New writers, change of style, and 20 answers we need from you!

Posted by Matt Holmes. Last modified on August 12th, 2007 at 12:11pm

New writers, change of style, and 20 answers we need from you!

A couple of in-house issues I wanted to address. First of all, you should have noticed we have some new writers on our site. At the present time we have a staff of 9 writers but that number keeps going up and down as everyone is still finding their feet with how we want things to be run here.

Now, I said to myself when I employed new people, that the one thing I wanted to do was to make sure that the visitors new exactly whose work they were reading with each post. I said once 5 people commented back on the talkbacks the wrong name when addressing something the author had said, I would address this and think of a way to solve it. Yesterday, we hit five.

Your not to blame guys. It’s me that’s to blame. I should have came up with a better way of distinguishing everyone’s writings because I, like you, skim read most websites so you don’t get time to actually read who wrote each article.

There’s a couple of other issues I would like to address and it concerns the future and how Obsessed With Film is going to be run. Basically, I would like you to either send me answers via e-mail or do it in the comments section, just so I know your thoughts on these issues…

THIS INCLUDES THE WRITERS WHO WORK FOR THE SITE. PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO FILL THIS IN EVERYONE, ITS MOSTLY YES OR NO ANSWERS AND IT WOULD BE A GREAT BENEFIT TO US. IT SHOULDNT TAKE YOU LONGER THAN FIVE MINUTES

1. What is the main reason you visit Obsessed With Film?

2. Not including OWF, what is your favourite movie web site on the web?

3. What do you like about OWF?

4. What do you think is our biggest weakness and how do you think it could be improved upon?

5. Do you think our news posts are TOO LONG, TOO SHORT, TOO ‘JOURNALISTIC’ or TOO GEEKY?

6. What type of movie site do you think is missing from the web?

7. Are you happy with all the new writers for the site, or did you prefer it when it was just run by Matt?

8. Would you prefer OWF to be run as a website or continue as a blog?

9. Are you happy with the amount of features and reviews on the site, or do you crave for more?

11. Is their something we use to do, that we don’t do now, that you wish we would?

12. Would you like to see podcast or a video podcast added to the site, even if it meant be going solo?

14. Do you like our new feature/news banner at the top of the site? Should we change this everyday with the latest goings on in the movie industry?

15. Should we deal more with DVDS, CLASSIC MOVIES, COMIC BOOKS, TELEVISION on the site and if so, in what way? State which ones in your answer.

16. Would you be against more advertising on the site which would help cover the cost of running OWF and maybe paying for the addition of more experienced writers?

18. Would you like us to do more fun stuff, like quizzes, games, crosswords. etc.

19. Do you want us to deal with spoilers on the site? If so, do you have any way of telling us how we could easily show you that it’s a spoiler.

20. Do you use RSS Feeds to read our site and should we add a bigger profile to the contact us section so you know more about us?

Categories: Movie News

8 Comments »

The only thing I have a strong opinion on is question 13. I’m really not a fan of sites with headlines - I prefer just being able to scroll and read.

And I think spoilers would be good, but only if hidden behind a ‘reveal’ button or something so that people could avoid them if they wanted too.

Comment by Peter Willis | August 12, 2007

I see what you saying but one thing that’s always bothered me is skim reading and I think this type of format brings that out. You know, you can scroll down the posts in 60 seconds but you might not read it.

And then there is the huge posts which just go and on and on and on. That takes a lot of effort to skip.

Comment by Matt Holmes | August 12, 2007

I agree with Peter Willis. AICN’s format may work for Harry Knowles but I prefer the summary-with-source that I can get here– the Get-To-The-Point format. Here’s my input:

First, PLEASE don’t make the mistake of paying undue attention to ANYTHING you see at AICN. Harry Knowles has been an industry insider for many moons, his site is well over thirteen years old and he got into the blog business from the ground-floor (and there’s no substitute for that) he’s friends with Peter Jackson and many, many other folks in Hollywood -he can get A-list stars to contribute regularly to his site. And sure,he gets a lot of “scoops” and gets invited to a lot of private premieres and all that, but the price of this “access” (as he would call it) is that he has to pimp their films. He reviewed Fantastic Four:ROSS and said he loved it! He wouldn’t tell people that Transformers sucked until the day before it premiered, up until then he was only publishing rave reviews for it. Knowles is a shameless industry plant now, has been for many years. Please don’t become like him. Trust me, I visit some other sites from time to time, but always keep coming back to, fine-tuning probably wouldn’t hurt, but I don’t think it needs and overhaul. Just more time to gather a following.
More reviews would be nice.
AS for spoilers. A button, white-text, or some other means of disguising it would be nice. Especially with the Dark Knight material.
Make the names of the bylines larger. That might help cut down on the confusion about who wrote what. Maybe putting the author’s name at the end of the post as well as the beginning.
I wouldn’t be in favor of segregating the review content. I can’t imagine how breaking the reviews or whatnot into categories/genres would make the site better, except to the most picky of folks. If anything it would only add an extra click that wasn’t neccessary before.
I would LOVE to see a weekly podcast, even if it’s just Matt. Kind of a Week In Review or Here’s the Headlines or News You Might Have Missed kind of thing. You’ve got lots of options in this department Matt and it is the next logical step in this site’s evolution. Go for it!
Having ads on the site doesn’t bother me at all, as long as they’re not kamikazee attacks like IGN.com does. Put them on/in banners on the top and sides and let them stay there. No pop-ups or interceptors. That’s annoying.
You already deal with movies, but DVD-reviews/coverage would be nice, since all movies become DVD’s eventually. As for TV…if you’re going to do that then perhaps the site should be called “Obsessed With Entertainment?”
I like this site’s wit and brevity. And you’re usually ahead, or at the very least, never behind the curve. My advice would be: add a podcast, be more careful with spoilers, keep the current site format/layout and feel free to add advertisements to the site as long as it’s tastefully (read: unobtrusively) done.

Comment by JaySmack | August 12, 2007

“You know, you can scroll down the posts in 60 seconds but you might not read it.” Oh, I see what you’re saying. I that case, maybe a headline, graphic and first couple of sentances would be better then.

“And then there is the huge posts which just go and on and on and on. That takes a lot of effort to skip.” Gulp! …uh, no comment…
“

Comment by JaySmack | August 12, 2007

1. What is the main reason you visit Obsessed With Film?
I like the easy to read layout, the news that you tend to cover here, and I really enjoy what everyone here has to say regarding movies.

2. Not including OWF, what is your favourite movie web site on the web?
Jeez… I can’t pick just one… I’m a regular reader of Movie Patron, Mad About Movies, The Movie Blog, Cinematical, Filmstalker, /Film, Screen Rant, Twitch, Cinema Blend, Movieweb, Film Rot, Film Junk, FSRejects, among about a dozen others.

3. What do you like about OWF?
You folks tend to cover a lot of the movies that I’m interested in and I like the casual, laid back tone of the writing.

4. What do you think is our biggest weakness and how do you think it could be improved upon?
A minor problem, but maybe some more categories rather than just “Movie News” such as sectioning further: Comic Adaptations, Fantasy/Sci-Fi, Comedy Foreign, etc. - I’ve always appreciated when sites did that.

5. Do you think our news posts are TOO LONG, TOO SHORT, TOO ‘JOURNALISTIC’ or TOO GEEKY?
I really don’t have any complaints. I think it mixes well between the “journalistic” and “geeky” approach.

6. What type of movie site do you think is missing from the web?
Doesn’t really have much to do with OWF, but I think people in the actual movie business need to make more movie blogs. Wouldn’t that be splendid?

7. Are you happy with all the new writers for the site, or did you prefer it when it was just run by Matt?
New writers RARELY hurt a site. The more content, the better. Then again, hiring writers just to have writers can be a fatal mistake.

8. Would you prefer OWF to be run as a website or continue as a blog?
Blogs are so much easier to read and sift through.

9. Are you happy with the amount of features and reviews on the site, or do you crave for more?
I think it’s been going smoothly.

11. Is their something we use to do, that we don’t do now, that you wish we would?
Not that I can think of.

12. Would you like to see podcast or a video podcast added to the site, even if it meant be going solo?
I’ve never really gotten into podcasts ever, so my opinion is probably void here.

13. Would you be against the idea of converting to an AICN style of site, so you could instantly tell what piece of news was written by whom and that it would keep everyone’s feature articles always visible?
I think it’s pretty uncessary to make such a drastic measure. Perhaps just make their names more visible the way it is here.

14. Do you like our new feature/news banner at the top of the site? Should we change this everyday with the latest goings on in the movie industry?
That’s your choice, but change is always good.

15. Should we deal more with DVDS, CLASSIC MOVIES, COMIC BOOKS, TELEVISION on the site and if so, in what way? State which ones in your answer.
Anything movies should be fair game. Touching on unknown classics never hurts.

16. Would you be against more advertising on the site which would help cover the cost of running OWF and maybe paying for the addition of more experienced writers?
I’ve always been able to look past advertising, unless it’s popups. I hate popups.

17. How would you feel if we employed different writers to deal with different aspects of the site? For example, how would you feel if we employed a HORROR writer just to deal with all the HORROR news/features/reviews. The same goes for COMIC BOOKS MOVIES, SCI-FI MOVIES, WESTERNS etc. How would you feel if they all had their own site, i.e. BLOODY DISGUSTING
All having their own site would probably be a mistake, but then again… who knows? It could be something to try and see how it works.

18. Would you like us to do more fun stuff, like quizzes, games, crosswords. etc.
That doesn’t interest me.

19. Do you want us to deal with spoilers on the site? If so, do you have any way of telling us how we could easily show you that it’s a spoiler.
Just have a spoiler alert at the beginning of the post.

20. Do you use RSS Feeds to read our site and should we add a bigger profile to the contact us section so you know more about us?
N/A

Comment by Jonathan | August 12, 2007

My responses to the questions that immediately jumped out at me.

1. What is the main reason you visit Obsessed With Film?
Variety! Mix of news, features, reviews – most sites concentrate on latest film news, this approaches film in a broader sense. It almost feels like a “magazine” movie website but with the added advantage of having up to date stories.

2. Not including OWF, what is your favourite movie web site on the web?
I really like JoBlo, has all the latest news with a dash of opinion. FilmIck (short, sharp, easy to read) and Hollywood Elsewhere (I think Wells is an excellent writer) are pretty good, too.

9. Are you happy with the amount of features and reviews on the site, or do you crave for more?
Is there anyway to get OWF on Rotten Tomatoes? That would be great for exposure. DVD reviews would be good, and how about a big feature where every writer reviews their favourite movie?

1o. Is the font size on our site big enough and clear enough to read… or should it be a font that is more spread out. Do you like every movie title to be linked to imdb, or would you prefer them to be in CAPS or with ITALICS or BOLD or NOTHING? The same goes with the TITLE HEADLINE.
Capping up the movie title might be a good idea, I think a few sites do that. I guess the kind of people who visit sites like this are film savvy already so linking off to Wiki, IMDB etc. isn’t essential, so long as the original source gets a link. Plus, from a selfish writer’s standpoint, chasing down links is time consuming when writing/editing on WP. I could probably get stuff together faster without the linking.

12. Would you like to see podcast or a video podcast added to the site, even if it meant be going solo?
Interviews with writers/directors/producers etc would be great. I’ve done that before but it’s a bitch to get mags to use the whole thing – I once spent twenty mins talking to a director and the mag article was edited down to about 50 words from him! I felt as bad for him as I did myself.

13. Would you be against the idea of converting to an AICN style of site, so you could instantly tell what piece of news was written by whom and that it would keep everyone’s feature articles always visible?
Is there anyway to make the name bold just under the post headline, or link it to an email address/the contacts page so it’s more noticeable?

15. Should we deal more with DVDS, CLASSIC MOVIES, COMIC BOOKS, TELEVISION on the site and if so, in what way? State which ones in your answer.
Comic book/genre stuff is bound to bring in more traffic – but I like to read sites that mix it up a little. Television is awesome right now; Heroes is huge, as is Lost, and recently I’ve loved Life on Mars, The Office (US) and Flight of the Conchords almost as much as any film I’ve seen – how about a spin-off site, Obsessed With Television?

16. Would you be against more advertising on the site which would help cover the cost of running OWF and maybe paying for the addition of more experienced writers?
The only ads that’ve ever bothered me are the ones that pop up whilst you’re navigating pages, The Movie Blog currently have this. I’m in favour of anything that allows the site to cover film better and expand/evolve.

17. How would you feel if we employed different writers to deal with different aspects of the site? For example, how would you feel if we employed a HORROR writer just to deal with all the HORROR news/features/reviews. The same goes for COMIC BOOKS MOVIES, SCI-FI MOVIES, WESTERNS etc. How would you feel if they all had their own site, i.e. BLOODY DISGUSTING
I think it could be tricky to define the genres. Horror and comic book movies are easy, but sci-fi, drama, indie etc can all crossover and then you have the question of who covers what… Sunshine was an indie, a Brit film, sci-fi and had horror elements for example.

18. Would you like us to do more fun stuff, like quizzes, games, crosswords. etc.
Not really my thing.

19. Do you want us to deal with spoilers on the site? If so, do you have any way of telling us how we could easily show you that it’s a spoiler.
As long as the reader knows from the article that they’re going into spoiler territory I think there’s no problem.

Comment by Will Reynolds | August 12, 2007

1. What is the main reason you visit Obsessed With Film?

I like the way it’s laid out. It’s easy to flick through when at work.

2. Not including OWF, what is your favourite movie web site on the web?

Dark Horizons

3. What do you like about OWF?

Informal attitude. Depth of info. Doesn’t rely on expletives, an all knowing attitude and reams of opinions from meatheads who know jack about movies.

4. What do you think is our biggest weakness and how do you think it could be improved upon?

It works for me, right now.

5. Do you think our news posts are TOO LONG, TOO SHORT, TOO ‘JOURNALISTIC’ or TOO GEEKY?

They’re about right.

6. What type of movie site do you think is missing from the web?

God knows, there is so many.

7. Are you happy with all the new writers for the site, or did you prefer it when it was just run by Matt?

It’s all good

8. Would you prefer OWF to be run as a website or continue as a blog?

THe site is fine the way it is.

9. Are you happy with the amount of features and reviews on the site, or do you crave for more?

There’s enough.

It’s fine.

11. Is their something we use to do, that we don’t do now, that you wish we would?
No.

12. Would you like to see podcast or a video podcast added to the site, even if it meant be going solo?

No. I haven’t the time to watch or listen to podcasts.

Please do not go down the AICN road. One site like that is enough. Too tabloid.

14. Do you like our new feature/news banner at the top of the site? Should we change this everyday with the latest goings on in the movie industry?

It’s cool and would be better if it reflected recent releases.

15. Should we deal more with DVDS, CLASSIC MOVIES, COMIC BOOKS, TELEVISION on the site and if so, in what way? State which ones in your answer.

More topics = more clutter. Stick to what you do best.

16. Would you be against more advertising on the site which would help cover the cost of running OWF and maybe paying for the addition of more experienced writers?

Ads are ok. After all the site has to be funded.

I think it depends on quality. Most of us want quality writers written by people who care about what they’re writing about.

18. Would you like us to do more fun stuff, like quizzes, games, crosswords. etc.

No.

19. Do you want us to deal with spoilers on the site? If so, do you have any way of telling us how we could easily show you that it’s a spoiler.

The word SPOILER works just fine.

20. Do you use RSS Feeds to read our site and should we add a bigger profile to the contact us section so you know more about us?

I don’t use RSS and haven’t felt the need to contact the site outside of the comment box.

sorry about the lack of detail in my answers. I like this site and happy with it as it is.

Comment by Richard Neal | August 12, 2007

1. What is the main reason you visit Obsessed With Film?

- The main reason I started visiting this website is due to Holden, he’s a personal friend, told me about this site, started coming here.

2. Not including OWF, what is your favourite movie web site on the web?

-Aint It Cool News

3. What do you like about OWF?

- It’s breaking news before other sites, it’s also a very pleasant site to look out. Your topics aren’t misleading much like some other sites.

4. What do you think is our biggest weakness and how do you think it could be improved upon?

– Not going too much in to television and comics. But, I’m a geek. It was also a little sad that no one was too sure of World of Warcraft stuff, that’s a gamers haven and also has a very good chance of being a nice film. Especially, with all the lore. /geek

5. Do you think our news posts are TOO LONG, TOO SHORT, TOO ‘JOURNALISTIC’ or TOO GEEKY?

- Each person is going to have their own unique style. Some are going to be more stream-lined journalistic while others geek out. If it’s too short, I’m sure the Comments will reflect that.

6. What type of movie site do you think is missing from the web?

- Good question.

7. Are you happy with all the new writers for the site, or did you prefer it when it was just run by Matt?

–I enjoy reading multiple reviews or things from different writers. One sided reviews can be awful. It’s a good thing to have different views/opinions.

8. Would you prefer OWF to be run as a website or continue as a blog?

– I already call this a website… so….

9. Are you happy with the amount of features and reviews on the site, or do you crave for more?

– OWF could use more reviews, whether it be Dvd/current cinema, it’s in need for a few more reviews per week.

— This is a very good thing you’re doing already, no reason to change up what isn’t broken. The only thing I would like added is *SPOILERS* but that is another question, I believe.

11. Is their something we use to do, that we don’t do now, that you wish we would?

- n/a

12. Would you like to see podcast or a video podcast added to the site, even if it meant be going solo?

– Eh, I’m not sure. Can’t watch video at work. >__

Comment by Nate(R) | August 13, 2007