I have a slight feeling that there is a conspiracy somewhere here. This may be similar to Googlebombing, I suspect someone made a lot of money as a result.
On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Brian Butterworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > 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 > -- Sam Mbale Mpelembe Network http://www.mpelembe.net Follow me on http://twitter.com/mpelembe
