Bristol Post

[Robin1988]

The difference being that we don't get paid for writing on here.

 

Chances are that the Post are employing people with hardly any experience, because it means they can pay a pittance. And I'm not convinced it's because they're cash-strapped (why would they be?), but more because there's a common misconception that 'proof-readers are ten to a penny, so we can pay them what we like). Sadly, good ones are not ten to a penny, hence all the mistakes. A lot of greedy publishers are making this error of judgement, which is why a lot of mags are going down the sh*tter.

 

On a separate note, I thought it was an odd cover. Mark Little taking a selfie with his mates was a great moment, but surely the cover should have featured more of the City players, not a bunch of randoms.

Why would regional newspapers be cash strapped. Just think about that for a second.

[Roger Red Hat]

Why would regional newspapers be cash strapped. Just think about that for a second.

He hasn't got the time to think about it, he's too busy reading the internet.

[AshtonGreat]

Why would regional newspapers be cash strapped. Just think about that for a second.

Well, they sell shedloads and they get a lot of advertising. So I don't know, you tell me

[Guest]

He hasn't got the time to think about it, he's too busy reading the internet.

 

If it's the Post he's reading online I hope he created a system restore point before navigating to their website.

[lou-peters-dive]

The proof reading at this paper is dreadful to be fair.

 

 

Always has been. Western Daily Press proof reading was bad 45 years ago.

[Guest]

Well, they sell shedloads and they get a lot of advertising. So I don't know, you tell me

 

Well, they sell naff all newspapers and as for advertising that sells for naff all.

[AshtonGreat]

Well, they sell naff all newspapers and as for advertising that sells for naff all.

 

Maybe if the proofreading was better, they might sell a few more. Then they could charge more for the advertising

[Robin1988]

Well, they sell shedloads and they get a lot of advertising. So I don't know, you tell me

Do they? Readership declining more than 10% a year, cuts across the board.

[AshtonGreat]

Do they? Readership declining more than 10% a year, cuts across the board.

That may be the case now but what about 30 years ago? The proofreading was still sh*t then

[Robin1988]

That may be the case now but what about 30 years ago? The proofreading was still sh*t then

It may well have been but this thread isn't about an article from 30 years ago.

[Roger Red Hat]

Maybe if the proofreading was better, they might sell a few more. Then they could charge more for the advertising

It's a sh1t paper, that's why they don't sell enough. The only time I've read an article in it for years is when it's linked on here.

[slartibartfast]

Far be it for me to ever praise the Evil Post, BUT...... I was pretty damn impressed with yesterdays issue, and the coverage of the game given the time constraints for writing/ publishing etc . So, well done you.

 

 

There I've said it !

[Red-Robbo]

The difference being that we don't get paid for writing on here.

Chances are that the Post are employing people with hardly any experience, because it means they can pay a pittance. And I'm not convinced it's because they're cash-strapped (why would they be?), but more because there's a common misconception that 'proof-readers are ten to a penny, so we can pay them what we like). Sadly, good ones are not ten to a penny, hence all the mistakes. A lot of greedy publishers are making this error of judgement, which is why a lot of mags are going down the sh*tter.

On a separate note, I thought it was an odd cover. Mark Little taking a selfie with his mates was a great moment, but surely the cover should have featured more of the City players, not a bunch of randoms.

No, but I doubt you could claim you've never made a mistake in your job.

Well that's what this is. Unlike most jobs though, 200,000 people might see and pick up on any minor mis-step in the Post.

I'm trying to put some context on it, which is that in the regional press jobs have been shed at such a rate that often one reporter is being required to do the work done by several in the past. Whereas an old school proof reader might have 30 minutes to look over each page of copy, subs at a regional "subbing hub" might get 3 minutes per stor: stories about areas they aren't necessarily familiar with.

I doubt whichever poor sod typed the line highlighted in the OP's post was so incompetent that he or she couldn't master basic sentence structure. It looks like a line that has been changed and a bit of the original sentence is still stuck there. Something not picked up by someone in a massive rush.

A simple mistake, in other words. Like everyone else makes from time to time....

[Guest]

No, but I doubt you could claim you've never made a mistake in your job.

Well that's what this is. Unlike most jobs though, 200,000 people might see and pick up on any minor mis-step in the Post.

I'm trying to put some context on it, which is that in the regional press jobs have been shed at such a rate that often one reporter is being required to do the work done by several in the past. Whereas an old school proof reader might have 30 minutes to look over each page of copy, subs at a regional "subbing hub" might get 3 minutes per stor: stories about areas they aren't necessarily familiar with.

I doubt whichever poor sod typed the line highlighted in the OP's post was so incompetent that he or she couldn't master basic sentence structure. It looks like a line that has been changed and a bit of the original sentence is still stuck there. Something not picked up by someone in a massive rush.

A simple mistake, in other words. Like everyone else makes from time to time....

I'm largely with you but also think you're being too simplistic and showing too much empathy.

An initial mistake is fine, what is unacceptable - not least when your business is the dissemination of information - is to not rectify the mistake. It was still online 24 hours later.

Also we are ignoring tools, particularly spell check tools, which you would imagine are a fair bit more sophisticated than Word. That said, I would still expect even MS Word to identify the errors highlighted by the OP as needing review.

I'm not picking on the particular hack or the editor, but at very least it shows the Posts' processes to be sloppy, slapdash and shows exactly why its losing readership so rapidly.

[Robin1988]

I'm largely with you but also think you're being too simplistic and showing too much empathy.

An initial mistake is fine, what is unacceptable - not least when your business is the dissemination of information - is to not rectify the mistake. It was still online 24 hours later.

Also we are ignoring tools, particularly spell check tools, which you would imagine are a fair bit more sophisticated than Word. That said, I would still expect even MS Word to identify the errors highlighted by the OP as needing review.

I'm not picking on the particular hack or the editor, but at very least it shows the Posts' processes to be sloppy, slapdash and shows exactly why its losing readership so rapidly.

If you write straight into a CMS then you might not even have a headline spell checker. It was taken down by last night, I don't think it'd been on 24 hours after that?

[Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan]

I can't view the 300 pictures they posted yesterday of our fans at Wembley for some reason? Every time I try on my iPhone or iPad it seems to crash. Can someone have a look and see if I'm in one of the photos?

[Major Isewater]

The difference being that we don't get paid for writing on here.

Chances are that the Post are employing people with hardly any experience, because it means they can pay a pittance. And I'm not convinced it's because they're cash-strapped (why would they be?), but more because there's a common misconception that 'proof-readers are ten to a penny, so we can pay them what we like). Sadly, good ones are not ten to a penny, hence all the mistakes. A lot of greedy publishers are making this error of judgement, which is why a lot of mags are going down the sh*tter.

On a separate note, I thought it was an odd cover. Mark Little taking a selfie with his mates was a great moment, but surely the cover should have featured more of the City players, not a bunch of randoms.

i

I have this image of a hall filled with Chimpanzees proof reading for the post !

[Guest]

If you write straight into a CMS then you might not even have a headline spell checker. It was taken down by last night, I don't think it'd been on 24 hours after that?

Perhaps not quite 24 hours then: I wasn't particularly zealous with timings, but certainly it was there much longer than it really ought to have been.

As for CMS (wtf?) it ties up with what I said, it shows the process, not necessarily the Individual, is flawed.

[glynriley]

I can't view the 300 pictures they posted yesterday of our fans at Wembley for some reason? Every time I try on my iPhone or iPad it seems to crash. Can someone have a look and see if I'm in one of the photos?

 

Were you the one in red?, if so, yes you are.

[Robin1988]

Perhaps not quite 24 hours then: I wasn't particularly zealous with timings, but certainly it was there much longer than it really ought to have been.

As for CMS (wtf?) it ties up with what I said, it shows the process, not necessarily the Individual, is flawed.

CMS = Content management system, but not used solely by the post, pretty much every paper's web dept will use one.

[WTFiGO!?!]

Can someone have a look and see if I'm in one of the photos?

Do your own dirty work! I'd rather spin around in circles until I'm unable to walk than experiance their website.

Final straw for me was the Colin Daniel fund and their stance on that. Are they a gas heavy company, does any one know, or is that just our largely shared perception? The R*vers bias seemed genuine to me, as it does at Radio Gas.

Always feel R*vers should have proportionate media attention in a ratio to whom actually turns up for their games (Factual figures, not distorted by dilusional gas head figures - maybe the paper is gas judging by the attention they do get).

We should, imo, get easily twice the media attention they do and in terms of the two clubs potential they should get little more than Mangotsfield. 10 years from now, I hope this will become a reality.

[Red-Robbo]

I'm largely with you but also think you're being too simplistic and showing too much empathy.

An initial mistake is fine, what is unacceptable - not least when your business is the dissemination of information - is to not rectify the mistake. It was still online 24 hours later.

Also we are ignoring tools, particularly spell check tools, which you would imagine are a fair bit more sophisticated than Word. That said, I would still expect even MS Word to identify the errors highlighted by the OP as needing review.

I'm not picking on the particular hack or the editor, but at very least it shows the Posts' processes to be sloppy, slapdash and shows exactly why its losing readership so rapidly.

Spell check wouldn't have picked up that particular garble, so I suppose it depends on how soon the paper was alerted to the error.

One of my friends works for a website that published a story including a reference to a "large hardon collider". The story had been out there in cyberspace for two years before a reader contacted them to say they probably meant "large hadron collider"!

I'm not defending the Post as a paper, incidentally. I never read it, but the evidence from this forum and elsewhere is that it's desperately poor.

[Guest]

Spell check wouldn't have picked up that particular garble, so I suppose it depends on how soon the paper was alerted to the error.

One of my friends works for a website that published a story including a reference to a "large hardon collider". The story had been out there in cyberspace for two years before a reader contacted them to say they probably meant "large hadron collider"!

I'm not defending the Post as a paper, incidentally. I never read it, but the evidence from this forum and elsewhere is that it's desperately poor.

 

Just from mere curiosity I copied the particular garble "Behind the scenes pictures showing City players celebrating there win the there dressing room." in to MS Word and spellchecker picked it up before I could even blink. Highlighted 'there' on both occassions and also the overall sentence.

 

I'm not normally a Post basher; I don't read it so I can't have an informed opinion. Whilst I am empathetic to time constraints etc I could absolutely excuse the above going out in print. Online I am a little less forgiving however just because of real time amendments. Appreciate your story about your friend - incredible typo : ) - and I can understand why that was not flagged for several years. Again an assumption but I am going to unapologetically assume that it was flagged.... This was a story, by a regional paper, about the performance of one of its regional teams, in a domestic cup competition which saw 40,000 residents travel to Wembley and many more watching on television. I'm sure someone local flagged it up to at least 50 employees there at some point. Even if not, they would have blooming well read it on here in any case.

 

Like I said I won't boot the hack, but I would expect the Post to operate a robust spellchecking system if it is necessary, I would even expect them to have software that trawls around their site looking for typos or inconsistencies. Seems the process is the problem.

[Red-Robbo]

Just from mere curiosity I copied the particular garble "Behind the scenes pictures showing City players celebrating there win the there dressing room." in to MS Word and spellchecker picked it up before I could even blink. Highlighted 'there' on both occassions and also the overall sentence.

I'm not normally a Post basher; I don't read it so I can't have an informed opinion. Whilst I am empathetic to time constraints etc I could absolutely excuse the above going out in print. Online I am a little less forgiving however just because of real time amendments. Appreciate your story about your friend - incredible typo : ) - and I can understand why that was not flagged for several years. Again an assumption but I am going to unapologetically assume that it was flagged.... This was a story, by a regional paper, about the performance of one of its regional teams, in a domestic cup competition which saw 40,000 residents travel to Wembley and many more watching on television. I'm sure someone local flagged it up to at least 50 employees there at some point. Even if not, they would have blooming well read it on here in any case.

Like I said I won't boot the hack, but I would expect the Post to operate a robust spellchecking system if it is necessary, I would even expect them to have software that trawls around their site looking for typos or inconsistencies. Seems the process is the problem.

I expect the grammar bit is switched off in whatever system they use (which won't be Microsoft based). Papers often don't write in perfect grammar, they have their own unique patterns, so they tend in my experience, to just have spelling programmes.

All in all, I'm glad it's many years since I worked for a regional paper. I'd never go back to that line of employment for all the tea in China.

[Mad Cyril]

No, but I doubt you could claim you've never made a mistake in your job.

A simple mistake, in other words. Like everyone else makes from time to time....

That is a point.

I am a consultant surgeon at Southmead hospital. If someone had a go at me for every gaff I make, I wouldn't be able to get through half the volume of open heart surgeries I do.

Crikey why has this country suddenly become all obsessed with silly standards.

[WTFiGO!?!]

That is a point.

I am a consultant surgeon at Southmead hospital. If someone had a go at me for every gaff I make, I wouldn't be able to get through half the volume of open heart surgeries I do.

Crikey why has this country suddenly become all obsessed with silly standards.

People got, ahem, a bit of a bollocking over the Bradford and Rotherham scandals. What were we talking about, again?

[Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan]

Were you the one in red?, if so, yes you are.

No, maroon. Thanks anyway Glyn.

[Peter O Hanraha-hanrahan]

Do your own dirty work! I'd rather spin around in circles until I'm unable to walk than experiance their website.

Final straw for me was the Colin Daniel fund and their stance on that. Are they a gas heavy company, does any one know, or is that just our largely shared perception? The R*vers bias seemed genuine to me, as it does at Radio Gas.

Always feel R*vers should have proportionate media attention in a ratio to whom actually turns up for their games (Factual figures, not distorted by dilusional gas head figures - maybe the paper is gas judging by the attention they do get).

We should, imo, get easily twice the media attention they do and in terms of the two clubs potential they should get little more than Mangotsfield. 10 years from now, I hope this will become a reality.

Just have a look for me this once

[Charlie The DJ]

The E.P has been getting worse over the years,gone are the days of the good old Green un. Used to get it every day and all ways start at the back page. Now they print any old crap and blow everything out of proportion. They seem to take great pleasure in hanging out to dry some of our more exuberant fans!. Stopped buying it and now starting to get pissed off with all the pop up ads on line.

Don't believe in there news