I just about spit out my coffee Sunday morning when I read that you are going to start charging for access to the online version of The Sun. The Sun website is the worst website I have ever tried to use.
Have you ever looked at the Washington Post or the New York Times websites to see how it's done? You couldn't have or yours wouldn't be the way it is.
It is very difficult to find any article when one clicks on "Print Edition." Unless it is an article that is also available online, it is virtually impossible.
Even if I type in the exact headline of an article it does not show up. It also seems that if an article comes from Tribune syndication, your website acts as if it didn't exist.
I only use the website when I want to e-mail an article to a friend or post it on Facebook, and each time it is an exercise in extreme frustration. I have found that the only solution is to Google the headline or the author's name; then I can find it with no trouble.
I have a life-long love of newspapers, and I subscribe to yours because I live here now. I also subscribe to The Washington Post and The New York Times. I will never just read a paper online —- it is not at all satisfying and one misses so much by not being able to peruse everything that is in a printed edition.
But the Post and New York Times websites are easily navigable, and you can find the things that you'd like to refer back to or send out.
While I understand that newspapers are struggling and that a fee for online access may be necessary, the real kicker here is that you have the nerve to charge your print subscribers.
As a New York Times subscriber, I get free access to the paper's website. And when The Washington Post decides to charge for its online version, I assume I'll get free access to its site as well. Why would you risk alienating your subscribers?
Please, if you're going to charge a fee for access to the online version of The Sun, then use the revenue to develop a better website.
Georgia Walsworth, Baltimore