I use Google News often and this happens all the time. PR Newswire is particularly vulnerable, as they don't add the year to their datelines. Here's one in the top ten search results for two big companies:
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=126607 No year! Note that the copyright notice at the bottom says 2008. One could be forgiven for assuming this happened two months ago and not five years and two months ago. Imagine pulling out one of these with today's date. To make matters worse, PR Newswire helpfully provides Technorati, blog submission buttons &c, so anyone can breathlessly announce old news as if it were new news. Half a dozen blog links later, the markets pick it up and we're off to the races. At Internet speed, it is absolutely vital that datelines be complete with the year... On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 10:48 PM, David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Remember this old thread... (see below) > > Now, in the context of "What could *possibly* go wrong...." look at this: > > Google News farce triggers Wall Street sell-off > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/10/online_news_farce_drops_united_stock/ > > Note the bit at the end: > > Update > > The Tribune Company has now said that traffic to the Sun-Sentinel's archive > pushed the old bankruptcy article onto the "most viewed" section of the > paper's > web site. > > > David > (Who's feeling rather smug) > > > > David Greaves wrote: >> Peter Bowyer wrote: >>> On 08/01/2008, Martin Belam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> Personally I would rather the most read/most emailed reflected exactly >>>> what the user was doing, and wasn't "most emailed stories from the >>>> last 7 days excluding the also in the news section because we are the >>>> BBC and we want our readers to look very serious all the time" >> Not on the front page. >> >> IMHO The front page of the BBC news should not have 4 year old stories >> appearing >> on it 'by mistake'. >> >> In the entertainment section, see also section etc etc then yes. The front >> page >> should be current. If it *is* now current for some bizzare reason then >> re-report it. >> >>> That misses the point - a casual reader (and even some regular >>> readers) can be misled by those links pointing to old news. The 'Most >>> Emailed' links are presented under a headline 'Most Popular Stories >>> Now', and next to a section 'Around the world now' (on the page I'm >>> looking at) which implies that the stories are current. >> >> Indeed. >> >> It was only last week I realised that 'Most Popular Stories Now' was a link >> and >> wasn't actually a section title!!! >> >>> It's a fine objective to show real data (although dubious when it >>> reflects 'gaming'), but it must be clear to the reader what the >>> context is of what you're showing. >> >> And I note that the 'See Also' stories in the sidebar *are* date stamped. >> So is it a technology problem? (I could accept that See Also are edited into >> the >> story manually and the dates are re-keyed) >> >> >> David >> - >> Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please >> visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. >> Unofficial list archive: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please > visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. > Unofficial list archive: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
