Perhaps this is being overly critical, but doesn’t the term “featured” imply that there is something of value? I mean, things are featured for a reason, right?
With that in mind, check out this “Featured Comment” from the sidebar of a StarTribune story today:
It’s great that the StarTribune is experimenting with new features like “Featured Comments” but I think a label such as “Random Comment” or “Our Readers Will Say Anything, and Here’s an Example that Proves It.”
Also, if there is only one comment (like in this case) is it really a “Featured Comment?”
A human touch could really turn this into something valuable rather than laughable. No human would refer to the only comment on a story as a “Featured Comment” but a script will if that’s the way it’s programmed.
As long as I’m in a sidebar bashing mood, how about bringing in some slightly more relevant stories than the ones shown? I imagine there were other U of MN or basketball stories that would be more relevant links for further reading. Jumping from basketball to fishing or football fans is a bit of a leap.
Ideally, labels should reflect the content. That’s all I’m sayin’.
Now, turning the mirror on The Deets for a sec, I run a sidebar type feature on here that’s currently labeled “Related Posts” where titles from previous posts that are, well, related in some way to the current post are displayed. Whadya think of that label? Over on MNteractive, the term “Algorithmically Related Posts” is used to describe the results of the plug-in that’s used to generate the recommendations. While that is more accurate, I think it’s a mouthful so have kept it simpler for now. What’s your take?