They&#x27;re content is unmatched  (except arguably by one of the three I mentioned above), I was just talking about design.<p>As a user, I don&#x27;t find the innovations very useful and the design functions poorly. For example:<p>1) Most of their content is hard to discover; the front page must have 100 links to stories, some old and some new, and much more is buried elsewhere - if I wanted to see every story of interest to me, I&#x27;m not sure if or how I could do that starting from the home page. I also read it via RSS and it&#x27;s a whole different news source, with far more coverage. People reading on the web miss a lot.<p>2) Updates to news stories: If a story has been updated, how do you know? You have to look around the home page for the words &#x27;updated xx:yy&#x27; - not really a great method of notification. And if I click the updated story there is no way find out what&#x27;s changed without reading the whole story again, looking for things that don&#x27;t seem familiar.<p>3) Their inability to integrate multimedia in story-telling: A movie review never says, &#x27;watch the clip below; see how the colors ...&#x27; &lt;video&gt; &#x27;also note how the actors ...&#x27;. They have images and video, but they are decorations stapled onto the real story in text and not an integral part of it - or even a more dramatic example, the videos with hard news are completely segregated from the text story. They still are a news<i>paper</i>, stuck in the limitations of the old medium where text was the only realistic option, with a few images added on.<p>Note that bloggers handle many of these issues efficiently. The NYT is still a news<i>paper</i> on the web.