Customer Reviews for

The Washington Post

Average Rating 3.5
( 274 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star

(71)

4 Star

(62)

3 Star

(61)

2 Star

(35)

1 Star

(45)

Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Noble.com Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & Noble.com that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & Noble.com does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at BN.com or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation

Reminder:

  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & Noble.com and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Noble.com Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & Noble.com reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & Noble.com also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on BN.com. It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

 
Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously

Most Helpful Favorable Review

29 out of 30 people found this review helpful.

Washington Post on the Nook

Even though one of the reasons I decided to buy the Nook was the possibility of moving my home delivery subscription to the WP to an electronic format, I then hesitated when I read the top reader reviews, which were mostly negative (and, of course, this review is really...
Even though one of the reasons I decided to buy the Nook was the possibility of moving my home delivery subscription to the WP to an electronic format, I then hesitated when I read the top reader reviews, which were mostly negative (and, of course, this review is really not about the Washington Post *per se,* which is one of the great national newspapers, in spite of the deterioration in the quality of its editorial pages since Fred Hiatt took over - it's about the experience of getting the WP on the Nook). After two weeks of getting the Post every day on the Nook, I can only say that I have not had any of the problems that were cited in the January reviews. It has been available each day but one when I first turned on the Nook - with a notice in the "My Daily" page that my periodical has arrived. On the day that it was not there, I simply went to My Library and tapped "Check for new B&N content," and I had the edition a few moments later. One has to get used to the navigation, but it's straightforward enough: each section gives you short summaries of the articles within, and you can select any article, or just go to the end of the summary pages and dive in, article by article. It is not hard to move to the front page or to any of that day's sections. Only the current day's edition is visible, but you can go to earlier days by selecting them in the menu. I understand that only ten days are kept on the server, unless you archive an edition - which you can easily do either on the Nook or in your online account. If you wish, you can manually archive your copies by plugging in your Nook and copying the WP files to your own backup spot.

The edition on the Nook is not identical to the paper edition. Visuals (photos, graphics, etc.) are not as easy to see. The Nook edition does not have the letters to the editor, the comics, or the classifieds (and no advertising, of course). I haven't compared the content systematically with the paper edition, but it seems that most everything else is there.

I recommend the Nook subscription service to the Washington Post. It has worked very well, so far, for me.

posted by katari on April 11, 2010

Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review

Most Helpful Critical Review

17 out of 17 people found this review helpful.

Reluctantly Cancelled My Subscription

While I like the newspaper itself, the electronic version seems to have been relegated to a failed experiment that is not worthy of the attention of the paid staff; rather it seems that the (intern?) responsible for preparing the paper's content for electronic publicati...
While I like the newspaper itself, the electronic version seems to have been relegated to a failed experiment that is not worthy of the attention of the paid staff; rather it seems that the (intern?) responsible for preparing the paper's content for electronic publication is too lazy to order the content based on newsworthiness and has chosen instead to allow his word processor to arrange the articles alphabetically. The paper opens on the Letters to the Editor section. I barely have time to read the "important" stuff and now I have to try to guess where it might be stashed (perhaps in the "asection" as it is listed in the contents? "business"? or way at the bottom of the list in "world"?). The section titles as listed in the contents aren't capitalized, aren't presented in title case text, or even written using elemtary school level English. The A Section is listed as I have shown it, above: "asection", without spaces. It almost looks as if a high school sophmore prepared it via text message: omg, u r gonna luv it! I believe that something valuable is worth paying for; in this spirit I subcribed to the electronic edition in addition to my home delivery so that I can get my "hometown" newspaper when I travel and, in so doing, support a medium that I believe is important. Unfortunately, the publisher of the electronic version of the Post does not believe that the complementary rule holds true: that people who pay for a service should get what they pay for. My inquiry to the newspaper went unanswered (unless you count the automated response that my inquiry had been received). It is with true reluctance that I am about to cancel my subscription to the electronic edition of the Washington Post. I will view the limited content available on-line when I travel, and by so doing contribute to the demise of the printed news industry.

posted by rrbegin on December 24, 2010

Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
Sort by: Showing 1 – 20 of 35 review with 2 star rating   See All Ratings
Page 1 of 2
  • Anonymous

    Posted June 28, 2013

    Poor delivery and presentation

    The format is barely acceptable. I wouldn't be surprised if a couple of interns are piecing it together each morning. Some issues don't arrive until 6AM - about the same time the print version is home delivered. Graphics and charts are almost non-existent. I haven't explored this but it might be more convenient to just access the articles on the Post website.

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted January 7, 2012

    the digital format

    I could not continue reading this newspaper because the digital format is horrible. If that doesnt bother you, its a great newspaper so try it out.

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.

    Was this review helpful? Yes  No   Report this review
  • Anonymous

    Posted June 21, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted October 29, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted June 4, 2011

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted January 12, 2012

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted October 21, 2012

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted June 2, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted January 24, 2013

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted April 28, 2012

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted February 28, 2011

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted February 19, 2012

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted February 20, 2012

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted January 8, 2012

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted May 2, 2011

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted September 16, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted August 6, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted August 1, 2010

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted January 6, 2013

    No text was provided for this review.

  • Anonymous

    Posted January 4, 2012

    No text was provided for this review.

Sort by: Showing 1 – 20 of 35 review with 2 star rating   See All Ratings
Page 1 of 2