To wonder why nobody can do a news website that is a readable as the Daily fail without the shit reporting

[MellowAutumn]

Its constantly referenced here and I have to admit to using it as a quick read some mornings - Why is it so readable compared to say the BBC News site which I should love but is meh ? Or the Times site which I bloody pay for but again just does not hit the spot.

Can anyone who knows about these things explain why it is so appealing even though I hate the paper itself ?

I agree. And feel dirty because of it.

Their app is so much better than the Guardian or Independent or BBC. I can't find stories on the first two and there's not enough stories on the third.

Totally agree. I don't like to have to search in sections for stories. I like lots of pictures. The BBC reporting is just too brief I find. I used to be able to spend hours on the BBC news website, but they changed the layout a few years ago and I found I struggled to find 10 minutes worth of reading.

That is why I look at it and not others they are just not as good. I sadly also seem to click on and read the strapline of shame.

they spent years and years and a fortune developing it - a ton of market research and focus groups. a luxury most companies don't have.

but its so dramatic its the difference between katie price went shopping and OMG! KATIE PRICE! SHOPPING WHAT DID SHE BUUUUYYYY see all her ex's reactions on pages 3456 its just so much style over substance really

Man I feel EXACTLY the same. I read and pick out the things I'm Interested in and see if it's anywhere else.

The dm site is so easy to navigate.

The shit reporting is kind of why it appeals I guess.

Say, hypothetically, the British Crime Survey comes out; crime is down 27%, violent crime down 9%, knife crime up 1%. Mail headline will be something like, 'Broken Britain - stabbings soar as society falls apart', loads of frothing in the article, and the actual facts are shoved into a tiny corner.

Which is more interesting to read than a sensible (BBC/Times/etc) headline which actually reflects the facts.

there's a guy on Twitter who recreates Mailonline's front pages using the reader comments as the headlines. It's very funny @technicallyron

It's just a shame the Internet side is not copy read (or doesn't appear to be)

I love it's navigation and ease of use, but the constant duplicate paragraphs drive me crackers

Apparently teens like it too, they use it to keep up with the Kardashians and Justin/Miley and the like.

For years I've thought there was a gap in the market for a left leaning version of the Daily Mail, something in-between the Daily Mirror and The Guardian. On-line version ease of use could be easily replicated I would have thought.

puffy, it's edited retrospectively. So stories uploaded immediately to beat rivals and then altered/corrected/edited later (showbiz and features, not news)

Theory is that most people only: look at picture, read headline and first par of story. probably true in majority of cases.

Ah ok. Makes sense. It still drives me mad though!

And I'm sure I've read old articles that are still horrifically written.

UhOhChongo - exactly the guardian but with balls

I love the app
I don't have be online and I can read about all sorts of stuff .

(Just realised that possibly that shows that I generally only tend to peruse the showbiz section )

So what you are saying is you want somewhere that makes shite up to make it more salacious? Because that is what the DM does vs the BBC.

I love the app - hate their politics and stance on many things, but the damn app is good. The only thing that bugs me about it is when the ads at the foot of the page have moving pics in them; I find that distracting when reading.

I tease my df for being a DM reader

The Daily Mirror pretty much is the left equivalent of the Mail, maybe just a smidgen more downmarket but not by much. I believe they are the two newspapers most read by women.

I read it. I'm intelligent enough to read between the lines and separate the facts from the reporting. It tells me what's 'current' and I can dig for facts if something is interesting.

I particularly love the health stories. It's amazing to see just how wrong they can get their reporting with some huge errors in biology, terminology and even common sense.

I love it. It's like a dirty little habit amongst my friends and I, all of us are secretly addicted.

Funny that I'd never dream of buying the print newspaper though. And I also like to think I'm intelligent enough not to take everything as the gospel truth. Unlike my mother in law who reads the paper daily and will come out with gems such "so I've heard that grape are the most dangerous thing you can feed a child" And DH and I will simply nod and say "read it in the paper?"

I work in the media industry (I'm not a journalist though) and this is something which comes up a lot. It's one of the only newspapers which changes its content/style to deliberately appeal to different demographics online and in print. Hence, many people will read the online version who'd never read the print (online is younger, more female and slightly less right-wing orientated). They invest well in innovative features and have different editorial teams for online and in paper. These, and many other reasons, mean they are consistently one of the top news sites globally. It's something lots of sites would like to replicate - just with different content obviously!