More cuts at USA Today?

Don't confuse USAT print with online. The print product is much, much better than it was 3 years ago.

 

Seconded. Website is horribly designed if you're looking for the top-end content. But what goes into the paper is actually pretty darned good.

 

Yeah, the website sucks.
And it doesn't load properly on iPad.

 

Effin' hyperactive. Page won't sit still. Stuff popping up from the left, from the bottom, wherever. Makes me afraid to click on anything, lest the whole house o' cards goes down or I end up three pages removed from what I wanted to see in the first place. Calm your ass down. You're a Web page. Everyone has one.

 

Just followed w/ 5 accounts I control. Good luck.

As for the other points -- it takes the most rudimentary of observers to discover how many fake followers someone has. A program like Manageflitter.com is great at it...but really, you can just sort by post time -- spam accounts tend to all post at the same time.

But buying fake accounts on Twitter leads to you getting a huge boost on Google relevence, so your profile can go up legitimately in the eyes of Google by buying non-legitimate followers. So in essence, it's worth it.

Here's more on that:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0601-lotan-buying-followers-20140601-story.html

 

Let's be clear: USA Today sports is better than it's been in some time in terms of content.

 

Why? They had mass layoffs a few years ago. If I remember right, they laid off about 100 people the same week they gave the outgoing CEO like a $30-$40 million buyout.

 

Still shedding what they might consider disproportionate salaries. One of the people who got dumped was a crucial support staffer - who had been there since I left in 1991. God knows what she was making, and she earned every penny, but they can make a new hire a half (or way less) the price. There's simply no "loyalty metric," or I might still be there.

 

The layoffs or buyouts a couple years ago were all part of restructuring. That's a lot different than cutting salary to save money.

 

Uh, yeah, if you say so.

There was minimal "restructuring" done.

 

I'm hoping this is sarcastic.

 

Did you see how many people were hired? They weren't exactly cheap hires either.