Politics.com
Spielmann, 4:48 p.m.: First impression: Politics.com doesn't look promising.

The polls have been open all day now.

The site leads with the headline "What's Up," which is only marginally more informational than "click here" (it took 40 seconds to load) It hardly seems worth the wait.

The sitešs lead is: Governor George Bush has added to his lead over Vice President Al Gore in their battle for the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House. With 11 days to go, Bush is 46 votes short ...

Eleven days to go to the election! I can hardly wait. The U.S. Postal Service's bulk mail department could deliver more timely prognostication than that.

This is headlined as: "Check out the latest electoral analysis with Hal Bruno."

Hal, call your agent. And the site producer at Politics.com, if they're in today, which seems doubtful.

A political cartoon by mopaul.com decorates the upper right-hand corner; the cartoon plays to least-common-denominator cynicism, with worried-looking choirs behind Bush and an especially poorly drawn Gore harmonizing in "God help us." The caption is "Gimme that old time pre-election religion." The cartoon at least is more timely than the "news," since it refers to events of Sunday.

The page promises an electoral vote tracker, which "cannot be displayed" at 4:18 p.m. This sort of map would be essential to any site. I'll be watching to see when it becomes available, and how quickly it is updated.

The site then offers a grab bag of news, bylined and not, from CBS, AP, Bloomberg, the Washington Post, and ABC News.

Opinion follows, from the USAToday's Walter Shapiro ("Viva Democracy"), LAT Times Maria LaGanga ("Goodbye Loser"), and Thomas Oliphant of the Boston Globe ("Thank God it's almost over"), a 2-1 ratio in favor of fashionable cynicism.

The site just ran an update at 4:40 P.M. ... "a Matt Drudge update: Early polls -- Bush is breaking ahead..." This says it came from Drudge at 2:59 p.m.

Looks to me like this site may not survive the political season, at least without a major overhaul.

Over to you!

Pazdera,
5:36: Egad, what a mess! It takes like a billion years to load the Hal Bruno thing and once I got it, it was a dreadfully long column of stuff. I can't make heads or tails outta it. Graphs and graphs of numbers and stats. Makes my math-phobic head swim. And, I love that 11-day lag. Modern technology triumphs! I love the shopping and job boards link. They've got something for everyone. However, I think they should stick with making sure they can provide what they're advertising: political news, and get it right before venturing into yahoo-land.... Overall, I'm with you on this one. Man, it has so much potential, but doesn't realize it.

Voter.com
Pazdera, 4:47 p.m.: Well, I was a little reluctant about approaching voter.com, figuring it would be boring, but it actually offers up some interesting tidbits and is quite useful.

This site tries to cover the national elections like a killer smog with a combination of original content and links to major national outlets. For the most part, it succeeds with its mission.

It's a virtual link a-go-go with leads to races throughout the nation, as well as campaign finance, candidate appearance schedules (which on Election Day is a moot point, but I'll forgive them).

I will be intrigued to see how well the site will keeps up with its promise of providing real-time returns as the night progresses. Hoping they won't have a stampede that will crash their servers and keep us from seeing that cool map on the front page from lighting up with colored states, declaring projected winners.

At first glance, I was stunned (stunned, I tell you) to see one of their reporters boldly declare that Bush will get a slim majority of the popular vote.

This isn't all inside baseball....there's actually stuff that appeals to the most casual political-watcher: there's a story about how snow in some states may affect the vote. I don't know why I am fascinated by such trivial stuff, but I rather enjoyed the fact that there weren't just stories about the polls and pundits.

Spielmann, 5:23: My server can't open voter.com at about 5 p.m., so I'll have to take your word on these pages. (Update--finally got it open at 5:20).

It sounds like Voter.com actually delivers on what Politics.com promises -- timely information on the developments that political junkies, or even typical citizens with an active interest in democracy and governance, would want to know about.

TV has done an excellent job for decades now, in updating the electoral state map, so it's going to be interesting to see how this (and other) sites keep up with that. If the Web sites just parrot what Matt Drudge or the TV networks announce, I don't see the point in logging on. There's got to be some added value.

I like the fact that the electoral map isn't already colored in with which way the states were "leaning," so there's not this sense of George W. inevitability hanging over us.

The banner headline claim that "Bush will win (popular vote)" seems a bit of cheap tabloid-ism to me. I have a feeling that one will be coming down for an update soon.

I was just having a quick look at Vote.com, in the interval, and they are up to something completely different. They offer the Web surfer the chance to "vote" on polling issues such as "Which is more important -- issues or character"? The results of these Internet self-selecting polls may not be statistically valid, and I could well imagine political partisans trying to stack the deck by mass e-mailing replies, but it least it's an engaging site. It has a nice link to similar poll results on questions in Australia, Japan, South Korea and Britain. Just for those of us who may be getting tired of American politics, but still need a daily dose of politics and polling.

See you in 15 minutes

Pazdera, 5:36 p.m.: I agree that the "Bush will win the popular vote"-story is a bit tabloidy, but we're all starving for something...anything that will make us feel like the site is on top of things. I mean, we still have to wait hours before anything of substance trickles in, so I look upon this bold tidbit as an appetizer. Your inclusion of vote.com is good...I think their polls are a little "no-duh," but it's pretty useful.

Viva democracy!

Politics.com
Spielmann, 7:02:Well, Politics.com is back up, after a half-hour period in which I was getting messages saying I "may not be authorized to view" that site. The ebb and flow of the site is quickly becoming as tension-fraught -- at least to me -- as the presidential race itself.

Our topic now is interactivity, and it would seem to me that simply being able to log on and read or view a site would be the first criterion. Enough said.

Politics.com has updated its report now with Bush evidently taking two states, but it cites CNN, and links you to CNN.com. I appreciate the link -- it shows evidence of some consideration of interactivity -- but it again defeats the whole concept of the site. Why log on to this one if they are going to just dish out others' reports, or send you to them via link?

It does seem to be a virtual admission of defeat by Politics.com in tonight's coverage, compared with Voter.com or various others, such as CNN.com or USAToday.com.

Voter.com
Pazdera, 7:01: Well, I'm afraid my dire prediction about a stampede of users jamming the site has come true...at least as of 6:30 p.m. ET. That's not good, given the polls haven't even closed yet.

In a fit of needing something to look at, I strolled over to http:www.politicsonline.com. But, darn it, I am bummed because the link to real time election results is not live yet. And, as of 6:50 p.m., I know that Bush has gotten 20 electoral votes because we've got CNN on TV. And, I will add, the real-time results are merely links to other sites...one of which is the now ill-fated voter.com. Sigh.

And the Webcast http://www.politicsonline.com/pol2000/
webcast_pressrelease.asp isn't going to start until 9 p.m. On the plus side, I am happy to see that said Web cast will be bilingual (English and Spanish).

Not to be overly cranky, but the "battleground states" tease link http://www.politicsonline.com
/pol2000/election_returns.asp is simply a link to that particular state's supervisor of elections. If I wanted to go fishing, I would have brought a rod and reel for this site.

And, I had to laugh when I saw a link to a San Francisco Chronicle story http://www.sfgate.com/
cgi-bin/ article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/ 2000/11/06/BU71390.DTL&type=business about how political Web sites haven't garned much interest.

Until tonight.

Pazdera, 7:17: What passes for interactivity is pretty sad, I'll agree.

I don't feel like clicking around this site. It doesn't look like anything's been updated for hours (or days, in one instance).

To its credit, I do like the forums...I think giving people an opportunity to vent is good. Even if they aren't always lucid.

That's all for now.

Spielmann, 7:30: Net news is a growth industry, and grow it must. However, it's pretty clear that the boutique politics sites have certainly been outstripped by some of the mainstream news sites. It appears that the politics.com site and the other special interest sites we've seen lack the mass audience to support sufficient resources, such as reporters and producers, early in the campaign, when they could hypothetically be a real service. And then on Election Day, they're left in the dust by the big news organizations.

Election night is a time for closure, for sifting out winners from losers. In politics, as in business -- including the news business -- the race seems to go to those with the deepest pockets, as odd an image as that may conjure up.

Spielmann, 7:20:Thanks so much for alerting me to the SF Chronicle story which explains that http:Politics.com is about one step from the grave, emblematic of many political Web sites that failed to gather much interest this year. The story relates how a last lonely staffer is trying to update the site's postings tonight, which explains the problems. It sounds like an excruciating situation. I do still wish the site would take down the 11-day-old polling and Hal Bruno stuff.

I hear from a colleague in the newsroom that Slate.com is linking people over to the Politics.com electoral map, which is currently still showing the 11-day-old "who's leaning to whom" predictions.

BULLETIN: Politics.com has just posted a Hal Bruno analysis that announces we are only FOUR days away from the election. So there is somebody there, but why are they doing what they are doing?

Pazdera, 7:28: My heart goes out to that lonely soul manning the dying politics site. It's gonna be a long night and a painful one, it seems.

Still, I will point out, that as of 7:30 p.m., the earlier lauded Voter.com is still inaccessible. Too bad, because I was looking forward to using it.

Spielmann, 9:01 p.m.: Dear Donna,

The site I'm monitoring has now (thanks to its links) veered completely into the realm of the surreal.

On the page, in the Forum section, they list an announcement along these lines: French News Agency: Gore Wins Presidency!

This oddity is listed among other more credible items, before 8 p.m.

Upon following the link, we find an "opinion" page. But this links to something that could be a mix of hoaxes and real items:

The delivery of information has varied this evening from being non-existent -- during the long periods that Voter.com and Politics.com were down or otherwise unavailable -- to bizarre, in as this purported early call.

The writing I've seen tonight varies, from original material of the sort we've long come to expect and rely on, to the wires, network TV and CNN. Often the boutique politics sites link to their larger, mainstream competitor's sites. So the politics sites are giving us no more than we are used to, and typically much later, mixed in with outdated material and some dubious goods.

Politics.com has varied during the evening from telling us the election is 11 days away, to four days off, and back again, which seems inexplicable.

Links, as in the French News Agency's item, are all over the map in terms of credibility and geographically.

I see that your Voter.com wan't as wild, but that it called Pennsylvania for Gore, then backed off. Not good.

We expect strange political predictions from the partisan politicians, but what explains these odd twists and turns by apparently impartial, "expert" sites?

This just wasn't yet the year for the specialty political sites. They had what probably looked like a good idea at the beginning of the year, while the NASDAQ was still booming and there was plenty of money to fund ventures, but after the bubble bust, they couldn't possibly muster the resources to match the major news sites. Their writing, their editorial credibility, and their information delivery all suffered.

Cheers,
Peter

Pazdera, 9:01 p.m.: Hi Peter, Woo-hoo! I'm happy to report that Voter.com is back in business.

I am sorry to report, however, that the producers committed the worst gaffe so far tonight ...they originally had Gore up 146-141, and then about a half an hour later, backpedaled to give him a meager 123 and Bush 130. Of course, the good thing about the Internet is you don't have to wait until tomorrow morning to fix your errors.

They should have some mechanism, though, that tells you they screwed up, and that if you'd been to the site earlier, your eyes weren't playing tricks on you. Perhaps a little note under the map apologizing for their mistake would be a nice penance.

Now, on to writing.

Unfortunately, the writing isn't the hallmark of this site. Its role tonight is merely providing you a service. Who wins what and where. There are some nice, readable headlines leading you to the expected wire stories, but other than that, it isn't gonna win awards for brilliance.

But that's okay. The point is service, not writing, in my mind. So, I will forgive them for their lack of brilliant writing.

Now, back to you.
Donna

• reliable
• honest in backtracking if they made a bad call
• feature bright writing and penetrating analysis
• offer graphics, video or other non-textual material
• provide innovative links.

What we've seen tonight from the specialty sights has fallen short on almost every count.

Voter.com provided a fairly up-to-date electoral vote map, but it was no better than, or frequently behind, CNN's TV coverage. From the viewpoint of the consumer, why would you sit staring at your computer screen if you could get the same information more easily by just keeping an eye on the TV -- or for that matter, an ear on the radio?

Politics.com seriously lagged and had the strange 11-day or 4-day-before the election angle, a strong signal to the Web surfer that they were not paying attention to their own site. Perhaps their performance could serve as a useful guide to what one producer can do on election night, but I doubt that many sites would want to replicate the experiment.

Voter.com was ahead, but as you note, flip-flopped on whether Gore had won Pennsylvania or not. Web sites should be obligated to explain their sudden zigzags, at least for a reasonable period of time -- perhaps four to six hours?

The writing and analysis has been adequate, no more. It wouldn't drive me away from the newspaper, radio, TV or wire coverage.

The non-textual material was nothing special. The maps and graphics were TV quality, which is to say, about as good as TV had this year or even 12 years to 16 years ago.

Links provided by the site I monitored -- Politics.com -- ranged from the obvious (AP, Reuters, CNN, MSNBC) to the bizarre (Gore Wins! say the French).

Over to you.

Cheers,
Peter

Pazdera, 9:22 p.m.: Hi Peter,

Hmmm...maybe the French had a psychic on staff, or they just wanted to go to bed at 2:30 a.m. Regardless, that's a bad idea to call a race with little to base their opinions on. I can only hope most ex-pats will be looking at the revered U.S. sites and CNN/MSNBC, and won't be swayed by this dubious source of information.

Politics.com seems to have come around as more returns have poured in. The links to major stories are a welcome sign, given the paucity of fresh copy earlier in the day.

Good point about how this year wasn't the year for these smaller "boutique" sites. I think this is their inaugural go-round, and will separate the serious providers of information from the posers. I think by the time the next election rolls around, we'll see a much better-prepared batch of Web sites.

Until next time,
Donna

Spielmann, 9:41 p.m.: Dear Donna,

I may have to eat my earlier words, as now CNN has Gore ahead in the electoral tally, so maybe the French have as exquisitely fine taste in punditry as they do in wines, food, and a variety of other talents. But the race is clearly a cliffhanger, so it was a weird call. I can't believe that link was serious, but there was no clear internal clue that it was a hoax.

The links to major sites at Politics.com leave me cold. It's like clipping articles out of the newspaper, pasting them in a scrapbook, and peddling the result. I'll stick to the major sites in the future. I doubt that Politics.com will be around in the next incarnation, though the domain name is so attractive that it may live on when someone else buys it out.

My feeling is that these specialty websites will be lucky to survive.

Postscript: Hal Bruno -- Politics.com's poster boy -- is on CNN TV right now providing analysis of the upper Midwest voting patterns! So that's where he's been all night! Obviously he sees where the future is, at least in the foreseeable future -- at CNN, not on Politics.com.

That's a wrap.

Goodnight,
Peter

Pazdera 9:45 p.m.: Dear Peter, It's been surprisingly interesting to track the progress of how online sites handled the election.

Many of these sites, clearly, are not accustomed to dealing with a big, breaking story, which is why the Bigs like MSNBC.com and CNN.com were kicking their electronic butts.

These little sites offer the advantage of educational background material to users. Stuff like Congressional candidates' information is important, and generally something you won't find on larger sites.

I think it's probably asking too much to expect these small sites to write brightly and intelligently -- on deadline -- with their small resources. However, I do think post-election analysis is where these little sites can shine brighter.

The graphics, links and maps are very valuable, and can only get better.

In all, I think these smaller sites can learn how to handle major, breaking news, and combine their expertise of being a focused entity to provide users with something very valuable in the future.

Good night.
Donna

Top