Typical of our Yankee cousins, not only do they write their dates the wrong way round, but their history is so shallow they can't remember something they've read before. Poor dears. No sense of history, or indeed chronology. Note to americans: If you want to put the year on something, but don't want people to notice it, do as Auntie does and use Roman Numerals.
2008/9/10 David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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]/ > -- . Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice, since 2002
