RICHMOND.COM
Warmbold, 4:57 p.m.: First impressions of Richmond.com on first glance at 4:15 p.m. The home page already offers a variety of pertinent information I'm interested in clicking on: Local exit poll results for presidential and senate races, various voter reactions, a poll, notice of the times Virginia polls close, and a link to an election guide. Click on the links and you'll find:

1. Richmond.com-produced story answering three important questions: Bush is leading in exit polls, Allen-Robb senate race is tight, voter turnout seems heavy.

2. Person-on-the street interviews on how voters voted, with photos, categorized by voting sites.

3. Online poll showing Bush ahead by about 7 points.

4. Election guide, probably designed for earlier online use, but pitched to help last-minute voter decisions.

This is inviting, easy and informative, particularly if I were at work, hoping to find out what's going on quickly and planning to stop on the way home to vote. Someone thought ahead, figured out what info could be provided during the day and did it. It also encourages visitors to check back after the polls close for full coverage -- and I would -- to augment or supplant local TV coverage.

Note: There could be a better voting-in-line photo. It adds nothing to the site.

TIMESDISPATCH.COM
Langley, 4:57 p.m.: Carolyn, take a look at this: http://www.timesdispatch.com.

Not bad. This site offers its election coverage in the top center white space of the home page. The components of this coverage as of 4 p.m. (EST) consisted merely of a collection of print stories that I imagine appeared in today's print edition of the paper.

The first, part of the Metro section, is cute. They use the local human interest angle to tell about a woman in a farming community in the state's smallest precinct who still votes the old-fashioned way. The link below the top story's blurb takes you to another article, a column, also direct from the Op-Ed section of the print edition. The next set of headlines, simply labeled "Elections," includes an Associated Press national article and two articles originally for the newspaper that give equal time to bipartisan Senate candidates.

If I subscribed to the Times-Dispatch as my local newspaper and I were looking online for additional election coverage, I wouldn't have found anything useful on the paper's site.There appears to be nothing interactive, and no special section or area to report local election returns, but I suspect that tomorrow's edition will focus on the results... just what I suspected a mid-size local paper's website would contain.

Langley, 5:21 p.m.: What a drastic difference. Richmond.com looks very interesting, especially when compared to the Times-Dispatch. It appears that no one gave any advance thought to special coverage for the paper's site. I at least expected to see a sidebar with links to some other recent election-related local articles. A table with facts and figures, a poll, or something original would have been a reason for a user to look twice at their coverage.

As a seeker of online news, richmond.com seems to have a lot more to offer me. I tend to think it has the clear advantage because it is a site with no other media component. I am interested in sites that began as sites, and were not born of print or broadcast. I find it interesting to see what their approach to content is, and how it develops free from the confines (both physical and mental) of 'old media' style and form.

RICHMOND.COM

Carolyn Warmbold, 8:45 p.m.: There are two tools inviting interactivity on this site -- a message board and a poll. The poll gives percentages rather than numbers, so it's hard to use this as a gauge for how many people view the site. The message board has 11 messages on it, the last sent nearly three hours ago.

About 5:45, the home page posted a link for election results. The national numbers for Kentucky and Indiana were posted about 6:30, shortly after they made it onto some national online sites. The note says to return to the site every five minutes for updates, and someone thought to update the poll text on the home page and it says "last call: how are you voting?"

This means there are live people over there at richmond.com and if I lived there I'd be awaiting those local returns when the polls close at 7 p.m. Check it out.

The message board seems to have gone quiet around 4:45 p.m., and even though the home page asked visitors to comment on how they voted, many of the dozen or so who responded complained about the voter ID regulation.

The home page was updated, with election results links moving to the top, in a timely manner.

The voting results were made available in pretty good time, but it took me a long time to realize that Richmond.com also offered Senate, Congressional and County results. You had to go to the rail to find them and I just didn't see them, even though I'm an experienced surfer.

Most impressive was that the site was updated with two new stories: One on the voter ID problems and one announcing that CNN, AP, CBS had declared Allen and Cantor the winners.

Minor glitch: No one took down a notice further downpage to check in with richmond.com after the polls close.

It occurs that interactivity takes on another meaning. It's not only allowing visitors to voice opinions or vote in polls but is the response to giving visitors information they need in a timely way.

TIMESDISPATCH.COM

Alicia Langley, 8:49 p.m.:

The Times Dispatch has put up a link to Virginia-Metro results: http://www.sbe.vipnet.org on a state elections site.

Warmbold, 9:53 p.m.: This site shows someone gives consideration to online writing techniques. Most impressive was the lead about long voting lines earlier in the day:" You would think they were selling Sony Playstation 2s." The writing was lively, with short sentences and paragraphs that conveyed information about Bush and the Senate race. It has a triple byline: Three people achieving a single voice is remarkable.

A story about the problems with voter ID by a sole writer later in the day had another nice lead -- anecdotal -- that worked online: "Something was wrong at the voting precinct at Carver Elementary School on Tuesday afternoon.".

Later, the site put up a cobbled-together story to link to temporarily off the home page about the Bush, Allen and Cantor wins, and soon after added an updated locally produced story by a triad of bylined writers, plus a contributor. This had a more pedestrian lead, though it included local response. Early on, it jumps from candidate to candidate and could use more organization. But it shows signs of being updated as the evening goes on. All in all, from what I can see as a person who does not live in the state, this site was pretty well geared up for an election.

Langley, 9:18 p.m.: The site came to life and posted a headline "Allen Wins," which linked to a nicely edited briefs package on the results of various state races.