washingtonpost.com Partners With del.icio.us

washingtonpost.com last week announced the launch of a partnership with De.licio.us. The deal allows us to offer tagging capabilities on all articles on the site. The service launched on February 23.

By taking advantage of this partnership, washingtonpost.com readers will now be able to save articles into del.icio.us's central database, which allows for easy retrieval for reading at a later date or for you to share your favorite articles with other readers.

Here's an example, where you'll see the del.icio.us box inset below the Technorati box. If you click on the "Tag This Article" link, you'll be able to automatically save the URL and headline, and also add in your own notes or tags. Tags are terms you would use to find that article at a later date or to suggest to other readers what subjects might be covered in the article. In the article cited above, for example, you might add in tags like: lobbying, Shays, Meehan, IRS.

Jim Brady
Executive Editor, washingtonpost.com

By Jim Brady |  February 25, 2006; 12:33 PM ET  | Category:  Content
Previous: washingtonpost.com Wins Four Digital Edge Awards | Next: Business Section: Expanded Stock Market Features

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



*frist*

Posted by: Philip | February 26, 2006 01:55 AM

del.icio.us privacy policy

At del.icio.us, we respect the privacy of the users of our website and services and are committed to protecting it. We have created this policy to demonstrate our commitment to you and to help you understand it.

Please Note: On December 09, 2005, del.icio.us became part of the Yahoo! network of products and services. Information collected by del.icio.us will continue to be subject to the del.icio.us privacy policy, posted here. To learn more about how Yahoo! uses other information not collected on del.icio.us please see read the Yahoo! Privacy Policy ( http://privacy.yahoo.com ).

We may collect personal information, including email addresses, when individuals register to use the del.icio.us website and services, post a link to the del.icio.us website or submit questions, comments or bug reports. We may also, at times, collect our users' IP addresses and information regarding our users' use of our website and services. We may use such IP addresses to help diagnose problems with our servers, track movement within our website and, if necessary, deny service in accordance with our Terms of Service. We may also collect information related to the referring URL, access times and browser type. Unless required by law, we will not share our users' personal information, Internet Protocol (IP) addresses and usage information, except with their consent or in aggregate or anonymous form, with third parties.

In order to offer and provide optimized and personalized services, we use cookies to store and sometimes track information about our users. A cookie is a small amount of data that is sent to a user's browser from a web server and is eventually stored on a user's computer hard drive.

Yahoo! uses web beacons ( http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us/beacons/details.html ) to research certain usage and activities of the Yahoo! and del.icio.us web sites. The information collected through these web beacons is used to find out more about our users, for more accurate reporting, improve the effectiveness of our marketing, and to make del.icio.us better. No personally identifiable information from your del.icio.us account is collected using these web beacons.

Our services give you the opportunity to opt-in to receive communications from us. We will never automatically send you information/offers you do not want. You must choose to receive them.

Visit your del.icio.us Settings to edit your profile and other information. When you're signed in, del.icio.us page headers will include a link to Settings. You can delete your del.icio.us account through your Settings.

Protecting the privacy of the very young is important to us. For that reason, we will not collect age information for users under 18 years.

del.icio.us reserves the right to modify all or some of this Privacy Policy at any time without notice. If we change our Privacy Policy, we will post a notice on our website so our users are aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. We will use information only in accordance with the Privacy Policy under which the information was collected unless we have received explicit authorization from the appropriate user(s) to do otherwise.

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, the practices of this website or your dealings with this del.icio.us, you can send an e-mail, in English, to privacy@del.icio.us.

Effective Date: January 18, 2005

Posted by: web BUGS, not beacons | February 26, 2006 02:18 AM

This is fantastic; congratulations on being so willing to make use of new technologies to improve your readers' experience!

Posted by: James | February 26, 2006 12:50 PM

So readers will be able to tag articles with terms like "propaganda" or "RNC talking point"?

Posted by: clonecone | February 26, 2006 10:59 PM

That would be a little redundant don't you think clonecone?

Posted by: Shirley Youjest | February 27, 2006 09:20 AM

Thanks for adding yet another user-friendly feature. One question though what happens if I tag an article and 15 days later I (or people I share it with) want to access the article? Will the link still take me to the article or to a page to purchase it from the archives or will the link just no longer work?

Posted by: Keith | February 27, 2006 10:38 AM

Keith,

washingtonpost.com content is available for 60 days, so the links will stick around for awhile.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/washpostblog/2005/12/60_days_of_archives_available.html

Posted by: Derek | February 27, 2006 12:53 PM

once again, the Posties are deleting comments for no reason other than the fact that they criticise the Post's tendency to be ineffectual watchdogs of the administration.

That's OK. The posts were screencapped or filesaved after they were made; they'll be added to the list of things the Post has censored to quell dissent. Another nail in the coffin of honest media.

Posted by: Taniwha | February 28, 2006 07:56 AM

Thanks for providing this very useful service.

On another topic: Do you really want to associate the Post with the likes of Confederate Yankee? Someone who subtitles his blog "Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state" doesn't exactly seem to start out w/ a respectful stance toward potential readers and commenters. And the comments---from both conservatives and liberals---are not exactly consistent w/ the kind of discourse the Post aims to promote.

Posted by: THS | February 28, 2006 03:07 PM

I couldn't help but notice that Confederate Yankee's Monday post was arguing that anti-war protestors should be tried for treason. The WP is so becoming the RNC's bullhorn. It breaks my heart.

Posted by: Sadheart | March 1, 2006 04:23 PM

Good job on your part, I am glad to see that the Washington Post is embracing new innovative services that are available on the Web.

Posted by: reader | March 2, 2006 03:48 PM

Why do I constantly read the ombudsman insist that the editorial staff is absolutely separate from the news staff?

Especially when what makes headlines and what does not are usually issues that the neo-internationalist editorial staff preach about all the time?

Form the W.Post coverage of a story, I can predict the position of the editorial staff. For example this Dubai Port story that 70% of Americans are against. I noticed the weak and placid coverage initially by the time and it only gained momemtum when it was clear this was a political disaster for Bush- emphasis - Bush. Compare this to the over-worked reportage on NSA wiretapping that already bores America, or the Abramoff Scandal. Sorry, it wasn't news to me that all of Washington is corrupt, but if my representatives weren't involved why should I loose sleep over wealthy white men doing their thing?

But issues of out-sourcing, illegal immigration - and the growing conflict between blacks and latinos, issues of identity and assimilation, Port security stuff that influences our daily lives get such little attention, because the Editorial staff cares about monkeys in the artic, or the booming indian economy.

Americans never got the opportunity to read about this Port story with an emphasis on them, us. But we got one with an emphasis on Bush.

Yes, we got the insults and charges of racism and bogotry, but since when was our national security open to PC on international terms? so since we sold out ports to a British company, we much do the same to an Arab company. If Venezualans can have Citgo, perharps the Cubans should be allowed to bid for the airport. Since when did we cease to become a country?

I'm sorry Maddam Ombudsman, but its increasingly difficult to buy the argument that the editorial staff is separate and distinct. Form how a story is covered, I can easily predict the editorials.

Posted by: terrence | March 3, 2006 12:38 PM

from Knight Ridder, for Ms.Howell (whose thoughts we would appreciate if they existed)*

*permission granted to remove bracketed snark, but not whole post

----------------------------------
On Feb. 7, Warren Strobel reported on a State Department reorganization that sidelined career arms control experts who don't share the Bush administration's mistrust of international arms negotiations and agreements. Exactly two weeks later, The Washington Post published a virtually identical story by Glenn Kessler. We say "virtually identical" only because the stories were written with different words. There was not a single fact in Kessler's story that was not in Strobel's, the product of weeks of careful enterprise reporting and interviews with 11 current and former government officials. We have asked, through the Post's ombudsman, Deborah Howell, who was once executive editor in St. Paul, for a published acknowledgement of the Knight Ridder story. To date, it hasn't happened. We understand that there has been vigorous opposition from the Post reporter, who has claimed, in essence, that the "trade press" had already widely reported the story, a contention that is in fact not correct. We're waiting to see what happens.
----------------
We're communicating with the Post about a separate and potentially even more troubling issue. On Tuesday, the Post's top headline on 1A said, "Toll in Iraq's Deadly Surge: 1,300." It was a startling statement with serious implications for a nation that seemed -- and may still be -- on the verge of civil war, suggesting that religious-based violence was far wider than anyone had previously reported. Our reporting in Baghdad -- and reporting by other news organizations -- so far has been unable to verify the Post story. The Post quoted officials at the city morgue in Baghdad as saying that they had logged 1,300 bodies of people killed as a result of the sectarian fighting. But when our correspondent examined the books at the morgue, he could find only about 250 bodies logged in as killed in the violence. Our story, quoting the Iraqi Cabinet, said the death toll was 379, which would have included those 250. The next day, the Post pulled back somewhat from its 1,300 number. But, the story quoted Gen. Ali Shamarri of the Interior Ministry's statistics department as saying the toll was 1,077. That's a number lower than 1,300, but not as drastically lower as everyone else has consistently reported. In Baghdad, our correspondents attempted to interview Gen. Shamarri to confirm the Post's account of violence more widespread than previously believed. They were told that no person by the name of Ali Shamarri worked in the statistics department, nor anywhere else in the ministry. We've communicated this finding to the Post. We are also working on a story that we expect to move tomorrow.
---------------------


Posted by: AlanDownunder | March 3, 2006 07:42 PM

Does WASHINGTON POST have a section specifically to review Military EMAILS OR NAMED SITE TO SEND COMMENTS???? Buzz Baer KAILUA KONA,HI.

Posted by: Buzz Baer | March 5, 2006 12:42 PM

Getting the links into delicious has never been the problem. Getting them out - and somewhere useful, like my blog sidebar - is the challenge.

Will the future of blogging look like this:

http://blogfresh.blogspot.com/2006/03/wapo-goes-delicious.html#comments?

-Greg.

Posted by: Greg | March 5, 2006 11:10 PM

This is a really interesting new feature. I hope we can figure out a way to use it on our intranet. Thank you for sharing your technology advances.

Susan

Posted by: Susan H. | March 15, 2006 02:06 PM

Jim,

Would WaPo content be more appropriately tagged "publication employing plagiarist Ben Domenech" or simply "sad shadow of former quality"?

Please advise.

Posted by: laughing | March 23, 2006 06:52 PM

nice blog :D

Posted by: diazepam | March 28, 2006 12:21 PM

I defenetly cured from boring wasting of time as soon as surfed in to your site!

Posted by: run | March 30, 2006 11:47 AM

I defenetly cured from boring wasting of time as soon as surfed in to your site!

Posted by: run | April 11, 2006 03:41 PM

baby may safely be vaccinated a possibility

Posted by: effexor | May 4, 2006 10:07 AM

Latest news about sport, entertainment, business, culture etc.

Posted by: Latest news | May 31, 2006 06:31 AM

It is always interesting to read washington post material

Posted by: godrealized | June 10, 2006 04:03 PM

Great content! But have some suggestions about improvement. Will contact you.
Thank you.

Posted by: Milek | June 21, 2006 10:24 AM

"The del.icio.us feature is our way of responding to how people really use news on the web. By having a way of storing articles of interest, the feature really becomes a personal library of information and resources. THANKS

http://www.evision.com.pk/web-design.html

Posted by: ben | July 29, 2006 02:45 AM

I spent 2 hours to find information you have on this site!! Thank god, i finally found you!!;)
And...I am so happy!!! I'm getting married!! :) I want to shout about this on entire world!

Posted by: Ferry | September 13, 2006 07:05 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company