Accurate reporting

Two posts from GetReligion.org today show the difficulties of reporting the news accurately - and why it's always worth asking questions about reported pieces. Furthermore both of these pieces involve the difficulties inherent in clearly understanding religious issues as opposed to sectarian ones.

The first discusses various clashes between Muslims and Christians in Egypt since the removal of Mubarak. The second looks at a particularly horrific attack on an Israeli family, allegedly by the Al Aqsa Martyrs (who at first took credit, then later claimed they hadn't done it).

In both cases, the writers attempt to clarify who is who and who did what to whom. In neither case are these things as clear as they should be in the original news reports, and the reports often leave out vital facts.

Sometimes the problem is publication policy; sometimes it's inept reporting; sometimes it's a biased use of language. Whatever the problem, it shows that in a world where we can actually compare reports, it's worth doing so before we make up our mind about what we've been told.

Progress?

In the past, even before I began writing for publication, I would keep files of clippings out of newspapers and magazines. I even used to try and put them in some order, or keep a primitive form of database so as to know what I had.

In fact, what would happen is that I'd come back to them some years later, find all these clippings which varied in interest from 'none' to 'moderate' and eventually toss them out. The only time they got used was if they were used when I first found them. After that, they usually became excess to requirements.

When I first started my current job, back in late 2007, part of my work involved scanning articles of interest onto the computer and databasing them. Sound familiar? However, it quickly became evident that it was much easier to find the article online - most newspapers have websites these days, and most magazines. That saved the tedious process of scanning (the scanner has gathered dust mostly since then) and also saved databasing, since Google Desktop did that side of the job much more effectively for me.

And then along came Zotero, and articles could be copied in the blink of an eye, as soon as you found them online (because now we were catching up with the information less from newspapers and mags and more from the Internet itself). No more cutting and pasting; just a click of the appropriate button and we were away. The databasing isn't so good, and will have to be reconsidered, and sometimes it's better still to use the slightly older method of putting the item on the computer itself.

But with Zotero you have access to the articles wherever you are: at work or at home, or anywhere else.

All this is well and good. You know what's funny, though, don't you? I'll come back to these pieces in a few years time, find they vary in interest from 'none' to 'moderate' and eventually delete them. The only time they'll get used will be if i use them when I first find them. Sound familiar?

Submit It!

Just been reading a brief article called Make Your Articles Earn Money for Years Without Extra Work.
It was on the Triond.com site where I've submitted a number of brief pieces over the last couple of years. Like so many articles of this kind it spends more time telling you what sort of things to write about and how to write well than actually dealing with the matter in the title. That comes way down the page, where the writer's info is basically: submit to more search engines. Oh, and use better key words.
As anyone who's browsed this blog more than once will note, I often discuss the results of HitTail (and no, I don't get paid a cent by them for doing so - even though I must be one of their best promoters!). HitTail tells me which of my key words are making it big in the search results. The interesting thing is that these key words are seldom the ones that the search engines will proclaim will get you noticed. The ones they want you to use - or rather, recommend you should use - they're also recommending to every other Johnnie on the Net. And if everyone is using the same bunch of key words, guess who's going to get noticed? Not the little bloke with a few articles floating around.
HitTail's approach is to give results based on the words that are already in your blog/article/whatever and tell you which of those are making an impact. I find it effective, certainly effective enough for my particular neck of the woods.
One thing the writer of the article I mentioned at the beginning notes is that there's a site called Submit Express which offers you the chance to get noticed on the search engines for free. Since it's free it's worth giving it a try - certainly I wouldn't be paying for it at this point.
This is the writer's most valid point - although you'd think by the way the commenters to his article rave that everything he said had come down the mountain on a couple of stone tablets. Well, maybe there are still lots of newbies out there in cyberspace (!)

What I meant to write here initially (before I got so sidetracked about the article and stuff) was that I was checking out the views on the various articles I've got on Triond. The top three are an interesting bunch. 1st and 3rd we have articles on 'current' topics: A Future without Plastic, and, The End of Petroleum?
These are the sorts of articles every decent writer should be writing at the moment, you'd think. Very ecological, very environmental - and so on. That's what I thought when I wrote them!
But the surprise is the 2nd top article: Where are the Willy Wonka Children?
This is an article of such earth-shattering importance that nearly a 1050 people have viewed it. (1050 may not sound many in cyberspace terms, but in my terms, it's a big number.)
So there you go. Celebrity continues to win out over environment and ecology. Sorry about that all you serious-minded people!

The confusing world of mattress toppers

Be careful how you write. And be careful what you go looking up on the Net.

I was searching for the combo of writing and the phrase mattress topper tonight, and came across a site where someone is describing Memory Foam Pillows and Mattress Pad Memory Foam. I can sort of understand what a memory foam pillow might be, but the second phrase seems a bit out of kilter. This pretty much goes for the rest of the article as well, where we're told the memory foam contains unique properties that no more pillows can match. I presume we mean no mere pillows?

Further down the page we have this interesting statement: Memory foam has mass-produced its way into the forefront ever since it was found that the foam molds to the shape of your body applying your body's have heat. You can understand what it means, but you wonder how the words got into that arrangement.

But that last sentence wasn't anywhere near as scary as this one: With a memory foam cervical pillow, your head and neck remain aligned with your spine as you sleep. I struggled at first to think what word should be there instead of 'cervical,' but it turns out in fact that though I thought cervical only applied to a certain kind of cancer women get - relating to the neck of the womb, apparently - the word is also used for the neck and upper spine area and is perfectly correct.

So I learned something, at least, from this article!

Anyway, all that aside, the article this comes from is listed as being written by one Frank Vanderlugt, with the date Mon Dec 26th, 2005 beside his name. But on another site the credit is given to Chris Rodriguez. According to another site, Chris Rodriguez is an EzineArticles.com Expert Author. Obviously a complete command of the English language isn't required of Expert Authors.

The plot thickens. At the bottom of the first article, we have this comment: Chris Rodriguez is andy skinner and webmaster for duvet-n-more.com. Chris is Andy? Or is she Mr Vanderlught? I don't know who anyone is!

How did I get into this? I was only looking at mattress toppers!

Need more input!

I love sites that are full of information. There’s nothing more interesting than digging around a site that has articles, links to articles, and links to the links. So I came at a site advertising ‘no exam life insurance’ with some enthusiasm, because it seemed to have links to all sorts of info. Being 62 this year, I’m having to think about these sorts of things, although at present the life insurance I’ve got ought to see me through. (And we’ve taken out travel insurance for our six months away: if something happened, the other person could wind up being a millionaire! Scary.)
However, the site’s links must be playing up. There are three articles on their Long Term Care page that just keep bringing you back to the same place, and the links to the e-books, in the right-hand column, do the same. Maybe the site’s having a bit of a sickie itself!
When this sort of thing happens on a site, I always start to think: maybe I’ve missed something; maybe I have to sign up or something before it’ll function. I’ve found that before. But it doesn’t seem to be the case here. Pity, because I wouldn’t have minded looking at some of the articles, particularly the one on annuities. Though there seems to be a word missing in the title: Annuities why are the new choice for safe investments for baby boomers...
Somebody must have been having a bad hair day.

Peering through the Market

Came across an unusual site called Corporate Gifts. This site presents article length pieces (that is, internet article length) on all sorts of things, mainly with an advertising component built in – rather like this post. But the variety is huge, and the site has been functioning since back in 2002 without ever having come to my attention. (But then, no doubt, two of my sites have been functioning for just as long – one longer – without coming to the attention of a host of people). I’m not quite sure how this site functions: you can submit ‘articles’ but not all of them relate back to a company trying to sell something. Some of them are just articles on a subject, and they have a Wikipedia link, which, when you get there, isn’t the same article – so obviously the anonymous writer has just given Wikipedia as a further site for exploration.
Encylocentral.com is obviously busy: in the last quarter of an hour three or four more pieces have appeared.
I checked out an article on ‘peepers’. I was intrigued by their use of words describing what I’d normally call sunglasses; glares, peepers, goggles. I guess our equivalent word for ‘glares’ is ‘shades.’ You could be quite ambiguously received if you said to someone, ‘I’ve got my glares on.’ They might agree. And goggles are usually associated in this country with the things we wear in water when swimming. Or when you’re going skiing.
The person who wrote the piece for peepers.com has an interesting use of the language: ‘People mostly bothered about sunglasses chiefly, if performance or designer eyewear is what one seeks. One surely gets the level of protection one needs as they feel and at prices that they can afford,’ as an example. It’s English, but not necessarily as she is always writ.
Disclosure statement

Now here’s a challenge. This was one of seven tips for doing better with writing in this new year. It comes from the EzineArticles newsletter.

"Start with your biggest goal and then chunk it down. Example: If your biggest goal is to produce 1,200 articles this year (100 per month, every month), work it out backwards as to how many per week, per day and per hour you'll need to produce to meet your goals. Are there other ways to meet your goals than to produce them all yourself personally?"

100 per month? 3 a day? What sort of quality are we talking about here? Okay, I can write several blog pieces a day if I want, and maybe an article or two, but 3 decent pieces a day is quite something. Although with being able to write at will on the Net these days, I suppose three relatively interesting pieces isn’t beyond the realms of possibility. Maybe it’s looking at it from a ‘biggest goal’ point of view that’s the problem. Three pieces in three different blogs a day isn’t impossible at all. On the other hand, if I was thinking in terms of three articles to be published in the normal mainstream magazines, I’d be struggling to get this together, as, I think, would any writer.

Quazen

For some few weeks now I've been writing articles for Quazen.com. Quazen is one of several interlinked sites that accept writing and photos from a wide variety of writers around the world. Some of them are prolific; I'm rather more limited in my publishing with them, but it's still a good way to keep your hand in. It doesn't require that difficult process of whether you'll be accepted or not by the publisher. Which of course means that all sorts of writing goes on these sites. In general, however, the writers are okay - know grammar and spelling and are interesting in their approach. There are links to all my other articles down on the right hand side of any Quazen page that has my stuff on it, if you go down far enough.

Something I hadn't noticed about the pieces you submit, until recently, is that they turn into advertisements: words scattered throughout your piece will be highlighted and, when you pass your mouse over them, you see a mini-ad appear. Not all of them are like this, but the one I've linked to, in particular, has several 'hidden' ads.

And that's apart from the several Google ads that appear down the left hand column.