• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Poor quality of reporting Live Reports

Jul 20, 2009
2
0
0
Visit site
I have read many Tour de France coverages in the past on Cyclingnews, years 1999-2007. This year the coverage is extra poor, for the following reasons:
-----
1. sprint finishes - excitement missing - in the early stage 2 or maybe 3 the winner/2nd/3rd is mentioned in a very poor manner, the "rush feeling" is gone from previous years

In Stage 8 (quote follows): What kind of reporting is this? So much detail until now, then not even listing the last seconds of the race about who passed how?
Why list the winner first and then describe what happened? Even if that was the first pass, the final version of the description should be properly formatted listing events as they happen, not say first who won and they say how it happened.
------------------
#
17:03 CEST

Sanchez misses a turn...is he going to try, or wait for the sprint?
#
17:03 CEST 1km/175.5km

Under the kite! Efimkin is dangling out there....
#
17:04 CEST

Sanchez is doing most of the work...Casar is waiting...
#
17:04 CEST

Casar! No...Sanchez!!
#
17:06 CEST

Sanchez was chasing, Casar sat on...he went then, Sanchez nipped onto his wheel and waited, as cool as anything. Then he put the head down, hit the gas and that was that...
------------------

----
2. typos!! as many as 5-8 per posting, in common words like 'receiving' -- why is this not spell checked? Wouldn't that be the first thing to do in a PROFESSIONAL reporting?

----
3. when I read the Live Report, there is no way to get to Next Stage with a separate button. That used to be done in the past, not anymore. So I have to modify the URL in the address bar, change "stage-8" to "stage-9", because using the "Stages +" button takes one to the Summary, not Live Report, so i would get to see the winner before i read the Live Report.

----
4. "Live Coverage ... - Stage 8" -- should include the DATE, otherwise it can get confusing for someone behind a few days (not being able to keep up everyday on reading, and then reading it later)

----
5. Team Time Trial - team just finished, but in which place did they finish? (so far) - one of the early finishers wasn't listed

The following are a few of the typos i found, definately there are more -- what happened to Quality Assurance? Does anyone care? The reporting seems like a rushed job and nobody checks it for easy mistakes.

----------------------------------------
stage 4
----------------------------------------
# "ehy" in
16:52 CEST
Saxo Bank wobbles its way through the curve that took down four Bbox riders, but ehy all stay upright.

# "garmin" (should be capitalized) in
16:54 CEST
The five garmin riders are putting in an excellent time. They might put in the best time at the end, but they can't afford to lose any more riders.

# in which place?
17:08 CEST
Cofidis have finished in 49.28


# "have were"
17:23 CEST
Astana have were fastest at the 2nd and 3rd time checks


----------------------------------------
stage 5
----------------------------------------
# "frtehr"
15:59 CEST
Gesink with teammates Posthuma and Niermann are falling frtehr and further back among the team autos. This will probably bury Gesinks's hopes and dreams for this Tour.


# "ov er", "helded"
16:03 CEST
The peloton has split! Cancellara led the way ov er a bridge, and that was it. Who is there? We see Hushovd, Cavendish, Cancellara.

A photographer helded Boonen change a tire, and in helping him back on, nearly knocked the Belgian down.

# "groups of four of five"
16:05 CEST 58km/138.5km
Lots of Saxo Bank, Columbia, Astana in the front group. Behind them are several small groups of four of five. Boonen has joined the largest chase group, the third group.


# "fthird group"
16:07 CEST
To add to Rabobank's woes today, Menchov has again missed the cut and is back in the fthird group. As is Kim Kirchen of Columbia.

# "of who is is what"
16:12 CEST
We still have six riders up front, let's not forget them. They have only a 1:34 lead right now. We still don't have an official list of who is is what chasing group.

# "head win" (should be "head wind")
16:44 CEST 25km/171.5km
The first large chase group has slowed its pace. Perhaps the second group will catch it yet. But soon they will make that u-turn and get that unlovely head win.



----------------------------------------
Stage 8
----------------------------------------
# Vladimir Efimkin is listed twice, on different teams
13:35 CEST 142km/34.5km
Situation
Sandy Casar (Française des Jeux)
Cadel Evans (Silence-Lotto), David Zabriskie (Garmin-Slipstream), Egoi Martínez (Euskaltel Euskadi), Vladimir Efimkin (Garmin-Slipstream), Christophe Kern (Cofidis), Vladimir Efimkin (AG2R La Mondiale) at 1:08.
Yellow jersey group (with other main favourites) at 1:45.
 
Jul 20, 2009
2
0
0
Visit site
I would prefer someone on the staff re-reading the original post and fixing bugs since that text will be read for years to come. I have read Tour de France coverages that were years old before. Part of covering the greatest bike race in the world should be getting the text right.
Doing "half the job but perfectly" is not the answer. Mistakes happen, but if it's imporant [and it shoudl be], then someone should fix those mistakes. This is not a throw-away kind of info, this will stay on the website and be read for decades.
 
Jun 20, 2009
6
0
0
Visit site
You make a detailed list of errors and complain that the standard of reporting is not professional - what do you want, a refund? It's a free service. If there are typos or if some bits are not exciting enough then so be it.

To the team in the blimp - thanks. Appreciate your hard work.
 
Jul 8, 2009
6
0
0
Visit site
robertbody said:
typos!! as many as 5-8 per posting, in common words like 'receiving' -- why is this not spell checked? Wouldn't that be the first thing to do in a PROFESSIONAL reporting?

Perhaps you should look at your own spelling before commenting on that of others?

robertbody said:
The following are a few of the typos i found, definately there are more -- what happened to Quality Assurance? Does anyone care? The reporting seems like a rushed job and nobody checks it for easy mistakes.