More to the point what makes you go BACK to a site?
There are some great sites, with great content still on the periphery - for now - but soon enough they'll be absorbed, maybe. The thing is I don't really understand how they do it. How do sites like INRNG and RKP stay interesting day to day? Then again maybe it's only interesting to that small cadre of cycling fiends that I know and hang out with. Of course good writing is part, as are great pictures...but there is something else. Perspective? Outside the box thinking? Experience? Whatever it is, whatever combination..i'm hoping to start to get a line on it soon.
On the flip side I find myself in open disdain of VeloNews (Velo? WTF?) these days* and tolerant of CN and others mostly in the search for current news. They seem to put up lots of aggregated content, or worse rehashed press clippings from teams. They fire their most experienced and prestigous for what one can only presume is cost savings...but saving money at the cost of credibility and content is simply mis-guided.
Sites like Pez** and the smaller blog based ones do a good job of painting the varied portraits of cycling that keep readers coming back. Unique content is certainly a solid foundation for success! Guess I gotta go get interesting now...
What's Interesting:
120 Miles of Battenkill...
Jered Gruber's KOM's from Strava...
Tomorrow's project with BMC:
*Stealing, mediocre-ly, the "How The Race Was Won" concept from Cyclocosm was laughable. Just watch VN's E3 effort compared with Cosmo's Flanders or Roubaix posts for confirmation that talent cannot be copied. Then again I think they do a few things well...bike reviews are good.
**Yea, I write for Pez...no wonder it's so good!
No comments:
Post a Comment