Looking for honest feedback on my law news site, Law-Feed — how can we make it better?

[LegallyInclined]

Hey everyone! I recently launched Law-Feed, a law news and cases site, and I’m hoping to get some honest (and maybe brutal) feedback from the community.

Basically, I created this site to be a one-stop-shop for legal news junkies, law students, lawyers, and anyone else who likes staying on top of cases and developments in the legal world. Right now, it pulls headlines, summaries, and key points from a bunch of different sources. The goal is for you to see everything at a glance without having to dig through multiple websites or endless pages of legalese.

We want to keep it completely free to the public - to help everyone stay on top of their practice or learn about legal practice areas.

However, I’m still trying to figure out how to make Law-Feed as helpful and user-friendly as possible. That’s where I could really use your input. If you have a second, I’d love to hear:

• What do you think of the layout and overall look? Too cluttered? Too plain? Just right?
• Are the articles/summaries relevant and engaging enough? Which topics would keep you coming back?
• What additional features or tools would you love to have? For example, filters by topic, jurisdiction, or date ranges, etc.
• How would you want new cases or hot legal news delivered? Email notifications, browser extensions, or something else entirely?
• What would make you more likely to bookmark or regularly visit this kind of site?
• Any general feedback on user experience, content curation, or design? Don’t hold back!

Feel free to throw any thoughts, critiques, suggestions, or snark my way. I genuinely want to make Law-Feed better for anyone who needs an easy way to stay on top of the legal world. Thanks so much — can’t wait to hear what you think!

[BlockedQuebecois]

What is the distinguishing factor between your website and Lexology? 

[CleanHands]

One thing that is an immediate turnoff and very apparent issue is that basically every single article is accompanied by a virtually indistinguishable stock photo of people working on laptops. It doesn't look like a news aggregator, it looks like a clickbait site to push ads. It would be better to have no images at all as random stock photos of people in front of laptops that have nothing to do with the articles don't enhance anything, are actively unattractive, and make it harder rather than easier to perceive what the articles are about at a glance.

[chaboywb]

I will be brutal here.

This has all the soul of an AI-generated news aggregator. It needs an ounce of character otherwise I cannot see anybody using this. At the very least, a blurb summarizing each article might add some value (although undoubtedly these will be AI generated, so even that won't be a huge value-add). Agreed with CleanHands that a bunch of generic stock photos are a turn off. The feed feels something that would wind up in my junk folder that I would not remember signing up for and would never dream of reading.

A category like "Corporate" is far too broad to get real interest. The categories need to be much more granular to be of use to any lawyer.

You need to consider what unique value you're providing. If it's just aggregating news sources, then there are other far more popular websites that already do that and have years of algorithmic data to draw from and a vast user base.

It might be more value if you're an industry expert using judgment to decide what ends up on the site. For instance, law firms pump out a lot of garbage, and it'd be nice for someone with experience to sift through them for the most interesting articles on a given case or topic. However, that doesn't seem to be the case - your "Corporate" page has pretty much every Law360 article in their Canadian Business section. The founder of this site is a PI lawyer. If I were also a PI lawyer, I may appreciate their conscious aggregation of big developments in that world, like changes in law, major cases or notable law firm articles. I don't need to see every Law360 article on Personal Injury (each paywalled) and CanLII decision plus some additional ads sprinkled in. 

Saying you want to keep this "free", like it's a public service, strikes me as disingenuous. You're using the creative work of others to push ads, hence the large "YOUR AD HERE!" banners that you currently have on every page. You need to think about what you're giving to the user before you start trying to sell ads. You have one of the most critical user bases as your intended audience here, many of whom will be familiar with the adage "if it's free, you're the product". Even though you haven't included ads yet, I can imagine this site quickly turning into a billboard with legal headlines sprinkled in. Besides, it's not exactly free when the first article I clicked was behind a paywall, even if it's not yours. Getting to read a bunch of headlines for free is not a valuable experience. 

 I'd encourage you to take a step back and think about whether there is an issue with lawyers being able to access information that is relevant to their field. If my junk folder is any indication, the answer is "no". There are more than enough services out there that do this.

[Peculiar Frond]

What on earth is going on here?  Is the guy on the left meant to be a… reinsurance broker?  

 

[SNAILS]

You are trying to compete in a very competitive market. I would suggest first considering who your target audience is. Right now it seems to be lawyers in general in every field of speciality. If I had a nuanced question about criminal law, I would not go to your site (there are better ones out there). If I wanted to see if there is any new legislation in municipal zoning law, I would not go to your site (your site is not specialized in any geographic area; low likelihood of finding what I want). If I wanted just some easy reading over lunch, and maybe find something interesting to talk to over the watercooler with my colleagues, I would not go to your site (articles appear generic; every tab has more of less the same articles from an apparently very limited overall assortment).

My suggestion is perhaps to specialize (i.e. for law students, or for municipal lawyers, or for London/Windsor lawyers). I kind of know that's a bad idea since you have already established it as a general site.

Perhaps you can find you niche or your "brand" by deciding if this will be:

• An easy reading/interesting story type site
• A "latest news" type site (where you'd have to update frequently with new developments)
• A research site people would got o answer a legal question

We already have all kinds of magazines and research site - this is just a very hard to crack when your competitors are large organizations like LawPRO, the Criminal Lawyers Association, LExisNexis, etc.

[LegallyInclined]

On 1/3/2025 at 12:13 PM, CleanHands said:

One thing that is an immediate turnoff and very apparent issue is that basically every single article is accompanied by a virtually indistinguishable stock photo of people working on laptops. It doesn't look like a news aggregator, it looks like a clickbait site to push ads. It would be better to have no images at all as random stock photos of people in front of laptops that have nothing to do with the articles don't enhance anything, are actively unattractive, and make it harder rather than easier to perceive what the articles are about at a glance.

Thank you - I very much appreciate the feedback!

On 1/3/2025 at 1:53 PM, chaboywb said:

I will be brutal here.

This has all the soul of an AI-generated news aggregator. It needs an ounce of character otherwise I cannot see anybody using this. At the very least, a blurb summarizing each article might add some value (although undoubtedly these will be AI generated, so even that won't be a huge value-add). Agreed with CleanHands that a bunch of generic stock photos are a turn off. The feed feels something that would wind up in my junk folder that I would not remember signing up for and would never dream of reading.

A category like "Corporate" is far too broad to get real interest. The categories need to be much more granular to be of use to any lawyer.

You need to consider what unique value you're providing. If it's just aggregating news sources, then there are other far more popular websites that already do that and have years of algorithmic data to draw from and a vast user base.

It might be more value if you're an industry expert using judgment to decide what ends up on the site. For instance, law firms pump out a lot of garbage, and it'd be nice for someone with experience to sift through them for the most interesting articles on a given case or topic. However, that doesn't seem to be the case - your "Corporate" page has pretty much every Law360 article in their Canadian Business section. The founder of this site is a PI lawyer. If I were also a PI lawyer, I may appreciate their conscious aggregation of big developments in that world, like changes in law, major cases or notable law firm articles. I don't need to see every Law360 article on Personal Injury (each paywalled) and CanLII decision plus some additional ads sprinkled in. 

Saying you want to keep this "free", like it's a public service, strikes me as disingenuous. You're using the creative work of others to push ads, hence the large "YOUR AD HERE!" banners that you currently have on every page. You need to think about what you're giving to the user before you start trying to sell ads. You have one of the most critical user bases as your intended audience here, many of whom will be familiar with the adage "if it's free, you're the product". Even though you haven't included ads yet, I can imagine this site quickly turning into a billboard with legal headlines sprinkled in. Besides, it's not exactly free when the first article I clicked was behind a paywall, even if it's not yours. Getting to read a bunch of headlines for free is not a valuable experience. 

 I'd encourage you to take a step back and think about whether there is an issue with lawyers being able to access information that is relevant to their field. If my junk folder is any indication, the answer is "no". There are more than enough services out there that do this.

Thank you - I appreciate the brutal and will take all of this into consideration.

11 hours ago, SNAILS said:

You are trying to compete in a very competitive market. I would suggest first considering who your target audience is. Right now it seems to be lawyers in general in every field of speciality. If I had a nuanced question about criminal law, I would not go to your site (there are better ones out there). If I wanted to see if there is any new legislation in municipal zoning law, I would not go to your site (your site is not specialized in any geographic area; low likelihood of finding what I want). If I wanted just some easy reading over lunch, and maybe find something interesting to talk to over the watercooler with my colleagues, I would not go to your site (articles appear generic; every tab has more of less the same articles from an apparently very limited overall assortment).

My suggestion is perhaps to specialize (i.e. for law students, or for municipal lawyers, or for London/Windsor lawyers). I kind of know that's a bad idea since you have already established it as a general site.

Perhaps you can find you niche or your "brand" by deciding if this will be:

• An easy reading/interesting story type site
• A "latest news" type site (where you'd have to update frequently with new developments)
• A research site people would got o answer a legal question

We already have all kinds of magazines and research site - this is just a very hard to crack when your competitors are large organizations like LawPRO, the Criminal Lawyers Association, LExisNexis, etc.

Thank you very much - I appreciate your feedback.