February 2005


Commentary24 Feb 2005 12:20 pm

This morning as I was going through my emails, I received a rude shock. Straits Times Interactive will be charging its readers, STi will no longer be free.

Excerpts from the email:

We thank you for your interest in the website and would like to inform you about a major change coming to STI in March: After 10 years of giving ST news reports out for free online, STi will begin charging readers to access it.

A subscription will cost S$72 for six months (S$12 a month), or S$120 for a year (S$10 a month). A one-month subscription will cost S$15.

From March 15 onwards, the site will become a subscribers-only website.

My very first reaction was, NO, I’ll not pay $10. No way. Why? Let’s take a closer look at the paid service:

1) The entire paper, plus the weekly supplement magazines, are now all available from 6 am onwards on its publication day.

Which is what I’m expecting anyway. How can paid subscribers expect anything less than unrestrictive access to all sections of the paper at the earliest possible time? This, so called “perk” is simply non-valid. It’s a must for any paid subscriptions.

2) A 7 day archive, instead of a 3 day archive previously.

It sounds good to the undiscerning ear but think about - You are paying $10 to $15 a month and have access only to news up to a week ago? STi should in fact offer a minimum of a 1 year archive! Come on, I’m paying. What do you stand to lose by opening up your databases? You will even earn from the repeat impressions of your (old) ads!

3) Ads

Neither the email nor the report online (which you have to login to read, Ridiculous!), paid any attention to this issue. Most paid subscriptions will have those distracting ads removed from pages served to you, but since STi did not address this, which is a feature in its own right, I doubt they will be removed. So that’s subscription for ya, you pay $10 a month to watch those flickering ads. Great deal.

All-in-all, both the email and the report online emphasised on features that are a must of any paid-subscription online news and, in fact, STi doesn’t even bother to make it attractive for anyone to subscribe. They even sounded like we own it to them, like how they have been providing news for free for the past 10 years and that it’s not “tenable” for printed news to be charged while the online version is not.

STi, I tell you, paid subscription with such measly features at $10 month will not work. And I’ll even offer my views for free.

Let’s look at your online readership-base: Singaporeans aboard are your most loyal subscribers. They’ll glady offer you the money. Next up are foreigners interested in Singapore matters. Both of which are mostly fairly affluent and wouldn’t twitch at the cost.

Finally, there is this largest group of readers, most of which already have access to the printed version. The reason why they will need the online version is mainly because they need a digital version of it to work on, or in the less probable case, they don’t have access to the printed version or prefer to read the paper online. The majority, myself included, however, are just casual browsers who will occassionally need the paper. This group of people would pay a cent, they will find even logging-in a chore.

Out of the 280,000 subscribers who are now reading STi for free, I think less than 10,000 will eventually pay for the mediocre service.

I’ve a few suggestions to the paid online newspaper:

1) Make the ads go, if you haven’t already done so. Please.

2) Offer a better archive, at least a year back. This will be a great resource to people doing research, students especially. And you get the additional benefit of increased ad impressions (if you haven’t already killed the ads).

3) Give web-exclusive features, like in-depth reports of news not available in the print addition, further development of news after printing time, much like an addendum, or stock analysis of companies featured in the Money section. Learn from the Economist. I believe your creative team can think up more right? Or you can simply hire me at $15 per hour, I’m cheap.

4) Be more sincere at wooing your potential subscribers. Such an email release is simply… unacceptable. Many online newspaper hate and regret to charge readers, you seemed almost proud to do it.

In fact, I think you shouldn’t even charge readers. Few online newspapers do. Many did and turned back. In fact, looking at the listings of newspapers in Yahoo!SG, only Wall Street Journal require a paid subscription. New York Times only require a free registration. Most of the rest are accessible for free. Oh, Yahoo! needs to change the site summary for STi from 15 March 2005.

Even among online newspaper that charge, nearly all give subscribers of their print edition free access. They see it as offering a complementary service to loyal customers. WSJ, The Economist, Time and NYTimes all do so. In that sense, few Singaporeans, most of whom are already subscribers of ST print edition, will not allow STi to “doublecharge” them.

I see STi marching towards doom, obstinately. With so much history to learn from, since online newspapers, whether paid or unpaid, have existed years before STi launch 10 years ago, I can’t believe that they are still taking the wrong path.

Commentary22 Feb 2005 10:17 pm

I was wandering around altavista (for old time’s sake - AV was my favourite search engine before google came around) until it surprised me with it’s Chinese-to-English translation service. I was like, COOL!, I’ve always wanted to try out something like that. Even though I’m already bilingual, I would like to see how a computer would attempt to translate a language as complex as Chinese.

So I fed it with zaobao.

Well, what came out was at least readable (will comment on results later). I was like thinking, google couldn’t be too far behind, i mean, it’s google anyway. As expected, google has a similar service for Chinese-English, though it only support Chinese Simplified characters. Altavista’s Babelfish supports both Chinese Simplified and Traditional. Hence from here you can see Google’s China focus, excluding Macau, Hongkong and Taiwan (these places still using Traditional Chinese characters).

For a fair comparision, google language tools was also fed with zaobao.

And here are the reults:

It seems to me that altavista’s babelfish Chinese-English translation beats Google’s Language Tools.

Firstly, babelfish seems to have better grammar, it translates 即时新闻 into “Immediate news” rather than “Immediately news” by google.

More importantly, babelfish knows more famous Chinese people than google, so it tends to translate their names correctly. Google got 周杰伦 as “Week outstanding roentgen”, babelfish got that right as “Zhou Jielun”. And, Google totally missed North Korean N-Man’s name, mixing it up with gold” while babelfish prints it prettily as “Kim-Jong II”.

Contextual-wise, both are pretty readable. Babelfish makes less mistakes and has better grammar, aiding in understanding. As with any machine-translation service, you need a little imagination to help.

Both got wrong 美与伊拉克武装组织洽谈和平协议, but babelfish needs less guessing on the reader’s part with “America and Iraq arm organizes the discussion peace agreement”, google failed miserabely with “Beautifully arms with Iraq organizes the discussion peace agreement”. Correct translation being “Armerica and Iraqi Arms Groups Dicusses Peace Agreement”.

And both got “海指”, or the Straits Times Index, as “The Sea”. *laughs*

If you need a Chinese-English translation service, go for Altavista’s Babelfish. Google doesn’t always get everything right. :) Admittedly, Chinese isn’t an easy language to translate and it would be interesting how far machine translators will get it right.

Tip: Google Chinese understands Hanyu Pinyin. To search for “新加坡”, simply type “xin jia po”.

Reviews • Technology • Personal21 Feb 2005 09:18 pm

I just can’t help being excited. Finally a blogging software that’s so simple, elegant and yet immensely powerful, you can’t just help but actually use it to do what you are supposed to do, write, instead of tweaking here and there, finding workarounds to the bug you’ve found.

Considering that I came from the era of greymatter, when blogger was at it’s infancy, when movabletype was still free and installing webblog software will take you hours on a 56k modem.

And I took less than 30minutes to fully comprehend and install Wordpress. Wow. And it’s actually possible in 5 minutes.

But thinking back, tweaking an ancient greymatter taught me the basics of unix filesytems and eventually lead to knowledge of mysql databases. Just like how coming from a background where my first PC was running windows 3.11 taught me not to fear the dreaded command line interface.

Those moments taught me how to read documentation that came with software, the lingo of computer speak, that there’s defintely a way out even when the terminal in front of you keeps replying you “Bad command or file name”.

Somehow, that built the person I’m today. I don’t believe things can’t be done simply because someone said so. I believe in going out and researching on it. Read it. Try. Try again.

Good things don’t come easy.

Parts of my old blogs, just for the sake of linking:
Learning… and kelvin quee