Whackos Running Cyclingnews?

Why is it that the editors of Cyclingnews don't seem able to actually edit?

Spelling and misused words and completely incorrect sentences are quite
common. And most of them have to be pretty bad if I notice them since I am
attuned to Internet-ese and tend to overlook spelling, punctuation, and
structural errors because they're so common on the groups.

But just read this:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features....ulich_nov19_08

Bobby Julich is certainly someone whose point of view will be of interest.
So how is it that there are so many errors in his article? Can Cyclingnews
really believe that they can publish an author's submission without
editorial inspection? Or is it that the editorial staff don't know how to
write?

"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in message
m...
Why is it that the editors of Cyclingnews don't seem able to actually
edit?

Spelling and misused words and completely incorrect sentences are quite
common. And most of them have to be pretty bad if I notice them since I am
attuned to Internet-ese and tend to overlook spelling, punctuation, and
structural errors because they're so common on the groups.

But just read this:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features....ulich_nov19_08

Bobby Julich is certainly someone whose point of view will be of interest.
So how is it that there are so many errors in his article? Can Cyclingnews
really believe that they can publish an author's submission without
editorial inspection? Or is it that the editorial staff don't know how to
write?

Jeff once told me they don't have the time or cash to proofread since they
used to work with a fraction of what they need for operating costs. They do
it once over, that's it, but that was years ago. Today, since the new
acquisition, their parent company should have the funds to hire extra staff
and possibly edit and proofread those articles, but I still saw a lot of
mistakes since that time. They probably assume as long as we can understand
what's being said, then there won't be a lot of fuss over that, but I think
probably the most grievous errors are when the wrong names of riders are
placed under photos. Luckily you don't see a lot of that. They don't sweat
the small stuff, but you should bring the big errors to their attention. I
guess as a sort of down and dirty warehouse of information, that stuff is
acceptable by the Freddy viewership out there. I am sure if they got a huge
amount of complaints, they would do better, but it boils down to if you want
more news, or less news with better editing. You choose. As a truly
worldwide robust cycling news site, I would also expect their news to be in
French, Italian, Spanish, and Dutch, which would really be asking a lot.
Then they truly might become the center of cycling!



Robert

"Robert" wrote in message
...


Jeff once told me they don't have the time or cash to proofread since they
used to work with a fraction of what they need for operating costs. They
do it once over, that's it, but that was years ago.

When Jeff was working on that stuff it was reasonably accurate. Now on many
articles it is so bad that it makes the writer (in this case Julich) look
stupid when they are not.

Bobby made a point in saying that he wasn't a writer. While that's true he
obviously is someone with judgment and my guess is that he will improve his
writing considerably over time. And since he's a great insider, I think that
he will have a lot of good stuff to write.

But that doesn't forgive the idiot editorial staff at Cyclingnews.com.

Tom Kunich wrote:
When Jeff was working on that stuff it was reasonably accurate.

Only because I proofread it (after publication). Jeff must have really
hated my incessant and nagging emails with small corrections. Mostly
spelling errors in Zoetemelk and some details in 1988 Giro results.

"Ted van de Weteringe" wrote in message
...
Tom Kunich wrote:
When Jeff was working on that stuff it was reasonably accurate.

Only because I proofread it (after publication). Jeff must have really
hated my incessant and nagging emails with small corrections. Mostly
spelling errors in Zoetemelk and some details in 1988 Giro results.

You mean to tell us that you can be a pain in the butt when you want to be?
Who would have ever guessed?

On Nov 19, 11:41*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
Why is it that the editors of Cyclingnews don't seem able to actually edit?

Spelling and misused words and completely incorrect sentences are quite
common. And most of them have to be pretty bad if I notice them since I am
attuned to Internet-ese and tend to overlook spelling, punctuation, and
structural errors because they're so common on the groups.

But just read this:http://www.cyclingnews.com/features....8/bobbyjulich_...

Bobby Julich is certainly someone whose point of view will be of interest..
So how is it that there are so many errors in his article? Can Cyclingnews
really believe that they can publish an author's submission without
editorial inspection? Or is it that the editorial staff don't know how to
write?


Like I wrote some time ago, the problem is that many of the new
writers are "Eurotrash" non-native English speakers with an
approximate command of the language. The Eurotrash language is quite
simple, it is basic English with consistently misused present perfect
as I have written in my previous message and with random prepositions
and the articles sprinkled on.

I don't want to be completely negative, so I should say that I like
how they have stuck to British spellings, though it is weird to read
Armstrong in an interview when he says stuff such as: "I will stick
with my usual programme."

As I said last time, what cycling news needs is some real English
speakers such as "Ted van de Weteringe". Maybe it's because of all the
non-dubbed English TV over there. Speaking of which, it's 2am here in
Paris and "Two- Lane Blacktop" just came on cable TV, in the original
version, how obscure is that? So according to my theory there could be
some future writers available for Cyclingnews sometime in the future,
assuming that someone apart from me is watching the move.

-ilan

P.S. If you think this is bad, then how can you read current
scientific literature which is seems to be mostly written by TOEFL
graduates? A growing number of academics now communicate in this low
level English since most of them can't talk to anyone else in their
native language, since in many smaller countries it's impossible to
get a permanent research position, so becoming a scientist means
exile. In some fields, English has become the only language, I did a
search for M-Theory a while ago and I couldn't find a single French
reference despite hundreds of people working in the field in French
speaking countries.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:16:38 -0800 (PST), wrote:

though it is weird to read
Armstrong in an interview when he says stuff such as: "I will stick
with my usual programme."

It's even weirder when they add a Britishism like "Full stop" at the
end.

wrote in message
...

Like I wrote some time ago, the problem is that many of the new
writers are "Eurotrash" non-native English speakers with an
approximate command of the language. The Eurotrash language is quite
simple, it is basic English with consistently misused present perfect
as I have written in my previous message and with random prepositions
and the articles sprinkled on.

snip...

-ilan


However at least two of those writers are English Americans with an American
college education, Gregor and Laura. I know Gregor came from Santa Barbara
and I know Laura has College level English. Not sure where Gregor went to
school, perhaps UCSB. So a fair amount of those reports are written by
people from here who should command pretty decent English. The writers do
use a fair amount of contemporary English, but the other stuff from across
the water should be worse! I don't really talk to them anymore much, but
Jeff corrected stuff upon request. I only bugged him when I saw interview
links for some riders went to the wrong rider. I never bothered them about
bad links, there were too many of those to complain about. Mostly old stuff
now in the archives. I did hate it when stage results were actually there,
but no links listed. You have to guess what the link might be, which is
pretty easy because they use a numbering system, but still its sad when
pages are actually there with results, reports and photos, and they forget
to add the link! That's probably the most grievous thing, because that's
major content readers miss out on. I don't see that much anymore, but that
used to happen now and then. But as you say, some problems were just a
difference in the way they applied what they learned, depending on where
they learned it.



Robert

"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in message
m...
"Robert" wrote in message
...


Jeff once told me they don't have the time or cash to proofread since
they used to work with a fraction of what they need for operating costs.
They do it once over, that's it, but that was years ago.

When Jeff was working on that stuff it was reasonably accurate. Now on
many articles it is so bad that it makes the writer (in this case Julich)
look stupid when they are not.

Bobby made a point in saying that he wasn't a writer. While that's true he
obviously is someone with judgment and my guess is that he will improve
his writing considerably over time. And since he's a great insider, I
think that he will have a lot of good stuff to write.

But that doesn't forgive the idiot editorial staff at Cyclingnews.com.

And how does editing at CN compare to Velonews in your opinion?

Robert

On Nov 19, 8:16*pm, wrote:

Like I wrote some time ago, the problem is that many of the new
writers are "Eurotrash" non-native English speakers with an
approximate command of the language.

dumbass,

that's not true. the errors are there because the of large amount of
material that has to be posted quickly, that and a lot of educated
english speakers don't know how to write and make embarrassing
mistakes.