Some text from the report of Doncaster game on OWS: "City started brightly and came within inches of taking an early lead when Sone Alukoâs was deflected just went past the wrong side of the post with Rovers keeper Gary Woods well beaten." "Cairney stepped up to take the spot kick but was unlucky to see his well struck off rebound off the underside of the bar." "Sandwiched inbetween those changes was a fine reflex save from Amos, who reacted well to tip a deflected cross over the bar when it appeared to heading for the back of the net." Why don't they get somebody who actually reviews their own work if they are not willing to use a second person to review content before uploading? The website, as well as all of the usability problems, doesn't seem to be able to know whether there's enough space to display all the content. After the shambles of the BBC Sport website it appears that the monkeys have taken over everywhere.
ahhhhhh ill move a bit off topic .... BBC sport , i cant bare that clunk hole anymore . I also despise the hardwork i have to put in to find out the days schedule , the worst thing about bbc sport now is the complete reduction in text updates , it all congealed into a twitter type feed . If i click on what i hope is news on tennis ,im usually staring a full screen video stream when all i really want is a brief summary of whats happening. i dont have all day
Isn't this instant text from someone at the game? Give them a break, their probably doing the stats and making notes for their match report at the same time. Hardly worth employing another person to proof read for the sake of a few wingers, it's not like you can't understand what he's saying anyway.
If they're doing it for free, I'll give them a break. It's absolutely worth employing another person. I've said this time and time again when it comes to any sort of spelling and grammar in general - it's not about whether you can understand what they mean or not, it's about presentation and appearing as though you have more than one brain cell. Having said that, if they had two, they'd probably rub together and start a fire.
The fact that you are saying this demonstrates that you literally have no idea what is going on behind the scenes at the club.
Being pre-season may have had something to do with it, they may have sent only one person, the reserve person or the work experience boy!
My whole comment was essentially aimed at all poor publications, that so many companies/organisations seem to fail to install a competent editor to correct simple mistakes, and the fact that I'm currently out of work in journalism and was a better writer/speller than them at the age of 8 makes it only triply frustrating. So please, don't talk like some higher power looking down upon the rest of us mere mortals.
You literally couldnt have missed my point more if you tried. I was highlighting the futility of your comment 'It's absolutely worth employing another person' when the club has made dozens redundant in the process slimming down every single aspect of the back-office function, including communications and media, to a level where they are literally unable to do their jobs to what they would consider a sufficient standard. Do you not think the media team agree with you and would like to go back to the numbers employed in the Premier League days?
This is currently in an article on the BBC website 'And excitement is growing ahead of Tour de France Bradley Wiggins's appearance in the cycling time trials.' I feel for you looking for work in journalism whilst people who write this crap have jobs at the BBC!
My point had nothing to with the current situation at City, I'm looking at the bigger picture in terms of the standards of Journalism and writing in general. In fact we're not even opposing each other's points, we're talking about two totally separate things. As it happens I agree with you, but it doesn't stop me wishing they'd sort it out, even if they aren't going to.
If they don't want to pay somebody else to review work I don't think it's too much to expect somebody to read through their own work before publishing. Do we really want to support the idea that it's acceptable to write rubbish?
I was wanting to look at the Olympic football league tables but it was difficult to find anything about football in the Olympic part of the site. All videos and nonsense and it was very difficult to find fixtures, tables and match reports.
I don't know if you actually found them eventually, but just in case you (or anyone else) didn't: http://london2012.bbc.co.uk/football/event/men/index.html
How is saying 'It's absolutely worth employing another person' also 'nothing to do with the current situation at City'? I'm really confused.
I'm saying that we clearly need to hire someone if the standards are that low. You're saying we won't because of all the redundancies etc. Those two points don't oppose each other, in fact, they go hand in hand. Essentially, they SHOULD, because it's ****, but they WON'T because of what you've said. I really don't know how much simpler I can put it.
