Thursday, November 04, 2004

On letters and credibility

Minor correction and clarification: election letters page is still online, your correspondent is a moron. However, it's still true that once they scroll off that page, they can only be found by keyword search.

Added Nov.15, incorrect statement regarding availability of election letters 'by date':
from editor's Sept 4 column New election letters policy launched:
All election letters - including those that appear in print - will be found online easily online, either by date or through a word search.

Here's what happened to JD's missing "oust publisher" letter to the editor (JD email:"They deny deep sixing it...I checked every day and never saw it."...[RS]:"even though your letter calling on him to be fired had been published on The Union's web site Dec. 2"):

It got published online on Oct 2, and is available here.

But guess what? It wasn't published in the newspaper. It was only published online, since it's an Election Letter.

JD probably thought his letter was about firing the publisher; it mentioned no candidates. But no, since he used the word "elections" ("gross attempts to dictate the winners in supervisorial elections are just the latest in this pseudo-journalist’s demagoguery.") it is an election letter.

So the letter presumably got published on the [no longer extant] "Election letters" page of The Union's website, from whence the letters would scroll off the page and into invisibility after a couple of days (as described here). At this point, no, you cannot find them by browsing, or by using the Archives' "Search for a specific date" (other letters will show up, but not yours) - no, you have to "Search by Keyword". Yes, the same "Search by Keyword" that's silently defective in finding older articles.

Informing the readers is a priority. But which priority is it?

It certainly didn't help The Union get good PR.
at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Welcome, and thanks for caring enough to donate your time and thoughts toward greater collective wisdom...

Terms of engagement:
* Please be civil.
* * * * Please do not post anonymously * * * (I'd remove this choice if I could, and I may remove your comment if you do) - instead, do this:
Click on the 'Name/URL' radiobutton, then enter your real name (if you're brave) or a pseudonym (if you're not). (You can leave the "URL" field blank.)
Or go ahead and click "Anonymous", but put your name in your comment.

* The Management reserves the right to delete comments (Moderation Certificate can be found here). You can always post it on a blog of your own.

If you run into technical difficulties, please a) accept my apologies, then b) email your comment to aherror2011 at gmail.com with "Comment for [name of this blog]" in the Subject line.

New policy re climate contrarianism comments as of 11/11/2009:
Comments questioning the climate science community's understanding of climate change (97% of active climatologists now believe that the earth is currently warming and that it's human-caused - link) will be deleted unless the commenter:
a) is local
b) uses his real name
c) provides link(s) to substantiate his claim(s)/inference(s)
d) is willing to collaborate on constructing an argument tree, to get us past the usual sterile point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint.
(For people who can't read the above, a summary:
1) Be civil;
2) Don't post w/o giving at least a pseudonym;
3) Don't espouse climate-denial crankery unless you're local and willing to stand behind it.)

Caveats:
1. Comments could be delayed: they are being moderated, and I'm sometimes away from the computer for a day or more.
2. : Perfectly legitimate comments are sometimes miscategorized (by the blogging platform) as spam, & not published. If this happens to yours, please notify me, else I might not notice for a day or two.