When I posted screenshots of the ACP Online Pacemaker finalists two weeks ago (ACP online finalists), I wrote that I’d like to hear what the judges had to say about the finalists. An e-mail exchange with Marc Wood at ACP has brought at least some information from the judges via an article by Sarah Rice at the ACP web site: Online Pacemaker finalists: feedback from the judges. Go read the comments from Ju-Don Roberts, managing editor of Washingtonpost.com. #

A few do’s and don’ts gleaned from the article: #

Do #

• include “web 2.0″ features like comments, ratings, multimedia.
• try to make your site easy to navigate.
• cover breaking news online and add in-depth features as well.
• be inventive with design of the site, even within a templated College Publisher site.
• maintain quality of reporting and editing.

Don’t #

• shovel content from the print edition online.
• neglect thorough reporting and editing.
• neglect navigation and ease-of-use in a flashy design.

Finally, while this feedback is helpful, I’d like to see more (I know, I’m asking for a lot, but feedback helps us all improve), even if just information about the winning sites when they are announced in October. Perhaps we could see some kind of commentary from the judges about each of the winning sites and what specific features made them stand out above the rest. If not this year, perhaps that could be part of the judging process next year. #

#