Live and Learn

I view the Internet as a copy editor's revenge.

Back in the day in Fossil Media, we copy editors would often notice a disconnect with readers over what our newspaper published. The city desk could have a three-day, 10-reporter, what-they-thought-would-be-a-Pulitzer Prize-winning series on recycling office paper - or something - and the reader reaction would be all of one yawn. But a two-paragraph, filler brief on a hearing on public art would make the switchboard light up like a Christmas tree and draw a week's worth of letters to the editor. Had the city editor ever asked our opinion, we could have saved his staff some trouble.

With all the data-collection points on the Web, Noozhawk seems to have a better track record in this department. Or at least we do the second time our reporters write about a topic, and we have some analytics to go by. The verdict can be just as harsh, however.

A case in point is our current Santa Barbara Challenge on the city of Santa Barbara's budget. We knew the subject matter was as dry as sand, but with the heightened awareness of budgets, deficits, government spending, the economy and a thousand other factors, we figured readers would lap up eight days of well-researched, well-written stories about something that is affecting everyone and on which everyone seems to have a well-defined opinion. We're not wrong; they are reading it. Just not at the increased levels we had anticipated.

In hindsight it probably wasn't a good idea to bury our readers in budget details. Two to three stories a day are almost certainly overkill. Divinely inspired by Easter, we decided to give our readers the weekend off and will resurrect the final round of stories Monday. Besides, our public-engagement survey - which is the next phase - is the most important element and the one that was always going to get the most interaction.

But our experience here points to a multistory-telling flaw of the Internet while presenting an opportunity for our upcoming Reporting on Health project with prescription drugs.

It is difficult to stay focused on the Web when readers are going story to story in a series of clickable steps. That is a seeming advantage of print, which can present a whole bunch of entry points (which I mean as more than mere headline links) that remain in peripheral view while you're reading. But that's an organizational challenge we can figure out and it's now one of the questions we hope to answer with our USC Annenberg School health journalism fellowship.

Another goal is to figure out the proper balance of series vs. daily reporting. Learning from our Santa Barbara Challenge mistake, we've determined that 15-20 stories on prescription drugs should not run in an eight-day stretch (see how fast we catch on?). Perhaps it's better to publish two to five stories over two days, and then wait until the next week to continue - stretching the series to four or five weeks.

Our staff is new at project work and would appreciate perspective and advice. Where are those good Internet copy editors when you need them?