MSNBC.com
4:56 p.m.
Ferrer: The page opens and the first words I read are "heavy turnout". This link covers a large part of the page, and includes a photograph of somebody voting. This takes me to a long story about "Americans turn out to decide future" done by MSNBC staff and wire reports (http://www.msnbc.com
/news/466882.asp). The first question that comes to mind is: when did they last update this story? I mean, it says Nov. 7, but want to know at what time. I feel that every hour counts right now!

Ok, it's true that when you read it you can tell it was written sometime during the day, I think the exact time would have been better.

As I return to the homepage, I find it's already changed. I like this because it shows that they are constantly updating their site. Instead, the first words I read this time are "Voters Take Charge". The picture has changed also. However, when I click on it, I end up in the same article as before. I wonder what the point of this was? Was it to trick users into thinking they updated their site, when they just changed the title and the photograph?

Other main stories that are featured in the home page are "Media struggles with campaign calls" and E-questions where you can send your questions to NBC News. My eye is also attracted to a link that says "latest news on politics", which takes me to a page that features summaries of different articles about Election Day I click on the first one (its headline reads "It’s all up to the voters now, but I end up in the same story I saw first... Disappointing.

From the front page, you can also link to a map of electoral vote projections, which is useful in getting a general idea of what the projections are for different states. But is this something that people are clicking on at this moment? I would think that right now everyone is anxious to know how the process is going -what the turnout has been- than on reading more projections, which is what they've been getting for the past weeks.

In general, I feel that this site is still all about expectations. I want to know more about what is happening right now!

CNN.com
4:56 p.m.
George: Hi Marta:

My impressions of the site are that CNN has a lot of information. I didn't quite know where to begin. I had to ask myself a few pointed questions to develop a focus for what I wanted to look for on the site.

I decided to look for information on how the candidate of my choice is faring in the race. Because it's still too early to tell, I couldn't find any figures or statistics on how the candidates were doing in the race.

I wanted to then know what are the candidates doing now. I learned that Bush held a news conference this morning and called some of his supporters. CNN had video coverage of the news conference, but I had difficulty viewing this. I made several attempts to view the video because I am interested to hear Bush's thoughts on this day and I'm curious to know which supporters he called. Were they big business supporters or regular people?

I then wanted to know how much does my one vote count and how many other people have voted so far. I found a box or table on the right side of the home page that had information about the Electoral College and what it means, and a timeline of CNN's coverage throughout the night.

This was the most amazing and useful page that I found. It was like a TV guide listing. CNN gave a run down of when it would begin its coverage of the election results, starting at 6 p.m. EST when the first polls closed and going all the way until 12 a.m. EST. The site gave a short description of which state's polls closed around that time and how many electoral votes would come from each state. A list of anchor tags are embedded in the text to help you get find coverage at a particular time on the page, but on the last hour/summary there was no link to go back to the top of the page. I had to scroll back up.

There was also some good snapshot/vignette coverage of voter turnout across the country. CNN spoke with voters via email in some cases to get a sense of how crowded voting sites were this morning. The consensus from the states that it covered was that voter turnout is high across the country and several voters had to wait between 30 minutes and more than an hour to cast their ballots.

CNN also tried to cover the election from a weather standpoint. The story reports that voting poll workers in New Mexico couldn't get to their posts because of a bad snowstorm. The rest of the article talks about weather conditions in other parts of the country and its impact on voter turnout.

I was interested to see the difference in approaches to coverage between CNN and MSNBC.com.

I actually was able to get all three of my questions answered in the lede of the "Americans turn out to decide future" article.

1) It told me about voter turnout -- "Voters took charge of the nation’s future Tuesday, turning out in heavy numbers"

2) It told me about the significance of my vote -- this is "the closest presidential race in 40 years"

3) It told me what the candidates were doing today -- "Al Gore and George W. Bush spent the day in their hometowns"

I agree that time is of the essence at this point. I found myself not even bothering to read articles that had yesterdays dateline on it, unless the information was forward-looking or instructional.

CNN also updated its photo on the home page, while I was analyzing the site. And just like MSNBC.com, I was also disappointed to find that the news story that the new photo led me too, was not updated. This might be a good tactic to trick us like it did, but it's also frustrating.

5:22 p.m
Ferrer: It seems that we both want to know what the candidates are doing now. And it seems that we both had trouble finding it. Although you found coverage on what Bush was doing this morning, you had difficulty viewing it. I also had difficulty with some video clippings.

The timeline that you found of CNN's coverage throughout the night sounds great. I wish I had found something like that on my site. I think both of our sites rely very much on television, and this is something that we should keep in mind. I mean it is certainly and advantage for them to have television images, and we should keep our eye on how well they take advantage of this. Or if they go overboard on this...

I think its interesting to read about voter turnout from the point of view of the voters. However, maybe it would have had more impact if they had posted quotes from the actual email messages instead of paraphrasing.

About the weather coverage MSNBC also did something similar, but with projections. How recent are their weather updates?

5:31 p.m.
George: The last update for the weather story was 3:10 p.m. They might update it one more time before the polls closed.

I like your point about CNN and MSNBC.com relying on televised news coverage and images to supplement their online coverage. It's interesting to see how the two mediums are integrated to give a more complete picture. Things should get a lot more interesting in the next hour as polls across the country begin to close. Since we actually are viewing the TV now, I would like to see who delivers the information faster. I can imagine people that are really into this having their TV and computers on at home. Maybe even the radios too, just so they can track every minute of the election coverage.

5:31 p.m.
Ferrer: Wow, I was amazed to see how the first paragraph of the "Voter's took charge" story answered all your questions. Perhaps it would have been a good idea for me to pose myself questions before analyzing the site, because when I started reading it, I wasn't sure exactly for what I was looking for.

About comparing both sites, I found that CNN does post the time. I wonder if you also feel this is important.

I wasn't very impressed by the photograph on CNN's main page. I feel it doesn't really convey the mood of Election Day. Talking about photographs, I feel that both sites should include more images from the polls. I want to see how the weather is really affecting people with my own eyes.

7:04 p.m
Ferrer: The site has been updated, and I am now getting what I want to see. In terms of how they are using interactivity to tell the story, their map on National Results is very useful and easy to use.

All you have to do is click on the state to view the local races. At 6:40, results from only two states have been posted. These have been colored according to who won.

The site is also taking email election questions, but a chat room wasn't immediately visible to me.

The link that before read "latest news on politics" now reads "watch the results".

Now, I expect to literally "watch" the results, but end up disappointed when there is nothing to watch here. I would have liked to see video or at least photographs, but all I get is a summary of the television programming for tonight. For example, "election updates at 6 p.m., continues with the NBC Nightly News at 6:30, then full network coverage will last from 7 p.m. until 2 a.m. ET."

Instead, I find the video I was looking for somewhere else on the sight. On the home page there is a link that promises live video of NBC news coverage of local races across the nation. Their images are sharp and a good complement to the stories. You can also see what's coming up, which should be effective in getting the users to come back

I noticed that before they had divided their interactive tools into video, live video and audio, but now they put it all together under one link. I feel this works a lot better. Right now what the users want is to get to the point, not to have to choose.

7:05 p.m.
George: The home page has changed completely within the last hour. CNN has begun its online tracking of the election. On the upper left corner of the home page there are side by side AP photos of Gore with his wife looking elated, and a photo of Bush and his wife, looking happy, but not as happy as the Gores. Just from the photos alone and the facial expressions that it captured, I though Gore had won the first two states, but when I read the beginning of the article, I learned that Bush had won Kentucky and Indiana.

Okay, as for interactivity: CNN has got it going on! On the home page alone there are several interactive elements. There's a tool that allows viewers to track the results of the races in their home state all on one page and then bookmark the page.

CNN is performing exit polls at voting sites across the country as they close and it’s posting the information in tables on its site. There are no figures there yet, but the information that eventually will be there is astounding. It tells you everything about the voter: race, age, sex, income, education, political party, social class, etc. There's also a link on the page that explains how to read the exitspoll. The update time is also printed on the page.

CNN is leveraging its broadcast component by enabling its site visitors to listen to coverage of the race as it progresses. There is a banner on the page that advertises CNN TV coverage.

"Bernard Shaw, Judy Woodruff, Jeff Greenfield and Bill Schneider bring you the latest poll results. In the 7 p.m. hour - Larry King talks with 1996 Republican nominee Bob Dole." And since we’ve been watching CNN TV in the Poynter newsroom, we saw earlier that there is cross-promotion going on. The TV coverage promoted the online coverage too.

More interactivity on the home page: viewers can predict which states Bush or Gore will win and then compare their predictions with actual results. This is very cool, but it took a while to load on my screen. I couldn't jump back to the previous page with one click of the back button. You’re stuck once you're on this page.

There's a quick poll too that asks voters how long did they have to wait in line at the voting polls.

The absolute coolest. I know I've said this before, but really this is cool. They’ve got a tool called a "Voting Time Machine" time machine that lets you re-cast your vote for the last 40 presidential elections. There's also a message board where you can explain who you chose and why you changed your mind. You've got to check this out. I only started voting recently, but this is an awesome tool for people who have participated in the voting process for a the past 40 years.

Also earlier I found a very cool interactive tool that addressed how the election would impact European countries. You could click on the flags of some Euro countries and see where Gore or Bush stands on any one of three international issues with regard to that particular country.

7:23 p.m.
George: The first link that you sent is taking forever to open. Did it take a long time for you to link to it too? You noted the time, so I see that MSNBC is posting the time with its updates. Like we discussed earlier, time is a major factor when tracking election coverage. Viewers want to know what's happening immediately.

I couldn't get to the first link for some reason.

I find it odd that the site would take questions but not have something set up so that people could get answers. A chat room or message board would be the most effective way for people to get feedback.

MSNBC.com, like CNN, is leveraging its TV coverage, just as we expected. What do you think of it? Is it overkill? Not enough collaboration? I think CNN's TV coverage is pretty understated online. The only thing that I can find is the audio, which I can't seem to listen to.

7:32 p.m.
Ferrer: The pages are also taking a long time to open on my computer.

About the time, I guess I didn't explain myself. I noted the time on my watch because I thought it was useful, but that doesn't mean they did it on their site. I agree this is important and something that MSNBC is missing.

I think MSNBC's TV coverage is well balanced.

They just added another interactive element to their homepage: a Newsweek live talk. I think they did a good job of advertising it on their homepage. They also updated their main story.

7:23 p.m.
Ferrer: It seems that both sites are updating similarly. I feel that you found a lot more interactivity on CNN. However, I don't know if it was because CNN does a better job of displaying it. Perhaps MSNBC needs to advertise more of their interactivity on their homepage.

Actually, now that I've taken a closer look, I found links to an election chat on the homepage. However, it is displayed in normal text and it’s at the bottom of the page. I also found exit polls in the same place I found the chat.

From what you said about CNN leveraging its broadcast component, I think MSNBC is also doing a good job of that. Unfortunately I cannot say if they've been doing the same thing on TV because I am not currently watching their channel.

In terms of polls (unlike you), I didn't find any on MSNBC’s homepage. I think that would have been a good idea in order for users to get a feel for how the general public feels.

7:31 p.m.
George: I think I do have a slight advantage in my comparison of how much coverage TV coverage CNN is including online and vice versa, since we are watching CNN on TV now. In the time between I sent the first email and the time I sent the last one, CNN has updated its photo online. It had a photo of Gore from earlier today. Now even that photo is updated to include photos of both Gore and Bush. Maybe someone realized that they just had Gore up there and didn't want to seem biased. I checked, and the CNN exit polls haven't been updated since 6:30 and there are still no numbers.

"Nov. 7 - Americans voted in extraordinary numbers Tuesday in the closest presidential election in decades. Polls were beginning to close in the East, but hours-long lines were delaying returns in Florida and part of Missouri, and Al Gore and George W. Bush settled in for a long night awaiting reports from critical Southern and Midwestern battleground states."

To me this could use some updating. I understand that they cannot update the entire story so often, but I think perhaps just updating the summary would make a difference to the viewers, since that is what most of them read. For example, it says hours-long lines were delaying returns in Florida. However, if you go to results, you can see that the results for Florida have already come in. Besides, the first sentence focuses on how Americans voted in extraordinary numbers. Once again, I feel this is no longer the most important piece of information.

Oops, I guess I spoke too early. At 8:30 this was already updated. Now it reads:

"Nov. 7 - Al Gore won Florida’s 25 electoral votes Tuesday, NBC News projected, taking the first critical battleground away from George W. Bush in a state where Bush’s own brother is governor. Americans voted in extraordinary numbers, delaying returns while some voters waited for hours for their chance to decide the closest presidential election in decades."

Now this sounds a lot better. Although they kept the line about Americans voting in extraordinary numbers, they moved it towards the end and started out with facts.

It's difficult to assess how this site is using writing to tell the story because right now I am sure that few users want to read. Much more effective is to click on the results map and read the tables with the results.

In terms of the writing used in the chat rooms, I was surprised to see how informal it is. You can tell just by reading that all the users are very excited. I mean, nobody wants to waste time typing long sentences. People are mostly writing short comments (with lot of exclamation marks!). This is different from other times where I've visited chat rooms.

At 8:45, the same summary was updated to include Michigan.

"Nov. 7 - Al Gore won Florida and Michigan on Tuesday, NBC News projected, taking the first critical battleground states in the closest presidential election in decades. Americans turned out in extraordinary numbers, delaying returns while some waited for hours for their chance to vote."

They also updated their story, which is good.

In general, however, I feel that the writing done for the site lacks the feeling and enthusiasm that you get from watching MSNBC television coverage. I wonder: how could this be reproduced on the Web without losing objectivity. I guess that in a way the chat rooms are attempting to give a human side to the website, but is this enough?

8:57 p.m.
George: The style of the writing is pretty straight forward. Since the election is still progressing, I don't think we're going to see a lot of snappy ledes and prose-like writing until tomorrow, when reporters have had time to digest everything.

Here's a good lede that I found. This was posted at 7:55pm EST:

"(CNN) -- The major-party presidential campaigns pushed frantic last-minute efforts to get supporters to the polls tonight as aides to Vice President Al Gore and Texas Gov. George W. Bush prepared for a white-knuckle night."

I like the phrases "pushed frantic last-minute efforts," and "prepared for a white-knuckle night." These phrases show urgency and convey images and feelings. This is the closest race within the last 40 years.

What I also like about this article is that there is an index of sorts that links to the sub heads in the story. This helps you to navigate through the article in an efficient way.

9:12 p.m.
Ferrer: I agree: the writing in MSNBC is also pretty straightforward, and I'm sure it will stay that way until tomorrow. But at the same time, I think that is the way it should be because users want information that is easy to digest and fast to read.

I like the fact that you mentioned how those phrases ("pushed frantic last-minute efforts," and "prepared for a white-knuckle night") convey images and feelings. In a way, I like the fact that through the writing they try to compensate for the emotions that this medium --as opposed to TV-- is missing. But I'm I contradicting myself? I mean, I said before that the writing had to be straightforward...

By the way, they just posted a new story about Hillary Clinton in the New York Senate reace. The summary is factual and to the point, while the lead of the story gets more philosophical. "THE CAMPAIGN was the longest and costliest race in state history and saw issues of character, place of birth, marital fidelity, and campaign finance collide with discussion of education, Social Security and the state’s economy". I think this allows the story to achieve a good balance between the two kinds of writing that we have been talking about.

About the index of subheads that you mentioned, it sounds very useful and perhaps MSNBC should have done the same.

9:31 p.m.
George: I felt like I was contradicting myself too when I said that I didn't expect to see really good ledes and then I pointed out a good one. And then you showed me some good ones on MSNBC.com.

I'm trying to think about the circumstances that people are in now as they get their election coverage online. How many points of access do they have to cover? Is the online coverage their primary source? Because if it is, then the writing does have to be good. They're going to need some substance and analysis to go along with the polling results. They need to know what does winning each state mean for the candidates and the election.

In this latest story on the election, CNN has changed its photo again and is keeping score of how many states Gore and Bush has won.

The photo has just changed again in the time that I put this link into the email. Photo elements are key to keeping the pages dynamic.

Stories that keep score and tell which states the candidates have won seem to be the most informative for now. I expect that there will be more commentary stories as the election progresses. But for right now, since it's still such a close race scorekeeping seems to be the best way to give readers what they want.

9:16 p.m.
George: I like the way MSNBC.com is updating its story throughout the night. I also like the way you tracked it. The writing was pretty good. The ledes were to the point and still crafted and creative. At this point I agree that people are mostly interested in facts, figures and poll results.

I found a link on CNN where you can chat with a political analyst. I think that's a good technique to have an expert lead the chat. However if you're watching TV news coverage and following online coverage like we are now, you've probably had an earful already of political commentary. But if you are only following online having access to a political analyst is helpful to make sense of it all.

9:31 p.m.
Ferrer: About the political analyst leading the chat: I agree that it's a good technique, and I forgot to mention that MSNBC is doing that also. It is interesting to note that in their most recent update, they eliminated the link to the chat from the center of the homepage. They replaced it with the results map. I wonder why they did this. They already have that same map further down on the homepage, and I would think that the chat is important. Perhaps not enough people were looking at the map...

Wow, I have just been surprised to find they updated their homepage layout again! Now the main story is Gore wins, which is an updated version of the same story they have been working in on all night. I agree they have done a good job of this. However, the photo that they used (both for the homepage and the story), is not new. This is strange because it might confuse viewers into thinking they haven't updated at all.

In general, I have noticed that their headlines have focused on Gore and not on Bush. Hmm...