41 replies to this topic

[Calorus]

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's frustrated by this, but the level of proof reading on the main Autosport.com website is atrocious. It really does let the site, the magazine and the brand down to consistently publish articles that have either spelling mistakes (including the-ir/y're/re confusions), major grammatical errors or are nonsensical.

I'd be more than happy to do the job myself, but I'll link a few articles for you to have a look at...

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/77211 - His name is Jaime.
http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/77228 - Check your pronouns.
http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/77176 - Then / Than

This isn't a selection I've hoarded, these are three of your headlines as I write this post.

Regards.

[Ross Stonefeld]

The beauty of the web is you can fix things immediately, I don't see an ideological problem in it.

[Calorus]

Whilst you can change things immediately, you don't. Those mistakes have been up for hours and I suspect many of the others I saw but was silently annoyed by are still all over your archives.

This isn't about ideologies, merely about quality and perception.

[Calorus]

And I'm pleased to see that (Danica) Patrick (a woman) is still "outperforming his team-mates".

[Ross Stonefeld]

Most people sleep during the night, unfortunately there aren't magic elves subbing the stories.

We have a Errors thread, why don't you post there since that's where the editors look for mistakes to fix.

[KWSN - DSM]

Most people sleep during the night, unfortunately there aren't magic elves subbing the stories.

We have a Errors thread, why don't you post there since that's where the editors look for mistakes to fix.

What wrong do you see in a job well done?

Why do you feel the need at no times to acknowledge someone have a valid point?

Autosport is not alone in showing falling standards in how the written word is used and presented, that does not make it any more 'acceptable' that they can not get the simple stuff right, part of editing is to edit, not just to say "ohh yeah that looks good let's run with that".

There is zero wrong in having standards, and there is something seriously wrong in a media outlet failing to see an issue in presenting lowering standards, and have the media defend this fact.

I am a stupid Dane, I am allowed the occasional slip spelling and grammer-wise, an English language media do not have the allowance.

[Ross Stonefeld]

The web is different from print. For starters you don't have hours and sometimes days to have stories checked multiple times by sub editors for spelling and grammatical nuance. The webpage of Autosport is relatively under-staffed so you'll have to cut them some slack that in the rush to make sure you get your stories on a variety of different forms of motorsport there is the inevitable typo. Mistakes which can be easily and immediately fixed and have no bearing on the accuracy of the story. It's a smalll price to pay I reckon.

You can have standards without pining for seppuku.

And as I said, if you have a complaint put it in the appropriate section of the forum so it can be dealt with.

[KWSN - DSM]

The web is different from print. For starters you don't have hours and sometimes days to have stories checked multiple times by sub editors for spelling and grammatical nuance. The webpage of Autosport is relatively under-staffed so you'll have to cut them some slack that in the rush to make sure you get your stories on a variety of different forms of motorsport there is the inevitable typo. Mistakes which can be easily and immediately fixed and have no bearing on the accuracy of the story. It's a smalll price to pay I reckon.

You can have standards without pining for seppuku.

And as I said, if you have a complaint put it in the appropriate section of the forum so it can be dealt with.

You continue to miss the point completely.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I get the point, I just don't agree with it. However you are missing my point, you're in the wrong thread if you have a complaint and would like something fixed.

[KWSN - DSM]

I get the point, I just don't agree with it. However you are missing my point, you're in the wrong thread if you have a complaint and would like something fixed.

I do not have a complaint.

I have stated my view point of the subject matter of this thread, most would understand that.

[Calorus]

I do not have a complaint.

I have stated my view point of the subject matter of this thread, most would understand that.

Not only does he have a point, it's actually totally different from mine (though I still agree with it).

Ross, I've spoken to you on and off for, well, 4 years and have been an Autosport.com reader since a long time before there was free content, and (I'm 26, remember) I have Autosport print issues with reasonable consistency dating back to 1993.

I'm not on here sniping in a dark corner for scene points or to be a nuisance. I've spent more than half of my life entwined with a brand which up until now has been eminently respected and respectable and which I am horrified and frustrated to see slipping.

"The Internet" is not an excuse to have low production standards and the fact that you can correct it instantly is not a defence. People do not read bad copy and then re-read it once corrected. Once read it's unlikely to be read again, meaning the damage to reputation or the first impression (if you'll pardon the pun) is already done -- and cannot be undone with a quick update.

[Ross Stonefeld]

If you're judging content by Jamie vs Jaime instead of the underlying theme of the article, I'm afraid I can't help you. Mistakes are not acceptable, but nor do they damn the publication to oblivion.

[KWSN - DSM]

If you're judging content by Jamie vs Jaime instead of the underlying theme of the article, I'm afraid I can't help you. Mistakes are not acceptable, but nor do they damn the publication to oblivion.

I actually do not think that you get the point after all.

[Ross Stonefeld]

You said that already, several times.

[Calorus]

Don't trivialise it - what is on the surface a two letter spelling mistake, is, when consistently applied to an article, more than enough to make what was once the de facto motorsport industry journal seem like a rag. Far less than any individual spelling mistake or low level of proof reading is the consistent failure to ensure that any articles make it to publication free of them.

I think that the website's level of journalism is still reasonably high, however if I were Haymarket I'd be asking what the website's standard of production is saying about the brand as a whole, and how it reflects on the main product, i.e. the print magazine.

There's mounting evidence to suggest that between laziness, intransigence, bloody-mindedness and lack of care for the brand what might really be overdue is a good look at the staff rota.

[KWSN - DSM]

You said that already, several times.

And you stated that you did but disagreed with it, you subsequent post show that you do in fact not get the point. Naturally meaning that your pointing out I have said it before, show that you do not get those posts either.

For some reason you are trying to make something pretty straight forward into something completely different. Most here understand what this thread is about, that you fail to see that by either willing intent, or simply through lack of understanding is the reason that a thread like this have relevance.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Thanks

[McGuire]

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's frustrated by this, but the level of proof reading on the main Autosport.com website is atrocious. It really does let the site, the magazine and the brand down to consistently publish articles that have either spelling mistakes (including the-ir/y're/re confusions), major grammatical errors or are nonsensical.

I'd be more than happy to do the job myself, but I'll link a few articles for you to have a look at...

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/77211 - His name is Jaime.
http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/77228 - Check your pronouns.
http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/77176 - Then / Than

This isn't a selection I've hoarded, these are three of your headlines as I write this post.

Regards.

You have a greater number of grammatical errors in your post.

[Calorus]

You have a greater number of grammatical errors in your post.

I'll await further complaints from my readership. But alternatively, feel free to take Ross's advice and post in a thread to do my proof reading for me. However, unlike Autosport, I do not have an international brand to protect - and generate no income with which to pay you.

I'd be intrigued to know where, though...

[Ross Stonefeld]

People come to read our content, not our sytnax.

[Calorus]

Just as a point, I'm bored arguing (or, more accurately, getting torn apart by over-zealous forum-boarder-cum-admins for having the unbridled temerity to try to draw attention towards falling standards). Basically the response here, from Haymarket's camp, is "We can't be arsed to do the job properly". Fair enough.

[Ross Stonefeld]

You would be correct if errors went unmended, but that simply isn't the case. But the Sunday papers are a bit thin so give us another lecture about brand integrity to keep me amused until the Grands Prix start.

[KWSN - DSM]

You would be correct if errors went unmended, but that simply isn't the case. But the Sunday papers are a bit thin so give us another lecture about brand integrity to keep me amused until the Grands Prix start.

He is correct, since you still do not understand or refuse to understand what is written.

http://forums.autosp...showtopic=97067

http://forums.autosp...howtopic=100432

http://forums.autosp...howtopic=103813

There are a lot of fans here who would like that Autosport tried to become closer to what Autosport once was, your stated attitude in this thread, is why a number of those posting in the above stopped paying for the magazine.

I expect a zinger as usual you are so 'good' with those. Appearance over substance the new creed.

[Ross Stonefeld]

This is the website though, not the magazine. 'One brand' but two completely seperate teams. Yes there is informational cross-over but we have our own people and very much our own style. They try to homogenise it as much as they can but in practical terms it is next to impossible give the very different mediums they use.

[Viktor]

This is the website though, not the magazine. 'One brand' but two completely seperate teams. Yes there is informational cross-over but we have our own people and very much our own style. They try to homogenise it as much as they can but in practical terms it is next to impossible give the very different mediums they use.

But we still pay for the website and can expect some professionalism in the texts. It's not a big problem for me as my English is worse then the written texts so I don't find all the errors but some times it's a little to obvious errors that should have been found after a quick check of the text before publishing it. I have not read Atlas/Autosport every day since 1996 because of the fast news but because the quality of the news and articles.

/Viktor

[SimonS]

On behalf of the autosport.com editorial team I would like to say that we appreciate all your comments on our content and try to take on board as many observations as we can. We do take our craft seriously and we try our best not to allow errors to creep in. With the constantly growing volume, breadth and pace of our content generation, they do happen. That doesn't mean they are acceptable but we try to fix them as and when they occur.

As has been suggested elsewhere in this thread, the significant coverage we strive to provide means that at times we find ourselves stretched. I'm sorry that you have been offended by the errors, and we don't like them creeping in either, and as ever we will try to be more vigilant in the future. We do care what our readers think and we do care about the quality of our work. There is a forum thread for errors and we appreciate it when we are alerted to them, so please continue to do so.

Many thanks,

Simon Strang

[lwd]

I have to agree with the original poster. It can't take that long to quickly read an article (or even the title!) through once more to check for obvious typos/spelling errors/grammatical errors. It's been pretty bad the past few weeks.

[McGuire]

I'll await further complaints from my readership. But alternatively, feel free to take Ross's advice and post in a thread to do my proof reading for me. However, unlike Autosport, I do not have an international brand to protect - and generate no income with which to pay you.

I'd be intrigued to know where, though...

How selfless of you -- more concerned with Autosport's grammar than your own.

[Calorus]

On behalf of the autosport.com editorial team I would like to say that we appreciate all your comments on our content and try to take on board as many observations as we can. We do take our craft seriously and we try our best not to allow errors to creep in. With the constantly growing volume, breadth and pace of our content generation, they do happen. That doesn't mean they are acceptable but we try to fix them as and when they occur.

As has been suggested elsewhere in this thread, the significant coverage we strive to provide means that at times we find ourselves stretched. I'm sorry that you have been offended by the errors, and we don't like them creeping in either, and as ever we will try to be more vigilant in the future. We do care what our readers think and we do care about the quality of our work. There is a forum thread for errors and we appreciate it when we are alerted to them, so please continue to do so.

Many thanks,

Simon Strang

Simon, this is the response I expected, rather than being attacked by your admins for daring to have an opinion on a publication I and many others have paid literally thousands of pounds towards over the last decade and a bit.

I understand and appreciate the range and quality of coverage you provide and am still here because it is probably still the best resource on the web. However, as many here seem to agree, reading a good piece can be easily spoilt by having to re-read passages, let alone being expected then to post amendments for the magazine.

I really think that just finding someone to read through content as it's published would make life for us as subscribers and readers all the better and allow your team of writers to be noteworthy for the strength of their content, rather than for the weakness of their English.

Many thanks.

[Zmeej]

Calorus, Mr Strang

Ross

Comforting to know that you're still a pissant, McGuire.

BTW, not sure which grammar you were habituated to, but as I read it, the OP contains one potential minor error - a missing comma before "or" - and even that is arguable.

Edited by Zmeej, 12 August 2009 - 21:05.

[slideways]

First of all I'd like to give a big to Stonefeld's behaviour. Customer feedback is not debatable.

As a paying atlasf1/autosport.com subscriber of going on a decade, all I am asking for is someone with a thorough understanding of the English language to perform one full read through of each article before it is posted online. For the Journal, that's 5 minutes. For a news story, it's 1 minute tops.

If atlasf1/autosport.com really has reached the point where they are more interested in scooping German or Finnish media by 5 minutes than providing consistant high-quality press, why should I continue paying you when I can visit their websites for free?

Please bring this up in a staff meeting.

[Pascal]

...rather than being attacked by your admins...

For the record, you haven't. No Bulletin Board Administrator/Moderator has "attacked" you in this thread.

[KWSN - DSM]

For the record, you haven't. No Bulletin Board Administrator/Moderator has "attacked" you in this thread.

Back to semantics I see.

This thread was not as difficult as the 'Bulletin Board Administrator/Moderator' (what ever they are) are making it.

Standards lowering of.

Not rocket science, no need to make it.

[Zmeej]

Pascal - No Bulletin Board Administrator/Moderator has "attacked" you in this thread.

Was thinking about pointing out that Ross isn't an admin, but I'm glad it came from a more official source.


slideways

Agree with pretty much everything you wrote, except the phrase about customer feedback not being debatable. If you check most of the threads in this forum, you'll find quite a few members of the BB debating it.

[ensign14]

Missing the point of seppuku is probably safer.

[Pascal]

Back to semantics I see.

Not at all. I'm just pointing out a basic fact in order to dispel what I perceived as a growing misunderstanding from some members, including yourself.

Ross holds no official position on this Bulletin Board, and the opinions expressed in his posts are therefore his own. Period.

If you are looking for an official reply to the criticisms raised by the original poster, it was provided by Simon Strang a few posts up. So if you wish to discuss Autosport's or Haymarket's stance on proof reading, you should refer to this post and not those of a regular member.

[KWSN - DSM]

Not at all. I'm just pointing out a basic fact in order to dispel what I perceived as a growing misunderstanding from some members, including yourself.

Ross holds no official position on this Bulletin Board, and the opinions expressed in his posts are therefore his own. Period.

If you are looking for an official reply to the criticisms raised by the original poster, it was provided by Simon Strang a few posts up. So if you wish to discuss Autosport's or Haymarket's stance on proof reading, you should refer to this post and not those of a regular member.

I stand corrected.

[jcbc3]

I stand corrected.

TeeHee. I see what you did there, you cunning bastard.

[slideways]

Not at all. I'm just pointing out a basic fact in order to dispel what I perceived as a growing misunderstanding from some members, including yourself.

Ross holds no official position on this Bulletin Board, and the opinions expressed in his posts are therefore his own. Period.

If you are looking for an official reply to the criticisms raised by the original poster, it was provided by Simon Strang a few posts up. So if you wish to discuss Autosport's or Haymarket's stance on proof reading, you should refer to this post and not those of a regular member.

Pascal, it doesn't work like that. If one of my employees wandered into my mail room and started writing argumentative personal letters in response to complaints that were submitted, it would reflect upon my business.

We don't come here to debate miscellany, we come here to submit feedback on the service we are paying for.

Ross, don't take it personally as you have valid points and are obviously trying to help.

[dank]

Jesus wept, they can't even spell their own name correctly now!

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/77638

Piquet says he has no qualms about having gone on the attack in his statement and the AUTOSOPRT interview after his dismissal from Renault.

[Pascal]

Pascal, it doesn't work like that. If one of my employees wandered into my mail room and started writing argumentative personal letters in response to complaints that were submitted, it would reflect upon my business.

Except that Ross replied as any other member could have to a message that was public, unlike the letters in your example. The same way other members are welcome to chime in and agree with the criticisms expressed, others may hold a different opinion on the issue and express it as well.

Since Ross never pretended to speak in the name of Autosport or Haymarket, I don't see how his personal opinion should in any way reflect upon his employer. You would have a point if Ross had implied that he was giving some sort of official reply to the original post, but he didn't. As far as I am concerned, this is a non-issue.

[slideways]

Ok, lets leave it at that then.