money which the magazine is extremely short on right now. And incidentally, they actually use a lot of smart tools, like a CMS, so they’re not paying for every tiny content change. But finding that out would have taken you a little more effort (something the Walrus knows how to do) than just ranting about the state of magazine sites does (which is what those cool kids with “better sites than magazines” do best, with little else to show for themselves).

Posted by anon on 10 March 2009 @ 3pm

@anon

Thanks for your suggestion on how to make the Walrus site better. I think you may have misread the spirit of this post, but that is fine. Your comments point to my poor writing rather than any larger statement about yourself. Please contact me via email if you want to discuss any further. Anonymous comments are only helpful to a point. And you will notice that the other comments on this post don’t attack the walrus at all. They, and the site’s architecture (viewable via view source), are complimentary of the magazine. It is because funds are short that a crowdsourcing effort like this is worthwhile. As someone from the magazine world told me recently, no one has the answers. If you want to contribute to that conversation, I would be happy to post any additional comments you have.

Posted by mb on 10 March 2009 @ 4pm

Any rationally developed CMS permits tags or categories. There isn’t such an avalanche of old “content” on the site that tags or categories couldn’t be assigned retroactively at low cost.

And really, Anonymoose, this wasn’t a journalistic exercise; IndexMB did not have to call up the magazine to get its side of the story. It was explicitly meant to generate discussion.

Posted by Joe Clark on 12 March 2009 @ 11am