Comments on: How a shift in perspective salvaged Boston.com’s local search project

By: Three ways Apple’s iAd might impact the news industry’s continued advertising woes » Nieman Journalism Lab

Thu, 08 Apr 2010 18:30:37 +0000

[...] companies like news orgs. Search is a field that news companies have no business competing in; local search efforts have flopped, and Google is an unscalable [...]

By: Living Stories can reinvent the article « Murder Manual

Living Stories can reinvent the article « Murder Manual — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:41:30 +0000

[...] events? News organizations get raked over the coals for missing big opportunities (classifieds, local search, etc.). Maybe Living Stories can play out [...]

By: Michael Andersen

Michael Andersen — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 23:20:00 +0000

Neat article, Mac.

It sounds to me as if a regional non-tech company tried to compete with a service provided by a bunch of national tech companies and found it didn’t have the scale to keep up. Boston.com search is probably better at local than Google in 2005, but Google is pretty great at local in 2009.

Are regional newspapers making similar mistakes today? I don’t know of any. But as cash flow returns, they’ll be tempted.

By: Paid Content : paidContent Quick Hits 11.30.09

Paid Content : paidContent Quick Hits 11.30.09 — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 14:36:35 +0000

[...] » Viewing search as a platform instead of a product helped Boston.com gain traction where there was none before. [Nieman Lab] [...]

By: How Boston.com Made Lemonade Out Of Local Search Lemons

How Boston.com Made Lemonade Out Of Local Search Lemons — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:15:57 +0000

[...] appears that “local search” on Boston.com was something of a failure. According to the Nieman Journalism Lab it never really took off: The reality is that Boston.com’s local search never caught on. Traffic [...]

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 21:05:21 +0000

Mac,

Boston.com does deserve credit for re-purposing a costly idea that didn’t pay off, and I would hate to discourage any news organization from taking a risk on something new and innovative.

However, the only thing that survived was a geotagged RSS feed. You can salvage your $40K BMW for $200 in scrap metal, but at the end of the day, you’re still out one car.

By: Dave Chase

Dave Chase — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:58:27 +0000

Great service! Thanks for the follow-up

By: Mac Slocum

Mac Slocum — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 20:40:53 +0000

Allrighty. Bob clarified how the search platform integrates with the Your Town section. Here’s how he described it:

“… the search platform performs a ‘back office’ function as follows: the search index provides a source feed which is geo-tagged and fed to another aggregation/editing application. That last app (not part of the search platform) is what produces the content that appears on the Your Town pages.”

I’ll also add this …

It was beyond the scope of the article (far, *far* too techie), but Bob and I did discuss the “aggregation/editing application” he mentions. As I understand it, the interface acts as a workbench that allows Boston.com producers to pick and order stories. So while there is a manual component to the Your Town pages, the incoming content is generated by the search engine. It’s aggregation followed by curation.

And Jim, to your point, a similar set-up could indeed be created using any sort of source database. The bigger issue — and one I think is applicable to a variety of organizations — is that *if* a big investment doesn’t pan out as intended, it’s worth considering alternative ways to put that expensive tool to use. That said, a company that’s looking to build its own search platform should of course balance features and cost. They certainly don’t have to spend a ton of money to get useful functionality.

@Dave: the underlying search product is from FAST, which was purchased by Microsoft in 2008. The Boston.com product team added their own customizations.

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:01:54 +0000

Dave is essentially raising the same point as me, but with less snark. It looks like the YourTown sites and back sections are still being populated manually, which doesn’t rely on any super search algorithm that cost $100K (or more) to build.

By: Mac Slocum

Mac Slocum — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:23:56 +0000

@Dave: Great questions. I can make an educated guess on both accounts based on my interview with Bob, but I’m double checking. I’ll be sure to report back.

By: Dave Chase

Dave Chase — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 18:12:48 +0000

Mac – I followed the links to the boston.com pages but it’s not obvious to me which portions of the page are generated by the search platform. Can you be more specific or circle the portions in a screenshot? It’s an intriguing article but it would help to understand what auto-generated content you are referring to. As a bonus, knowing what technology is powering it and whether it is available to other publishers would be a big help.

Thanks!

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 17:38:12 +0000

So they paid $100K and wound up with a CMS database? Could have built the whole site on WordPress for free.

By: Media Nation » How Boston.com got search right

Media Nation » How Boston.com got search right — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:02:40 +0000

[...] A fascinating post by Mac Slocum at the Nieman Journalism Lab. (Via Universal Hub.) [...]

By: Adam Gaffin

Adam Gaffin — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:52:23 +0000

Very interesting post, thanks! One minor thing: Your Town doesn’t cover “Boston neighborhoods.” They have sites for lots of surrounding communities, but it’s fascinating that the Boston Globe does not have a single hyperlocal site actually in the city of Boston. [Fixed; thanks, Adam. —Ed.]