The Times - new newspaper website - your thoughts ?

[ClassicMercs]

I have always enjoyed The Times old website (timesonline) - but today its been popping up the new website - the one you are shortly going to have to pay to read.
Aside from the issue of paying to read, which I may reluctantly have done (yorkshiremen being hard to part from their money) - has anyone else been there ?
Sadly I'm not impressed. The basic font - in a million different sizes across the same page - is just not clear. I don't (yet) need glasses for reading, but tonight I needed to use them just to help out. The font is not a crisp clear one (old style news print), I believe, and in some places is too small to be read comfortably.
The layout and heading of items is also not well defined.
Based on what I see I will not be paying to continue reading. If I can't comfortably read the font etc - it doesn't work.
Your comment ?

[Laurel Green]

Hmmm, paying will only encourage others to follow suit. What bothers me though, is that news papers are losing revenue to patronage of the Internet. If this continues, good investigative journalism will suffer. I guess, one way or another, we will have to pay if good journalism is to continue. But to answer your question, no, I have not had a gander at the new website yet.

[colonel c]

Looks OK to me. I'm still not likely to pay uncle Rupert for it though.

[Funk]

The Times has shot itself in the foot on this one. There are plenty of other (better) free places to get your news from.

Farewell to The Times, I reckon. It'll be on its arse within a matter of months and haemorrhaging money.

[Laurel Green]

Just had a look and, apart from the background, found it OK.

[LD1Racing]

The FT have been charging for online content for ages. If nobody buys a physical newspaper anymore, where else will the revenue come from to run the online news site?

[Motorrad]

Won't pay, can pay.


Stick it where the sun don't shine roopert, there are plenty of other providers out there.


Sure I'll buy your rag when I'm in the UK and want something to read while I'm taking a st but other than that fk you.

[shirt]

judging by the halfpage bits they're running in the paper, they seem to be hanging the paysite on the ipad. very silly and preemptive imo. the site is free if you subscribe to the paper.

[mrmr96]

link?

[neenaw]

mrmr96 said:

link?

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/

I don't think much of it myself.
I regularly use the old timesonline website and thought it was pretty good but I don't like the looks of the new one and i certainly won't be paying for it. There's too many other places to get the same news for free!

[thehawk]

LD1Racing said:

The FT have been charging for online content for ages. If nobody buys a physical newspaper anymore, where else will the revenue come from to run the online news site?

Advertising?

[Puggit]

The new site is offering a time limited freebie if you sign up, and even that's put me off. The chances of me paying are zero.

[LD1Racing]

thehawk said:

LD1Racing said:

The FT have been charging for online content for ages. If nobody buys a physical newspaper anymore, where else will the revenue come from to run the online news site?

Advertising?

I would prefer to pay a small subscription charge than be constantly bombarded with distracting adverts.

[Funk]

LD1Racing said:

thehawk said:

LD1Racing said:

The FT have been charging for online content for ages. If nobody buys a physical newspaper anymore, where else will the revenue come from to run the online news site?

Advertising?

I would prefer to pay a small subscription charge than be constantly bombarded with distracting adverts.

The FT offers very in-depth and respected financial insight and analysis. The Times is just another newspaper reporting the same news everyone else is.

Why would you pay to have the same thing you can get elsewhere? The only unique content will be journos' columns, and I'm not willing to pay to hear their opinion or comment. I get my news from a wide range of sources, not just one. It helps me to get a more balanced view of things.

There's some succinct comment from others in this thread too: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a... which I think sums up fairly well.

[Scraggles]

google news finds me various news sites, missing out the times is not a major deal for me

[DJC]

Its annoying.

The Times is by far the best newspaper in the country, the timeonline was a good website. The new site is just irritating and frankly Im annoyed at them.

I no longer get the chance to buy and read a paper anymore, so its online only for me except at the weekend. Im afraid BBC news does my news content, but it does mean I miss out on Brookes, Danny Fink and Simon Barnes, but sorry chaps you arent worth paying extra for.

[markcoznottz]

Dont we pay by having internet?. Unless you sit in a McDonalds all day you have to purchase said medium to be even put into a stuaution to view content. Im guessing the real rub is that internet advertising doesnt work, a tv audience is captive, an internet one isnt, and might go straight to a site with no advertising, or not notice any adverts. This was talked about a lot a few years ago, but was glossed over in the boom, it will surely come home to roost now.