City Newspaper offices on Goodman Street near Village Gate, 9-2008
| Location |
250 North Goodman St, Rochester NY 14607 ![[Directions]](/wiki/dd_start.png "Click for driving, walking, or bus directions from Google"){kind=small} |
| Phone |
| 585 244 3329 |
| Website |
![[WWW]](http://rocwiki.org/wiki/eggheadbeta/img/sycamore-www.png){kind=small} http://RochesterCityNewspaper.com |
City, also known as City Newspaper to avoid ambiguity, is Rochester's free, weekly, independent, alternative newspaper. They feature commentary on local politics, coverage of issues that plague Rochester, and editorials, in addition to sections and listings of Art, Music, Theatre and Movies. Founded by William and Mary Anna Towler in 1970, City often takes a conventional liberal position on issues. The last section is a delightfully large classifieds marketplace in which various wares (houses, appliances, women, men) are available to the reader.
Ending 2006, City introduced a new website, which some think is better-designed and easier-to-use, that uses a ![[wikipedia]](http://rocwiki.org/wiki/eggheadbeta/img/inter.png){kind=small}
PHP-based content management system and features syndication feeds. Readers need not create a login before they comment. Articles, comments, updates, news, and reader comments appear there before they appear in print each Wednesday.
Website Direct Links:
City Newspaper's Best of Rochester
|
Through Friday, September 26th, 2008 go to http://RochesterCityNewspaper.com and fill in your Rochester Favorites in 40 Categories. Results on October 1. |
Comments:
Note: You must be logged in to add comments
2005-11-16 21:16:05 I usually hear people refer to it as "City" instead of "The City." Never heard anyone call it "City Newspaper," even though that's its actual name! —MariahBetz
2005-11-17 06:39:53 I think I'm going to start referring to it by its full name, but only when I am upset at it: "City Rochester's Alternative Newsweekly!" Go to your room! —HeatherYager
2007-04-21 13:35:26 Despite continuing a trend of clutter and some questionable design choices, the new City site is orders of magnitude better than the old one. Just don't expect a lot from the archives of the old site—images are gone, formatting tags are just hanging out, and, perhaps most disturbing, bylines are gone. Not sure why converting from one digital format to another seems to have been so difficult. —EternalStudent
2007-11-16 17:08:07 Many thanks to the readers who voted this the best local web site. Unfortunately, the print edition lists us as rockwiki.org, which is currently held by a domain squatter. —DaveMahon
2008-04-28 23:00:19 Umm, I think the website has moved. Please feel free to add the correct link, I can't seem to locate it. —SmitaRao
2008-04-29 09:27:39 not sure what happened to the link this morning, but it seems to be back up & running. —TriciaSeymour
2008-10-28 18:02:00 Hey everyone, I am one-half (the design half) of the company City hired to redesign the website (http://www.weareseencreative.com). We started by launching what would be considered phase 1 back in 2006. That was the first step in the right direction, but it was far from perfect. We launched phase 2 earlier this month. It's the next step, and much closer to overall vision. I'd be interested in hearing any thoughts. It's a pretty heavy overhaul — from features to design.
I also want to address two things:
1) The content management system was not Ruby on Rails based as mentioned above. It is a custom, PHP based system we developed from scratch specifically for City. We did recently decided to package the software though, under the name Flint (http://www.flintpublisher.com).
2) Regarding EternalStudent's comments. The content from the archives before the phase 1 launch was imported from the previously used CMS. Without ragging on that old system by name, I can tell you it was a mess. Content was not arranged in the database in anything close to a way that made sense. It used conventions from like 1995 or something. Totally backwards. We did as much as we could to port over the content, but there were some issues (as you've pointed out). We continued to work on these, and may have solved a few more of them for the phase 2 launch. But when you say "Not sure why converting from one digital format to another seems to have been so difficult," you saying so without seeing the previous system. I big assumption. Also as far as questionable design choices, please take a look at the phase 2 design and see if any of those issues have been addressed. I totally agree that the design of phase 1 was a little off, hopefully this version is an improvement (I think it is).
Sorry for the essay, but any feedback is welcome. —NickAdams
