We put a stake in the ground when we started Circa that the metric that would be one of our guiding principles is the “follow.” When a reader follows a storyline with Circa, it tells us they care enough about it that they want to enter into a direct relationship with it, and receive alerts when there’s something new as that specific storyline evolves.
All signs point to desktop news consumption falling further and mobile continuing to grow exponentially, and a unique aspect of using mobile devices is being able to get notified anywhere, anytime. This is both a gift and a curse. We’re now reaching a point of push notification saturation. Our solution is to put the choice in your hands and allow you to decide what’s important enough to push. You could say we have two main goals: to inform and to respect your time while doing it.
As we reach the end of our first full year in existence, we wanted to look back at which stories you decided were important enough to enter into that all important “follow” relationship with. These stories triggered some emotion or interest that caused a great number of you to want to be kept apprised of its development. They are Circa’s biggest stories of 2013 by the metric of ‘follow.”
This storyline could have easily been called “Groundhog’s Day” as we’ve seen this scenario play out before and will likely see it play out again in early 2014. Luckily, our format has the unique advantage of utilizing the history of this ongoing debate to put it all into context.
@circa has been perfect for following the government shenanigans.
— Jacob Moore (@jacobscottm) October 17, 2013
This was one of our first and perhaps defining “breaking news” events we covered in real-time. Previously, the 2012 election was the biggest event we covered but that was something we knew was coming and could plan for. This tested our skill at using the platform to show how we could rely on accuracy over speed. While many others wound up rushing to be first and wrong, we kept our readers up to date without sacrificing our reputation. We are proud to say nothing Circa pushed needed to be corrected later.
Perhaps the investigative scoop of the year. Circa has followed the saga of the Edward Snowden himself, now living in Russia, as well as the “Snowden effect,” the myriad of revelations Snowden leaked that has become public. It is a spider web of spying and state secrets, but because Circa shows how the storylines are all related, a reader can get context and understand the relationship between PRISM, XKEYSCORE, MUSCULAR, Britain’s role through their spy agency GCHQ and the impact everything is having on technology companies in the U.S. This is perhaps the most “clustered” group of storylines followed only by the group of stories following the Syrian civil war.
If you aren't following all this PRISM bullshit through @Circa app, you should. Excellent way to filter out the noise of news.
— Colin Raney (@colinraney) June 10, 2013
This was a story where we wound up doing a lot of primary, direct to source reporting. Our team went directly to the LAPD and to the LA County Coroner to verify information about the shooting to ensure our reporting was rock solid. In breaking news situations like these there’s often a rush to get information out quickly and rely too heavily on other news reports which can sometimes result in the “telephone game” as information either comes from unreliable sources or loses its veracity as it moves through several filters. While we watched most of this play out on social media as many others did, we used that information to inform ourselves but didn’t report what we saw until we could verify it independently. This was another example where we were careful and deliberate and didn’t need to correct information later while others were forced to retract.
It’s an environmental story with lessons for the whole world. It was in following news of the Japanese tsunami in March 2011 when Circa Co-founder Ben Huh first began to realize that “breaking news was broken.” The cleanup efforts of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster following the tsunami continues to this day, with the constant potential of serious radioactive contamination of the local environment. This storyline, along with our coverage of tsunami debris washing up on U.S. shores, are examples of how the follow feature has value almost three years after an initial event.
It was one of the world’s biggest weather events since Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. The storm enveloped Southeast Asia, with the Philippines bearing the brunt of the storm, the deadliest in the country’s history, leaving 5,719 killed in Haiyan’s wake. We covered the story for nearly a month, and continue to update on the recovery efforts. The residents there have a long way back to return to life before the storm, and we intend to track their journey all the way.
Perhaps the biggest tech story of the year was the seven year old social networking service, that changed the way many communicate, opening their company to public investment. After Facebook stumbled out of the gate of their own IPO, the NYSE which took the stock to market, sought to learn from their mistakes and were careful to ensure they could handle the large anticipated demand. Our tech editor Nicholas Deleon tracked this story all the way from the moment the company made it known their intentions to go public and explored all the angles of what made Twitter an attractive or risky investment, in the eyes of experts. The IPO event will stand alone, but we’ll continue to update as any new, major moments happen to the stock and company moving forward.
As exciting as Apple keynotes are, they also cause aggravation. Many people flee Twitter to avoid the repetitive nature of their stream as “Stenography Twitter” takes place and everyone repeats the same information just released. One of the many things Circa brings to the table is a way to cut through the noise and simply get what you need to know. We shined by updating our Apple keynote in real-time with just the facts around the new products and by following the story, you could even avoid the keynote entirely and still know exactly when a major moment happened during the event, allowing you to continue your day and be productive yet still be in the know.
In October when we launched Circa News 2 and included breaking news as a new feature, we had no idea how long it would take till the first truly “breaking” news story. Turns out it would be only three hours later when we learned there were shots fired outside of the U.S. Capitol building. Our staff quickly spun into gear, getting a breaking news alert out and simultaneously trying to make sense of what was going on. Nearly half of all readers to the storyline followed it, and received individual updates as they happened in real-time, culminating in no injuries, but one death – that of the shooter whom had a history with depression and mental illness.
We covered the bumpy rollout for the Healthcare.gov website from the moment it was unveiled and delivered all the investigation into what went wrong, along with primary source documents that showed how many anticipated the website would be unable to handle the demand but was released anyway. We’re now covering the effort to fix the issues as the government’s self-imposed deadline just passed on Nov 30th. We’ll continue to track how well the website holds up along with the fight over Obamacare itself among Republicans and Democrats.
While it wasn’t necessarily breaking news or even an example we’d have thought of, when Banksy set up shop in New York and began creating guerilla works of art there, the city and art lovers the world around were captivated. Each time Banksy put up a new work Circa had it covered in one singular evolving storyline, and anyone following it got a push notification about it.
Following Banksy through @circa is the best thing ever. The way news should behave. http://t.co/WSZebhpEXm
— Ivan Lajara (@ivanlajara) October 25, 2013
This one gets an honorable mention simply because it’s one of our favorite storylines here at Circa. We continue to enjoy covering the Mars Curiosity rover as it goes about its scientific mission on the red planet, with each and every new finding ending up as a point inside of this ever-evolving storyline. We love this story so much, the Mars Curiosity rover plays a starring role in our introduction walkthrough for new users.
Traditionally, media companies have been beholden to the pageview and only more recently they’ve started to say they’re more interested in unique visitors. The ad market is still less mature and thus relies almost exclusively on the pageview as currency. As always, at Circa we’ve set our sights higher and believe that ultimately mobile and “the follow” will win the day, and a big win for news readers.
On Sept. 5 Techmeme made headlines. Literally. It was the first time that the popular aggregator began writing its own headlines instead of excerpting them. The change is a win for readers and for Techmeme. You can read Gabe Rivera’s reasons for the change here.
tl;dr version: It comes down to understanding what the relationship is that Techmeme has with its readers. Techmeme provides a service where readers get value out of skimming headlines and then leaving the site when they find something they want to read. If Techmeme does a good job, the reader will be loyal and come back. It is a relationship of trust that builds value over time.
Somehow, after almost a decade, the excerpted headlines stopped working for Techmeme. For better or worse headlines evolved and so too must the larger news ecosystem, which Techmeme is a part of. This is not the first post to notice that headlines have evolved:
Somehow the priorities of the new headline schema are out of whack with the priorities of Techmeme. So what is that new schema?
It was only back in 2006 when headlines went through their last evolution. Captured best in the article “This Boring Headline Is Written for Google,” journalists learned that their headlines had to be SEO friendly. We all learned what that meant and the tricks of the trade. SEO was all the rage!
Only six years later SEO is cluttered with black hat actors and while effective in search, these boring headlines are anathema for social sharing.
Enter social media optimization: the idea that you can, through tricks and tactics, increase the virility of content. More people will share the content and the people that see the shared headline will be enticed to click into it – in order to satisfy the emotionally alluring nature of the headline itself. Share, rinse, repeat.
There is a formula for this. I’ve seen the founder of Upworthy write it out with mathematical symbols. “At Upworthy, the team has tried to boil virality down to this quasi-scientific equation: “Virality = strength of the applicability of content and packaging x shareability of original content x size of distribution + luck.”
These headlines have a schema not to inform, be easily scannable or send you away for more information ala Techmeme. They are designed to go “viral.” At best, the priorities of a viral headline are meant to entice you to share and reward your friends’ dopamine centers for clicking in.
But just as SEO had a dark side, so too does SMO. These headlines are innately inward looking and self-referential, whereas more traditional headlines would refer to the world in an attempt to quickly inform. The propensity of headlines with a “?” at the end are proof positive.
Is the news organization asking me? Shouldn’t they know?!?!
There is an entire law about why these headlines are bullshit (Betteridge’s law of headlines says if a headline has a ‘?’ in it – the answer is always “no.”)
For a headline scanner, SMO headlines mean the only way to accomplish their goal (of getting a sense of the day’s news) requires lots of clicking into articles, and a lot of potential disappointment (“I actually didn’t care about this”), hence the popularity and humor of HuffPost Spoilers.
In the end, it always comes down to money. What is the relationship a publication has with readers and how do they monetize. Of course, in between those two is the all-powerful “metric.” If you are monetizing banner ads, your metric is all about eyeballs. What most publications measure is eyeballs. How long those eyeballs are on a site. How many pages before the eyeballs leave. Everything is about eyeballs.
Headlines aimed at virality are grounded in this metric. They are meant to draw eyeballs in. The reader gets a release of dopamine (filling in the emotional gap the headlines create) and in exchange the publication gets a pair of eyeballs while the gap is closed.
At circa, with the follow function, we measure … people. They are not mere eyeballs. They make a choice to follow a story and we keep track of what they know and don’t know. We keep them up to date on the facts around the storylines they are interested in. That is a relationship that develops and lasts over time.
From a fantastic PaidContent article recently: Metrics can improve newsrooms but only if the culture is ready.” Please excuse the long excerpt – but when something is good….
Editors worry that the influence of metrics will lead journalism down a path recently skewered by the Onion in which Miley Cyrus’s tongue will always take precedence over military action in Syria. Those editors are right to warn of the unintended impact of thoughtless metrics.
We saw it in medicine when U.S. hospitals agreed to make public their mortality rates in the 1990s. What better metric? However, it turned out that the easiest way to improve mortality rates was to stop admitting the sickest patients (luckily the practice was stopped).
We see it in education, where Atlanta schools superintendents were recently indicted on racketeering charges because they forgot that their goal was not to have the highest test scores but to educate their students. And we see it in publishing, where linkbait, content farms and slideshows are the consequence of chasing pageviews.
In each of these scenarios, people confused what was measurable with what mattered. The purpose of a hospital is not to minimize the number of sick people it deals with, the purpose of education is not to narrow the minds of its students and the purpose of publishing is not to simply make people click more.
In this, the obsession with pageviews has let us all down. Pageviews do not measure the quality of a piece of content or its ability to hold and engage an audience; it’s a measure of the provocativeness of link copy. That’s it. It’s highly gameable, and by separating the metric of success (clicking on the link) from any relation to the content itself, that means the cheapest, most provocative link creator will always have the advantage.”
We have to start questioning what it is we measure. Is it eyeballs, or the relationships we have with real humans (readers)? Is that relationship one-off or does it blossom over time? Does that relationship serve your greater purpose – or just serve a metric?
Headlines should be content, not advertisements for content; the internet equivalent of a carnie caller trying to get you to “step right up, step right up and see the 10 things that will X your awesome day.”
At Circa we “atomize” news or break down news into its “atomic elements.”
At first this may sound like highfalutin nonsensical jargon. But the truth of the matter is that this is something every news organization already does very regularly and that readers are incredibly accustomed to it.
Think about the recent San Francisco International Airport crash. Take a moment to remember the story. What image comes to mind. Is it the one below?
This image was taken by David Eun, a passenger on the flight. It was shared on Path (disclosure: Path CEO Dave Morin is an investor in Circa) and then quickly went viral on various social networks. As a unit of information being shared, it was then inserted into hundreds of news articles about the crash.
Matthew Ingram wrote: “If you don’t like the chaos of breaking news you better stay off Twitter.” It is intentional, but also normal, that in this article Ingram embeds several tweets. Each of these tweets existed as individual units elsewhere. Ingram just brought them together to help tell a story and make a point.
Whether it’s the Tweets of the Boston Police Commissioner or a Facebook post from the brother of the Newtown Elementary School shooter, digital elements which exist outside of news articles are frequently brought into articles on a regular basis. No journalist should blink an eye at this statement. Your average media consumer is savvy enough to understand when an element (or unit) is brought in from another digital source to enrich a story. There are great examples of it, lame examples of it and entire companies built under the presumption that storytellers will want tools to easily create stories out of units of information that come from other platforms ie: Storify.
Other articles have been written about what we internally call “object oriented journalism.” Admittedly this has a tone of geek/jargon to it. The phrase is really one we use internally. But once we explain that tweets, instagram posts, etc., can be thought of as “objects,” it starts to come together. The photo above was an object in hundreds of stories. Any tweet can be used, recombined and reused to form other stories.
One big distinction between how this is practiced by news organizations and Circa is that we do not limit ourselves to assuming the interchangeable bits of information have to come from the “social media” world. We believe that every fact, quote, statistic, event or image is a unit of information that should be identified as a unit whether or not it first was produced by a social media platform. We have a strict sense of every paragraph being “an idea.” Moreover, we can reuse and recombine these ideas and keep track of what a reader has consumed in order to better serve them. This is how we overcome ‘news amnesia.’ It also allows the reader to stay in the mode of consuming ‘bits’ of information rather than an entire article, which is inline with how people already consume information on social media.
The flow of information already happens in bits and bites.
“If you hopped into a time machine that spat you out sometime between 1996 and now, you could almost pinpoint the year by the words used to describe an organization’s Web traffic. Hits? That would be 1998 or so. Page views? 2003-2005. Unique visitors? 2006-2007. Odds are that 2008-2009 is going to be the year of ‘time spent,’ as in, ‘an average user spends four minutes and thirty-five seconds on our site.’”
Much has changed since I wrote that for Columbia Journalism Review in April 2008. I applaud efforts that are trying to push the boundaries in what we count and how we count it. The social web has made “sharing” often called “engagement” a new and important metric.
Engagement, even if we have trouble defining how to measure it, has value either because it bolsters a bottom-line metric (that can be monetized) or because “engagement” helps advance the relationship between the publication and readers. Some in the media space say relationships formed through “engagement” are more valuable than other metrics like “clicks” (eyeballs). If you ask journalism professor and media pundit Jeff Jarvis; journalists are in the relationship business.
At Circa we’ve created a unique relationship with readers through the “follow” feature. The feature creates a unique measurement of a story’s performance and it is at the very heart of how we try to serve readers.
Our “leaderboard” has classic stats based more or less on “eyeballs” but it also includes a “follow” count. We can see how many people have “followed” a story in the last hour, the last 24 hours and how many have unfollowed (happily always our lowest number). The follow count doesn’t represent “eyeballs” to monetize with banner ads but rather relationships. Each follow is a decision by a reader to keep in touch, for us to keep track of what they know and alert them when something new happens they aren’t aware of. From an editorial perspective – that’s valuable information which allows us to serve a reader better. It also lets us know exactly how many devices will be alerted when we update a story. It’s not a theory about what we need to do to make something “engaging” – it’s a number and each number is a unique person that will get the update.
It leads to counterintuitive examples of success. With each push during the week of the Boston Marathon bombing we found a rush of readers come back to the app. But we also found that the time they spent on the app decreased after their first visit. This makes perfect sense, however, since we highlighted the new information and the readers understood that if it wasn’t highlighted – it was information they already knew and didn’t need to spend time on. If we were a publisher that had to monetize time spent, we’d be in trouble and might come up with listicles, “analysis” or other tricks to increase eyeballs and return visits. But if we are an organization that puts value in the ongoing relationship – we are in luck, because we found with every push the reader came back trusting that we would provide just the latest information and wouldn’t waste their time.
To the extent that Circa is an experiment in changing how we deliver news, it has also required us to rethink and experiment with what metrics are of value and why.
You can “meet” Circa’s editors here. Yes, behind every Circa storyline are human editors. So why don’t we attach a byline? It’s an excellent question that is asked from time to time. The absence of bylines is not oversight, but a conscious decision that merits explanation.
Who “Owns” the Story
Circa stories exist over a period of time, constantly morphing, updating and evolving. While some stories stay in the news for a day – others persist for weeks. Take the storyline on Ed Snowden who is (as of writing this) in hiding presumably in Hong Kong. This story has already been updated several times – each by a different editor. I suspect when this story comes to a natural rest (although no story is ever truly “finished”) at least half the team will have contributed to it. It’s rare for a Circa story to be “owned” by any individual editor – and the cooperative nature of Circa stories makes bylines impractical.
Aside from the impracticality of listing every hand that touches a story, there is something to be said about Circa wanting a “team effort” towards coverage. Circa is bucking the trend in the content world by going for a seemingly “objective” voice or what Jay Rosen might call a “voice from nowhere” (perhaps the subject of a later post). In short, the editorial expectations of Circa editors aren’t about pith, personality or some kind of brilliant opinion that masks as “analysis.” Our modus operandi is about being fair, thorough and precise. The absence of bylines is a constant reminder of the tone Circa wants to gravitate to.
“‘We haven’t done anything. We’ve kept the same, and everyone else has changed.’ In other words, The Economist is 160+ years old, and back then anonymity was the norm. Then the industry went on a slightly disturbing path toward writer celebrity, and we simply chose not to participate.”
Journalists are egomaniacs and protective about their own territory and their own work, and not having bylines mitigates against that somewhat. With bylines, you worry more about your own story. With no bylines, you worry more about the whole paper because your reputation depends on the reputation of the whole paper.
If each story created is like a journalist’s baby – at Circa you never know who will be taking care of it next. This is at the heart of our cooperative model. Everyone feels responsible for every story that is moving. We watch each other’s backs and make sure we’re putting forward the best each of us can because we don’t want to let our fellow editors down. Oorah!
In The Future
Is it possible we will have bylines in the future? Certainly. Nothing is off the table. But for the moment – we don’t think anything would be gained in the reading experience. We will remain transparent about who our editors are. We will continue to cite every fact in an effort to earn a reader’s trust.
Last September, Gideon Lichfield wrote a post on a new phenomenology of news he wanted to try with Quartz. The thrust of it: No more beats — Quartz would have “obsessions” that it would cover…obsessively. The reason:
“Beats aren’t so much an objective taxonomy as a convenient management tool devised for an old technology…So instead of fixed beats, we structure our newsroom around an ever-evolving collection of phenomena — the patterns, trends and seismic shifts that are shaping the world our readers live in.” [emphasis added]
The really interesting “phenomena” are called “wicked problems” which lack a single “beat” to define them. Global warming, the war on terror, gun control. These are wicked problems.
I want to pull the thread of a “phenomenology of news” from Circa’s perspective, where that last phrase, “shaping the world,” becomes important.
If the goal of the news is to make sense of the world — then we must “model” the shape of the world with our stories. I would argue many traditional tools and processes reflect the world, but don’t model it. What is this distinction, and how does Circa get there? It starts with this mantra: At Circa we don’t write articles, we create storylines.
In the 7 months since Circa launched we’ve grown by leaps and bounds. On the editorial front we brought in Nicholas Deleon as our lead technology editor and our editorial team, which spans the globe from Beijing to San Francisco, has coalesced while covering everything from Hurricane Sandy, and the government sequester to the Boston Marathon bombings.
Today Circa is excited to announce another important step in our progress. Anthony De Rosa, most recently Reuters’ Social Media Editor, is joining the team as Editor in Chief in mid-June.
At Reuters Anthony helped integrate the “ambient wire” that exists on social networks into Reuters platforms. He trained the newsroom to find leads and sources on social media and utilized live blogs to deliver a constant flow of updates on breaking news, which led to receiving Reuters “Best Storytelling Innovation” award in 2011. He was also host of Reuters TV’s “Tech Tonic” and a Reuters columnist.
In his own words about why he is joining Circa:
There’s a huge opportunity to present news in a way that’s made for mobile. Nobody is thinking about this more than Circa and I’m thrilled to help move that mission forward. Matt and David have a proven record of success and I feel like we have a shared vision for transforming the traditional article format.
I first became aware of Circa in its early incarnation as The Moby Dick project. It captured my attention because it hit on so many things I knew were wrong about the way we still continue to present and produce news. Seeing those ideas distilled into Circa was very exciting. There are many other elements of the Moby Dick project that I hope we can implement as well that continue to move us in the direction of creating the ideal presentation for news.
Circa is going to continue to push forward in the coming months. We are hard at work on version 2.0 of our iPhone app, and an Android version to be released in Q3 2013. In addition to technology – Circa is a news organization. Anthony brings the right mix of journalism know-how and tech-savvy to help the Circa editorial team continue to push the boundaries of the traditional article format. Our goal remains the same – to create the best news reading experience in a mobile setting. Anthony will be joining David Cohn, the Director of News and 11 contributing editors in mid-June.
Please join us in giving Anthony a warm welcome to the team!
In July of 2009 David Weinberger, an Internet scholar, wrote “transparency is the new objectivity.”
Compare an Encyclopedia from 1970 and Wikipedia today. The earlier work obtained authority from its “objectivity.” If you play the “how do we know this” game with the 1970 encyclopedia, everything boils down to the idea that the authors are experts and are objective in their writing. Wikipedia, on the other hand, gets authority from the transparency behind every edit. If you play the “how do we know this” game while reading any entry, you can peer into that page’s history and observe the edits to understand how the final content was produced. It is in answering the “how do we know this” question that transparency is the new objectivity.
At Circa we have an editorial policy: Every fact, quote, statistic, image or event in every story gets a citation. You can find these yourself by clicking the (i) button in any story. In stories that develop over time, which is where Circa shines, you may come across several dozen citations for one story. The reason we have a 100% citation policy is to answer the “how do we know this” question for readers. We want to be completely transparent about what we are basing our information on. “How do we know this” – just click the (i) button to find out. The look and feel of how citations work may change in the future, but that policy is at the heart of what we do.
Circa editors have used all kinds of sources. These include news articles, Tweets (especially for quotes), scanned documents or reports, primary source legislative documents, first-person blog posts and more. We don’t believe everything we read online. But if you see a link used as a citation in a Circa story – it means an editor made a decision to include something in a story based on that link and they want you to be able to answer the question “how did they know this.”
Another reason we cite so rigorously is to recognize the work of others and provide a way for readers to dive deeper into a story. No media company is an island. And linking is a form of acknowledging the bonds that tie. For many stories there is no true “owner.” Nobody had the “scoop” when the Supreme Court gave a ruling on health care. Nobody “unearths” the information when SpaceX does a shuttle launch. But if we believe a piece of reporting stands out and helped bring information to light - then we will often call out the source of information in the text. Soon we will also begin to call out “further reading” at the end of Circa stories – our recommendations for articles on the web which tackle the same topic as the Circa story you just finished.
Every unit of news is cited. We believe this isn’t just important for the reader, we believe this is different. In terms of telling a story, we keep a detailed bread crumb trail of links to empower readers to question every bit of information they consume. When you pick up a newspaper or magazine, we encourage you to play the “how do they know this” game. We believe asking this question with traditional news sources and those more like Circa will increase one’s media literacy and critical thinking. This is not to say you shouldn’t trust an organization that doesn’t cite another source available online. Our point is merely to show that the basis of that trust falls on the belief that the writer(s) are truthful and “objective” to the best of their ability. We do not ask you to make that leap of faith for Circa. We point to the citations we trust and allow you to judge for yourself.
Interesting stories deserve to be shared! That’s why we’ve spent the last few weeks completely overhauling our sharing interface. With this release sharing is easier, faster, and more powerful than ever before.
We’ve had a lot of great feedback about our sharing experience ever since the app launched. We’ve taken all of that feedback and built a completely new sharing interface. Above you’ll see what our new sharing pop-up consists of – sharing entire stories, or just specific quotes, images, etc., social sharing, iMessage/text sharing, and of course Email. The social sharing screen has also undergone a massive redesign, which you can see above and on the right. We now pre-fill the text for you so it’s easier than ever to share.
Most apps we’ve seen have very simple social sharing controls – just tap the account button and you’re done. But unfortunately making it that simple means you lose a lot of potential customization with how you’d like your privacy to be respected, or what account it gets shared from. So we decided to get away from the one-size-fits-all approach.
We were met with the challenge of creating an interface that is very simple for everyday sharers, but had powerful options hidden beneath the surface if you chose to customize more. Tapping the Facebook or Twitter icons works just as you’d expect – tap it and it activates. But should you chose to get more specific with your sharing options, just tap the gear on the far right. That will present you with network-specific controls. That means that with Facebook you’ll be able to customize the privacy of that specific shared post, and with Twitter which account you’re sharing to. In the future, as we add more networks, we’ll continue to respect the various options those networks provide their users.
It’s been a long-time coming, but we’re excited that today we’ve made our Technology news category live. For the last few weeks our Lead Technology Editor, Nicholas Deleon, has been heading up this category and cranking out technology stories within Circa to a beta group of readers. We’ve had some awesome feedback on it so far, so it’s time to make it live for everyone! There tends to be a whole lot of noise out there in the tech news world, so we wanted to provide a super simple place to get the big stories quickly. Nicholas has been doing a great job, and we’re excited to see where this category goes.
We’ve had so much amazing feedback over the last few months that while we can’t thank everyone individually right here, we can at least throw out a big THANK YOU to those that have written, tweeted, emailed, etc. We couldn’t do this without your feedback. If you’ve got any thoughts you’d like to send our way, just send it over to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Haven’t got Circa yet? Download it for free at the App Store.