Media Websites

Lazyness of correct details

(June 2012)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
:-(
A former member
itsrobert posted:
Thinker posted:
623058 posted:

* Worse case: Carlton Second set of idents coming in to effect in 1995, alot of press site have it wrong and placed for 1994..


The TV Ark team are usually quick to respond, and will often correct alleged errors within a week.


I'm not so sure about that. I posted on here in the TV Ark thread AND used TV Ark's 'contact us' form to address several inaccuracies on the ITV News Lunch page - that was months ago and I've never heard back, nor has anything been corrected.


To be fair I have contracted TV ark about the Scottish TV pages and there have been updated petty fast so salute for that! (Some details still Need to changed) BUT Carlton was told last year and well it's still wrong.

This is what I'm hopping a proper debate and trying to fix what's wrong.
Last edited by A former member on 30 June 2012 3:54pm
:-(
A former member
rob posted:
Thinker posted:
623058 posted:

* Worse case: Carlton Second set of idents coming in to effect in 1995, alot of press site have it wrong and placed for 1994..


There are many such errors floating around the pres sites, usually originating from guesswork that someone did at some point. Even TV Ark has some dates and factual statements that are definitely wrong, and many that are questionable.

Its not the end of the world, but means the community's perception of when a particular ident package was introduced can be off by a few years.

The TV Ark team are usually quick to respond, and will often correct alleged errors within a week.


I welcome any corrections people have to give, if you e-mail my site, I'll respond as quickly as I can.


I can concur this is correct, but of course it shall take people few days to make minor changes to many pages, ( to fair Another nice email will be sent soon aswell Embarassed Embarassed ) Hopeful Carlton will get sorted

Thread titles has been change to better reflect the issues and maybe STIR UP some passion!!
BR
Brekkie
The irony of it all - you really can't be complaining about inaccuracies on other peoples parts when your posts moaning about such things is full of errors.
PC
Paul Clark
Brekkie posted:
The irony of it all - you really can't be complaining about inaccuracies on other peoples parts when your posts moaning about such things is full of errors.

I think it depends - which errors would you be referring to?
:-(
A former member
Paul Clark posted:
Brekkie posted:
The irony of it all - you really can't be complaining about inaccuracies on other peoples parts when your posts moaning about such things is full of errors.

I think it depends - which errors would you be referring to?


I think he's unhappy about the grammar errors while, my posts are about the errors in Facts, Cool
PC
Paul Clark
This is solely dealing with the facts, and I think it's fair to say that accuracy of information is more important than correcting obvious / minor typos, provided they do not affect the facts.

On the other hand, articulate and well written information that is wrong can be dangerous; if it reads like a reliable source to a researcher, it may be picked up by others, spread around, and eventually become popular belief.

The problem can be in finding a primary source of the facts - the errors can creep in when second-hand, completely innocently. It goes without saying that this doesn't just apply to the internet; articles in magazines have got things muddled when writing up pieces and not directly quoting sources. It's a minefield.
:-(
A former member
Here more proof about Carlton:

Clip from: Friday 6th January 1995: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViHFGVpFaIc

Same tie and suit, and same date and news story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixBQFI80hw4&feature=plcp
which is all linked in to this story: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/parkhurst-worse-than-ira-escape--tumim-1567288.html
ET
ETP1 Forever
623058 posted:
I'm not trying to bad month anyone, or put-down the great process and sites which have been created BUT I believe we are reaching a turning point were something needs to give; When it comes to the bread and butter issues of presentation of television, it seems to be lacking "Correct" FACT and lacking in certain Pic & clip etc which would fill up alot of the gaps:

Im at that age where i'am in-between, Classic way of Pres trade, IE Video tapes , lists and swapping around and this new boom in Online or doing things. Neither I have very good ideas about. Im still not sure how anyone goes about doing the first. To be fair the Youtube has been part of the saveloy of TV pres, as alot of missing gaps have been filled in thanks to creations but it does not go far enough.

What really annoy me is the complete incorrect details and knowledge floating about, to name a few:

* Scottish second thistle ident, come in Jan 1989, but for unknown reason was believe to come into use in Jan 90, yet no one question the fact STV was using said ident for the ITV corp ident, and why on earth there would paid for the creation to be first used on the ITV thing.
* Grampain Black ident, first used in Jan 1980 as still and April 85 with moving, but again was believe to much later.
* Worse case: Carlton Second set of idents coming in to effect in 1995, alot of press site have it wrong and placed for 1994.
* I bet alot of people never know Channel 4 did Invison= CA during the mid 1990s?

Plenty more still needing to be sorted. I dont want to put anyone down, but I believe a GOOD KICK up the backside is needed to keep people on there toes and to make sure nothing becomes stagnate, which can not be good for any one involved.

Im was surprised that no one took a real interest in trying to create a list of Clips/pres yet to appear on the net, it could have been start of a good appeal and made alot of people aware what is missing, you never know someone might have seen it said I have that and then uploaded it, thus given more people the pleasure.


Everyone needs a hobby I suppose.
TH
Thinker
rob posted:

I welcome any corrections people have to give, if you e-mail my site, I'll respond as quickly as I can.


A quick look around your site suggests you've somewhat followed conventional wisdom, mirroring the likes of TV Ark, meaning an error there would be repeated on your site. Is that assumption correct? One common such error would be the 1998 Sky One idents (the live action "brimful" ones) which were introduced in May 1998, although many sites say they were introduced in August.

As I said in an earlier post, I think it would be helpful if dates and other information where tagged with sources, so that the reader can understand where the author got his information from and whether he is trustworthy. If a page says a particular ident was introduced in 1972, the reader can't know if that is simply conventional wisdom, or something that can be sourced.

Ben posted:
Personally I believe if you aren't sure enough of a date (and this applies to YouTube and other sites too) then you should at the very least mark it as a guess, something like C. 2012 does the job.


I fully agree with that, although I would like to see the "c." used more often, following the "better safe than sorry" rule. There are a few pages where videos have dates from before the channel even launched, suggesting there are other such mistakes that aren't as easy to spot.

(I really hope I'm not coming off as too critical, I think both TV Ark and TV Live are great and useful sites, and I admire the work you do.)
:-(
A former member
Quote:


As I said in an earlier post, I think it would be helpful if dates and other information where tagged with sources, so that the reader can understand where the author got his information from and whether he is trustworthy. If a page says a particular ident was introduced in 1972, the reader can't know if that is simply conventional wisdom, or something that can be sourced.

Ben posted:
Personally I believe if you aren't sure enough of a date (and this applies to YouTube and other sites too) then you should at the very least mark it as a guess, something like C. 2012 does the job.


I fully agree with that, although I would like to see the "c." used more often, following the "better safe than sorry" rule. There are a few pages where videos have dates from before the channel even launched, suggesting there are other such mistakes that aren't as easy to spot.

(I really hope I'm not coming off as too critical, I think both TV Ark and TV Live are great and useful sites, and I admire the work you do.)


I don't think you are being to critical. I believe you are in the same mind as me where we both want to make sure such great site stay great and not fill with incorrect fact thus making site somewhat well not good. I do hate the fact the tv ark are the bench mark Confused
Last edited by A former member on 3 July 2012 4:20pm - 2 times in total
:-(
A former member
It seems part of the problem come form users tapes. I believe a lot of uploads are dealt by a single person who is one putting what been said etc.

Why the main people for page are not doing clean sweep to make sure evening is top notch is anyone's guess.

I do know that the following websites have mistakes and howlers.

* Grampian studies
* Unlimited lwt
* t v a archive
* UK gameshows
* many others

All wonderful and great sites, but said owners still believe we're bad mouthing said site, why can't there see what's more important- having proper and correct facts.
Last edited by A former member on 3 July 2012 4:37pm
TV
TVArchive Founding member
623058 posted:
I do know that the following websites have mistakes and howlers.

* Grampian studies
* Unlimited lwt
* t v a archive
* UK gameshows
* many others

All wonderful and great sites, but said owners still believe we're bad mouthing said site, why can't there see what's more important- having proper and correct facts.

I don't believe you're bad mouthing per se. After our correspondance in 2010 on this forum, pages were updated to reflect your in-depth research. Without any further correspondance, I can only assume that you have no further quarms with the information presented on the site. So to be frank, I'm not entirely sure why you've chosen to name sites which you've helped in the past?

Newer posts