My bias #1: My work on has put me face-to-face with the weakness of many literary journal websites. I just finished this week going through the Poets and Writers list of literary outlets to see which I could add, and of 450 or so publications, maybe half had online content and half of those aren’t readable by Google let alone Readsfeed. So seeing site after site not make content easily available online, that provides a certain emotional bias on my end.

Bias #2: In the working world, I do communications work for MIT’s Center for Future Civic Media (http://civic.mit.edu). We’re dealing with a really similar question every day: how does a community use technology to talk to itself, especially if the future of print newspapers is in question? We’re funded by the Knight Foundation (of Knight-Ridder history) and they want us to come up with tech that will save newspapers, but the more work we do, the more we realize the traditional function of newspapers are being picked up (in effective and not-as-effective ways) by new means.

After Christmas, I’ll take so more time on these questions, but for the time being, thanks for the great responses.

My bias #1: My work on has put me face-to-face with the weakness of many literary journal websites. I just finished this week going through the Poets and Writers list of literary outlets to see which I could add, and of 450 or so publications, maybe half had online content and half of those aren’t readable by Google let alone Readsfeed. So seeing site after site not make content easily available online, that provides a certain emotional bias on my end.

Bias #2: In the working world, I do communications work for MIT’s Center for Future Civic Media (http://civic.mit.edu). We’re dealing with a really similar question every day: how does a community use technology to talk to itself, especially if the future of print newspapers is in question? We’re funded by the Knight Foundation (of Knight-Ridder history) and they want us to come up with tech that will save newspapers, but the more work we do, the more we realize the traditional function of newspapers are being picked up (in effective and not-as-effective ways) by new means.

After Christmas, I’ll take so more time on these questions, but for the time being, thanks for the great responses.

So… I dunno.

I’ve argued more strongly in the past that online gets more eyeballs than print, and I largely based that on page views (we’re usually around 100,000/month). I think visitors is maybe a bit more accurate in terms of actual eyeballs, though.

It feels like if there are two magazines of similar age and status (publishing similar authors, etc.), the online content gets read more, but I wouldn’t swear to it. Probably the closest comparison I know of to us in print is Quick Fiction (they’re about a year and a half older than SmokeLong, and only recently began making any of their content available online). Would be interesting to know what their print runs are.

So… I dunno.

I’ve argued more strongly in the past that online gets more eyeballs than print, and I largely based that on page views (we’re usually around 100,000/month). I think visitors is maybe a bit more accurate in terms of actual eyeballs, though.

It feels like if there are two magazines of similar age and status (publishing similar authors, etc.), the online content gets read more, but I wouldn’t swear to it. Probably the closest comparison I know of to us in print is Quick Fiction (they’re about a year and a half older than SmokeLong, and only recently began making any of their content available online). Would be interesting to know what their print runs are.