My thoughts too. Does the ‘casual reader’ pick up on this kind of thing, though?

in truth, i suspect not. itv still has an audience (of sorts), despite regularly hitting its daytime viewers with the kind of annoying and repetitive commercials i would run a mile from.

how could the teams and the sport in general cut costs for the reporters and journalists to ensure that they are able to attend and that the profession remains sustainable?

Answer to that one will probably be “Fewer races on the other side of the planet!”

Which sites do you value most?

I read quite a few but it’s Autosport and then Joe and James’s blogs. Also Will Buxton is pretty good. The rest of the news I get from Sidepodcast as we only post news from reputable sources.

I cannot stand sites like Planet-F1 who have merely descended into tabloid rumour and mudslinging. I also boycotted Pitpass because of a lack of editorial control and subsequent bad handling of the complaints…

What kind of ads do you find intrusive?

To be honest, I accept that ads have to be there but most ads are truly annoying. This includes pop ups (in a new window and more annoyingly, in front of the article), flashing ads, autoplayable video ads (especially when I am at work!), and finally the more risqué ads that seem to be appearing.

Do you respond to web ads or do you use blocking software?

I never click on banner ads. I don’t block them either, I just don’t visit sites where the annoying ones are prevalent!

Also, if you have any questions for the delegates at the Forum, I’ll try to put them across.

Hmm, how about asking “The teams have promised to cut costs in various ways, but how could the teams and the sport in general cut costs for the reporters and journalists to ensure that they are able to attend and that the profession remains sustainable?”

Which sites do you value most?

I value, in order:

sites that give me accurate and original information (e.g. grandprix.com, pitpass.com, autosport.com)

sites that build on such information to come up with original conclusions (e.g. sidepodcast.com, joesaward.wordpress.com, jamesallenonf1.com)

sites that discuss the above (e.g. gpwizard.co.uk, f1rejects.com, forum.giancarlofisichella.com)

sites that give stream-of-consciousness rumours where the information is so inaccurate that it becomes funny (e.g. yahoo.co.uk, planet-f1.com… …and that’s about it)

While I enjoy long detailed analyses on the internet, I supplement such analyses with a considerable amount of printed material – a subscription to F1 Racing, the occasional Autosport (one every 1-2 months, depending on when content likely to be of enduring interest to me appears), even more occasional issues of other magazines, whatever F1 books I can borrow from the various library systems near my house and a book collection (including the Formula 1 Yearbook every year). At the moment, I vastly prefer paying for print than online because the print stuff tends to age better. I’m still getting value from the Formula 1 Yearbook 1997-1998, while I’d struggle to find much on the internet that would still interest me in 12 years’ time.

What kind of ads do you find intrusive?

I don’t think you’ll like my answer very much – apologies in advance. Due to the way I process sensory input, any ad involving text is intrusive to me. As far as I know, every ad ever involves text of some sort, if only the company name at the end… (This annoyance level may explain why I don’t buy anything based on ads).

All I can suggest is that the more complex the coding, the more annoying it is likely to be for me because it will take longer for the adblocker to block it. This is necessary because I got fed up of badly-coded ads locking my computer up a couple of years back and discovered the ad blocker was the only way for me to be able to continue using the internet in a meaningful way.

If it helps, I think I am on the extreme end of the scale when it comes to the advert aggravation scale.

Do you respond to web ads or do you use blocking software?

See above – I use blocking software to enable me to use the internet without ads crashing the browser every five minutes.

I have been known to donate to Sidepodcast.com, but I am limited on what I can spend on the internet – for example, an Autosport.com subscription would set me back nearly as much as a F1 Racing subscription (both for a year). And I can’t read Autosport.com unless I’m on the internet… My F1 spending is almost exclusively off-line.

if people are prepared to play fast and loose with your experience, i figure they’re just as likely to do the same with their content, in which case it’s not worth reading anyhow.

My thoughts too. Does the ‘casual reader’ pick up on this kind of thing, though?

Thankfully, there are a host of more original sites out there, which offer a different slant or provide an interesting perspective on things.

Indeed. Whenever I read a story that’s simply been regurgitated from elsewhere, I find myself asking “What’s the point?” Fan sites play such an important role in helping fans connect with one another and discuss the issues of the day; I think they deserve better, because I hate to see people getting their knickers in a twist over a non-story. Subject of another post in this series…

One thing I think that is severely lacking in F1 right now is transparency, and that tends to reflect on the vast numbers of rumors published, aggregated, and republished elsewhere. Do the F1 people agree with this assessment, and if so, what are they doing to fix it?

Tricky one, this. The 24-hour news cycle seems to have inculcated us to believe (a) that we have a right to know exactly what’s going on at any given time; and (b) that somewhere there’s a news source which can provide exactly that. Slip the boot on to the other foot for a second, and picture yourself as an F1 figure – a driver, for example – in the middle of a complex and confidential negotiation. Would you want someone standing in the same room broadcasting all the discussions – as if they were commentating on a cricket match?

Still, that doesn’t stop people wanting to know what’s going on. Curiosity is natural, and sadly there are people out there on the interweb who prey on that in order to sell shabby goods.

Thanks for the comments. More posts coming up…

In terms of F1 news, the recent onslaught of content aggregation has meant I’ve needed to be more weary of who publishes such articles. But at the same time, speed is still at least somewhat important for me in delivering news. As it stands, I have a criteria of 2/3rds cred, 1/3rd speed.

That partly explains why Joe would be my Top 1 choice. While Joe and James Allen, for example, are not far apart in terms of cred for me, JA’s site fails way too often for it to be a top 1 choice. While I do understand that certain WEBSITES need to be more deliberate in publishing news, Joe is able to balance that a bit better than mainstream outlets.

I HATE popup ads – absolutely abhor it – and the blocker takes care of those more often than not. Google ads are non-obtrusive, and that’s good for me as the reader, because it allows the writers I read to make a tidy profit with readers who do use it, while it stays out of my way.

I have a general question for the folks at the Forum (aimed for any of the key F1 paddock players), that is somewhat related to this topic. One thing I think that is severely lacking in F1 right now is transparency, and that tends to reflect on the vast numbers of rumors published, aggregated, and republished elsewhere. Do the F1 people agree with this assessment, and if so, what are they doing to fix it?

I use advert blocking software, but have donated money to Sidepodcast and have purchased James’ book. I will be subscribing to Joe’s GrandPrix+ in the new year.

And, speaking of reader interaction, it’s comments time. Which sites do you value most?

For me AUTOSPORT still remains as my first port of call when it comes to a trustworthy source of motor sport news and titbits. Nearly all the other F1/racing websites out there pale in comparison and just regurgitate the same stories over and over again. It’s also the only website I can think of where I’ve been happy to fork out for a subscription on.

Thankfully, there are a host of more original sites out there, which offer a different slant or provide an interesting perspective on things. Sidepodcast.com is thoroughly enjoyable and includes a thriving community (as well as excellent podcasts) and blogging-wise, Joe Saward and James Allen have pretty much got everything under wraps.

What kind of ads do you find intrusive? Do you respond to web ads or do you use blocking software?

Flashing .gifs or just Flash movie ads royally do my noggin’ in. So long as they’re subtle I don’t mind – but then, subtle won’t ‘entice’ the punters to click on them.

In the ten years of so I’ve been online, I could honestly count on one hand the amount of times I’ve clicked on a banner ad. These days I hang out with the cool kids and we roll with the Ad Block plugin for Firefox. Gnarly.

I bid you good day *doffs cap*

i used to use adblockers a couple of years ago, but decided they gave me a false view of the web. now i don’t block any ads, but instead try to avoid sites with many animated commercials.

if people are prepared to play fast and loose with your experience, i figure they’re just as likely to do the same with their content, in which case it’s not worth reading anyhow.

i do click on some ads, but not all that often. i prefer micropayments as a more direct way of contributing to a site, either as a donation or in return for extra content.