Re: Old thread, new News... Re: [backstage] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]

[Brian Butterworth]

It's quite funny, in the sense of "Caveat venditor": all the people who lost
loads of money by selling the stock in the hope that they could sell before
the buyer became aware of the business failing have lost loadsamoney.  Big
Greed=Big Loss.
For those who didn't sell, the price will recover, of course.

And for those who got "dumped on" they will make a killing.

You've got to love the Free Market!

2008/9/11 Sam Mbale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> I just stumbled across this article that explains what may have actually
> happened,
> When Algorithms Attack: How Googlebot And Tribune (And Some Idiot) Killed
> United Airlines 
> Stock
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Sam Mbale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "the hard part is getting the people who write the
>> requirements to understand why they should care"
>> I would like to think they care, it may just be the case of being caught
>> off guard.
>> I have search marketing experience and I know that these vulnerabilities
>> can be exploited
>> if you can ignore ethics. Even though Google does not condone
>> googlebombing the practice is still
>> widespread. You may recall the case of the Daily Mail columnist Julie
>> Moult 
>>  .
>> If you Google Julie Moult a site very critical of her is still NO.1. This
>> is not exactly Googlebombing,
>>  but shows how search results can be influenced by individuals.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Peter Bowyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> 2008/9/11 Christopher Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> >> I'm currently trying to ensure that my current client
>>> >> builds suitable safeguards into a similar feature they're
>>> >> proposing to deliver.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Well surely it can't take much; something like SELECT * FROM
>>> > 'active_news_articles' where 'published_date' => date(today)-90days?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > (I know that's a horrible mangling of SQL syntax, but you get the idea
>>> :P )
>>> > As far as safeguards go, it can't be that much more difficult at the
>>> > simplest level to filter out the old stories. Nobody cares whether a
>>> really
>>> > old story is popular or not... because it's old. ;)
>>>
>>> I'm sure the technical implementation will end up looking very much
>>> like that. The hard part is getting the people who write the
>>> requirements to understand why they should care
>>>
>>> Peter
>>> --
>>> Peter Bowyer
>>> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/peeebeee
>>> -
>>> 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sam Mbale
>> Mpelembe Network
>> http://www.mpelembe.net
>>
>> Follow me on http://twitter.com/mpelembe
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Sam Mbale
> Mpelembe Network
> http://www.mpelembe.net
>
> Follow me on http://twitter.com/mpelembe
>
>


-- 

Brian Butterworth

http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice,
since 2002

Re: Old thread, new News... Re: [backstage] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]

[Sam Mbale]

I just stumbled across this article that explains what may have actually
happened,
When Algorithms Attack: How Googlebot And Tribune (And Some Idiot) Killed
United Airlines
Stock



On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Sam Mbale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> "the hard part is getting the people who write the
> requirements to understand why they should care"
> I would like to think they care, it may just be the case of being caught
> off guard.
> I have search marketing experience and I know that these vulnerabilities
> can be exploited
> if you can ignore ethics. Even though Google does not condone googlebombing
> the practice is still
> widespread. You may recall the case of the Daily Mail columnist Julie
> Moult  .
> If you Google Julie Moult a site very critical of her is still NO.1. This
> is not exactly Googlebombing,
>  but shows how search results can be influenced by individuals.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Peter Bowyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 2008/9/11 Christopher Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >> I'm currently trying to ensure that my current client
>> >> builds suitable safeguards into a similar feature they're
>> >> proposing to deliver.
>> >
>> >
>> > Well surely it can't take much; something like SELECT * FROM
>> > 'active_news_articles' where 'published_date' => date(today)-90days?
>> >
>> >
>> > (I know that's a horrible mangling of SQL syntax, but you get the idea
>> :P )
>> > As far as safeguards go, it can't be that much more difficult at the
>> > simplest level to filter out the old stories. Nobody cares whether a
>> really
>> > old story is popular or not... because it's old. ;)
>>
>> I'm sure the technical implementation will end up looking very much
>> like that. The hard part is getting the people who write the
>> requirements to understand why they should care
>>
>> Peter
>> --
>> Peter Bowyer
>> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/peeebeee
>> -
>> 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Sam Mbale
> Mpelembe Network
> http://www.mpelembe.net
>
> Follow me on http://twitter.com/mpelembe
>
>


-- 
Sam Mbale
Mpelembe Network
http://www.mpelembe.net

Follow me on http://twitter.com/mpelembe

Re: Old thread, new News... Re: [backstage] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]

[Sam Mbale]

"the hard part is getting the people who write the
requirements to understand why they should care"
I would like to think they care, it may just be the case of being caught off
guard.
I have search marketing experience and I know that these vulnerabilities can
be exploited
if you can ignore ethics. Even though Google does not condone googlebombing
the practice is still
widespread. You may recall the case of the Daily Mail columnist Julie
Moult
 .
If you Google Julie Moult a site very critical of her is still NO.1. This is
not exactly Googlebombing,
 but shows how search results can be influenced by individuals.



On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:53 AM, Peter Bowyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 2008/9/11 Christopher Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> I'm currently trying to ensure that my current client
> >> builds suitable safeguards into a similar feature they're
> >> proposing to deliver.
> >
> >
> > Well surely it can't take much; something like SELECT * FROM
> > 'active_news_articles' where 'published_date' => date(today)-90days?
> >
> >
> > (I know that's a horrible mangling of SQL syntax, but you get the idea :P
> )
> > As far as safeguards go, it can't be that much more difficult at the
> > simplest level to filter out the old stories. Nobody cares whether a
> really
> > old story is popular or not... because it's old. ;)
>
> I'm sure the technical implementation will end up looking very much
> like that. The hard part is getting the people who write the
> requirements to understand why they should care
>
> Peter
> --
> Peter Bowyer
> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/peeebeee
> -
> 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
>



-- 
Sam Mbale
Mpelembe Network
http://www.mpelembe.net

Follow me on http://twitter.com/mpelembe

Re: Old thread, new News... Re: [backstage] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]

[Peter Bowyer]

2008/9/11 Christopher Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> I'm currently trying to ensure that my current client
>> builds suitable safeguards into a similar feature they're
>> proposing to deliver.
>
>
> Well surely it can't take much; something like SELECT * FROM
> 'active_news_articles' where 'published_date' => date(today)-90days?
>
>
> (I know that's a horrible mangling of SQL syntax, but you get the idea :P )
> As far as safeguards go, it can't be that much more difficult at the
> simplest level to filter out the old stories. Nobody cares whether a really
> old story is popular or not... because it's old. ;)

I'm sure the technical implementation will end up looking very much
like that. The hard part is getting the people who write the
requirements to understand why they should care

Peter
-- 
Peter Bowyer
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/peeebeee
-
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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: Old thread, new News... Re: [backstage] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]

[Sam Mbale]

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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
>>
>> -
>> 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
>>
>
>
>
> --
> .
>
> 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

Re: Old thread, new News... Re: [backstage] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]

[Brian Butterworth]

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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
>
> -
> 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
>



-- 
.

Brian Butterworth

http://www.ukfree.tv - independent digital television and switchover advice,
since 2002

RE: Old thread, new News... Re: [backstage] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]

[Christopher Woods]

> I'm currently trying to ensure that my current client 
> builds suitable safeguards into a similar feature they're 
> proposing to deliver.


Well surely it can't take much; something like SELECT * FROM
'active_news_articles' where 'published_date' => date(today)-90days?


(I know that's a horrible mangling of SQL syntax, but you get the idea :P )
As far as safeguards go, it can't be that much more difficult at the
simplest level to filter out the old stories. Nobody cares whether a really
old story is popular or not... because it's old. ;)

-
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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: Old thread, new News... Re: [backstage] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]

[Peter Bowyer]

2008/9/10 David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Who's feeling rather smug)

Me too. I'm currently trying to ensure that my current client builds
suitable safeguards into a similar feature they're proposing to
deliver.

Peter

-- 
Peter Bowyer
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/peeebeee
-
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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: Old thread, new News... Re: [backstage] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]

[Sean DALY]

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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
>
> -
> 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
>
-
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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Old thread, new News... Re: [backstage] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]

[David Greaves]

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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

-
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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]

[Sam Smith]

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Steve Jolly wrote:

David Greaves wrote:

I think someone missed the point here...

Or am I wrong?
If I explain that all the stories on the BBC news website are barely more 
than static HTML, would that explain why adding watermarks to them all would 
be difficult?  If the site was backed by some kind of new-fangled CMS then it 
would be an extremely sensible suggestion. :-)


Given how much javascript there is on the site, can't it
be done client side?

All the pages have a numerical ID which someone in the
beeb should be able to match onto years pretty easily...




Cheers
Sam

--
Pay no attention to what the critics say;
no statue has ever been erected to a critic.
- Jean Sibelius
-
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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]

[David Greaves]

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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]

[Jason Cartwright]

This is pretty interesting. A site I run exposed a "This week in..." archive
on the homepage, linking to articles that happened that week in previous
years (you can see it at http://play.tm, click "Archive" in the middle half
way down the page). A number of spiders then went nuts (including Google's)
and indexed the archived articles assuming they were new. Despite the date
being shown prominently on the articles confusion and hilarity ensued...

http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2006/12/anatomy_of_a_goof_xbox_360_sal.php

J

-- 
Jason Cartwright
Web Specialist, EMEA Marketing
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
+44(0)2070313161

On Jan 7, 2008 2:21 PM, David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I think someone missed the point here...
>
> Or am I wrong?
>
> David
>
>  Original Message 
> Subject: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]
> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 13:55:54 -
> From: NewsOnline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Thanks for your comments. We do not control who decides to email our
> pieces. Sometimes when another website mentions them, they are viewed
> again. However, we need to rely on the wisdom of our viewers to check
> the date stamp. We have over 3 million stories archived and could not
> put a "mark" on all of them.
>
> Regards
> BBC News Website
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 06 January 2008 11:45
> To: NewsOnline Errors
> Subject: Feedback [NewsWatch]
>
>
> From:   David Greaves
> Email address:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Country:UK
>
> COMMENTS: Your 'most emailed' list has:
>  Self-cert mortgages could skew market
> at number 3.
>
> It's very misleading to have this 4 year old story linked to on the
> front page of the BBC news - especially since the time of year
> corresponds.
>
> Maybe you should consider a background image, like a watermark, that
> says 'old news - check the date of this story' for stories over a
> certain age (6-months or a year).
>
> David Greaves, UK
>
> URL:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3478635.stm
> -
> 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
>

Re: [backstage] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]

[Peter Bowyer]

On 08/01/2008, Martin Belam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I used to face this kind of question when doing the analysis of search
> logs at the BBC to produce the "popular searches right now" list.
>
> Obviously I used to filter out obscenities, but, for example,
> something like 'big brother' or the 'x-factor' would generate a lot of
> searches on bbc.co.uk, but were not BBC programme - so should the BBC
> 'censor' what they were showing back to the user as user activity?
>
> 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"

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.

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.

Peter
-
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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]

[Martin Belam]

I used to face this kind of question when doing the analysis of search
logs at the BBC to produce the "popular searches right now" list.

Obviously I used to filter out obscenities, but, for example,
something like 'big brother' or the 'x-factor' would generate a lot of
searches on bbc.co.uk, but were not BBC programme - so should the BBC
'censor' what they were showing back to the user as user activity?

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"

m
-
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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]

[Matt Barber]

On Jan 7, 2008 10:02 PM, Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> David Greaves wrote:
> > Fair enough - but this is The BBC News
> >
> > So getting it right (and not misleading) should trump the mere
> impossible :)
>  >
> >
> > IIRC some time ago (months/years) there was something vaguely
> > fraudulent/misleading/prankish that was backed by an out-of-context but
> genuine
> > BBC story whose date was not obvious.
> >
> > And it still doesn't excuse the front page dynamic links being 'gamed'
> to point
> > to a years old piece. I expect 'most emailed' to be limited to stories
> from the
> > last few days.
>
> I confess that I've been surprised in the past by old links in the "most
> read" and "most emailed" lists.
>
> Interestingly, the 4th-most emailed "story" at the time of writing is:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/education/07/school_tables/primary_schools/html/212_2180.stm
>
> Which isn't a story at all...
>
> S
> -
> 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
>


Is it not based on the most emailed/read stories this day/week? I'm not sure
of the timeframe. If so, then it might be the case that an old story has
particluar relevance to a current event, and perhaps it's inclusion in the
list is more justified. It does make sense however to say that only the most
recent stories are allowed, therefore forcing the most up to date
information to users.

The question could be, do you limit content in the 'most read/emailed' list
to ensure accuracy, or allow all content to create diversity and
availability but cause possible confusion/inconsistency.
I think many will agree that the BBC news is the most professional in the
world and this is reflected in the television it produces - so should the
BBC attempt to reflect this directly in it's website with concise,
up-to-date but perhaps limited information, or use the web to increase
flexibility and availability - but with the danger that it may become too
unprofessional and vague? This is also regarding the new BETA page. Just
some thoughts to read at this early hour :)

./Matt

Re: [backstage] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]

[Steve Jolly]

David Greaves wrote:

Fair enough - but this is The BBC News

So getting it right (and not misleading) should trump the mere impossible :)

>


IIRC some time ago (months/years) there was something vaguely
fraudulent/misleading/prankish that was backed by an out-of-context but genuine
BBC story whose date was not obvious.

And it still doesn't excuse the front page dynamic links being 'gamed' to point
to a years old piece. I expect 'most emailed' to be limited to stories from the
last few days.


I confess that I've been surprised in the past by old links in the "most 
read" and "most emailed" lists.


Interestingly, the 4th-most emailed "story" at the time of writing is:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/education/07/school_tables/primary_schools/html/212_2180.stm

Which isn't a story at all...

S
-
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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

RE: [backstage] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]

[Gareth Davis]

David Greaves wrote:
[snip]
> 
> And it still doesn't excuse the front page dynamic links 
> being 'gamed' to point
> to a years old piece. I expect 'most emailed' to be limited 
> to stories from the
> last few days.
> 

Would that be the goat?

It was discussed here -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/adam_curtis/
And followed up - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6619983.stm

-- 
Gareth Davis | Production Systems Specialist
World Service Future Media, Digital Delivery - Part of BBC Global News
* http://www.bbcworldservice.com/ * 702NE Bush House, Strand, London,
WC2B 4PH
* 02 71285 (internal) * 020 7557 1285 (external) *
[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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]

[David Greaves]

Steve Jolly wrote:
> David Greaves wrote:
>> I think someone missed the point here...
>>
>> Or am I wrong?
> 
> If I explain that all the stories on the BBC news website are barely
> more than static HTML, would that explain why adding watermarks to them
> all would be difficult?  If the site was backed by some kind of
> new-fangled CMS then it would be an extremely sensible suggestion. :-)
(thank you - it was meant to be sensible)

Fair enough - but this is The BBC News

So getting it right (and not misleading) should trump the mere impossible :)

IIRC some time ago (months/years) there was something vaguely
fraudulent/misleading/prankish that was backed by an out-of-context but genuine
BBC story whose date was not obvious.

And it still doesn't excuse the front page dynamic links being 'gamed' to point
to a years old piece. I expect 'most emailed' to be limited to stories from the
last few days.

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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]

[Sean DALY]

If the HTML is fairly standardized (I see that the datestamp is both
in the metatags and in the body), it's even easier to add or change
the presentation of datestamps, just a text operation which I'd take
over a fancy CMS any day of the week. Static pages can be great for
performance, reliability, ease of backup, standards validation,
subcontracting for translation, etc. Massive changes are simplified
since they can be done on nonlive and distributed servers and
previewed offline with any browser or even errorchecked automatically.
Sed, awk, perl, python are all adapted to that task. I used a CMS a
few years ago which was quite limited (only one media file per record)
and as a kludge we generated static HTML popups with multiple media
choices as the "media file". The intranet IP addresses were hardcoded
in the HTML so we were worried when server change time came, but we
updated 16,000 static pages in under an hour with sed. As I recall,
before running the script we were concerned about intense disk
activity and there was a suggestion to do the edits in a RAMdisk, in
which case only a few minutes would have been necessary.

It's true that a light grey background with the year might be a good
idea for old content, but myself I'd sooner stick with live text, just
present it a tad larger on top and with the year on the bottom of the
page.

Sean.



On Jan 7, 2008 4:05 PM, Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Greaves wrote:
> > I think someone missed the point here...
> >
> > Or am I wrong?
>
> If I explain that all the stories on the BBC news website are barely
> more than static HTML, would that explain why adding watermarks to them
> all would be difficult?  If the site was backed by some kind of
> new-fangled CMS then it would be an extremely sensible suggestion. :-)
>
>
> S
>
> -
> 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
>
-
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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]

[Phil Wilson]

If I explain that all the stories on the BBC news website are barely 
more than static HTML, would that explain why adding watermarks to them 
all would be difficult?  If the site was backed by some kind of 
new-fangled CMS then it would be an extremely sensible suggestion. :-)


wanted: volunteer for Greasemonkey script to parse the "Last Updated:" and if year < 2007 
add "Article written before corn laws repealed!" in  tags at the top.

-
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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]

[Sean DALY]

Perhaps a better solution would be to increase the size of the header datestamp:

Last Updated: Wednesday, 11 February, 2004, 09:20 GMT



Or, to add the year to the datestamp at the end of the piece:

The Money Programme on self-cert mortgages was broadcast on BBC Two on
Wednesday 11 February at 1930 GMT.


The printable version could benefit from having the datestamp +
copyright at the top as well as the bottom.



For video media, a logo card at the beginning and embedded metadata
would do it. I worked up a little imagemagick script a while back
which built logo'd TIFF cards on the fly from Ogg Theora metadata in
the videos. Although my script prepended the cards to the front of the
videos, a more scalable solution might be to just prebuild cards by
crawling the media files, then showing them in players before handing
off to the video, the way an ad + the red globe BBC News logo are
shown before the clip itself today.


Sean.



On Jan 7, 2008 3:21 PM, David Greaves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think someone missed the point here...
>
> Or am I wrong?
>
> David
>
>  Original Message 
> Subject: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]
> Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 13:55:54 -
> From: NewsOnline <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Thanks for your comments. We do not control who decides to email our
> pieces. Sometimes when another website mentions them, they are viewed
> again. However, we need to rely on the wisdom of our viewers to check
> the date stamp. We have over 3 million stories archived and could not
> put a "mark" on all of them.
>
> Regards
> BBC News Website
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 06 January 2008 11:45
> To: NewsOnline Errors
> Subject: Feedback [NewsWatch]
>
>
> From:   David Greaves
> Email address:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Country:UK
>
> COMMENTS: Your 'most emailed' list has:
>   Self-cert mortgages could skew market
> at number 3.
>
> It's very misleading to have this 4 year old story linked to on the
> front page of the BBC news - especially since the time of year
> corresponds.
>
> Maybe you should consider a background image, like a watermark, that
> says 'old news - check the date of this story' for stories over a
> certain age (6-months or a year).
>
> David Greaves, UK
>
> URL:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3478635.stm
> -
> 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
>
-
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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/

Re: [backstage] BBC News : site feedback.... [Fwd: RE: Feedback [NewsWatch]]

[Steve Jolly]

David Greaves wrote:

I think someone missed the point here...

Or am I wrong?


If I explain that all the stories on the BBC news website are barely 
more than static HTML, would that explain why adding watermarks to them 
all would be difficult?  If the site was backed by some kind of 
new-fangled CMS then it would be an extremely sensible suggestion. :-)


S

-
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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/