A few commenters have taken note of a post that went up on our site briefly this morning, and then came down.We often have stories in the works that we're considering, waiting for more information on, or debating whether to publish.
And occasionally -- because it's early in the morning and our staff doesn't really function effectively until that third Starbucks run -- somebody clicks "publish" when they're supposed to click "save" or "draft" or "delete" or whatever.
Here's the deal: we're human. We've written hundreds of posts and we're working as hard as possible to deliver a first-class professional website.
Sometimes we're going to click the wrong button. We did today. We have before. We will again.
Thanks for checking out our site. Hope you'll come back.
15 comments:
Haha. C'mon, the whole reason this site exists is to pick apart another publication. Don't start crying when commenters pick on you and your mistakes.
How_very _human_of_you...
I like this site. It's not all slick and corporate like Gawker but still they usually get it right. Also, they may not put their names on it but they're transparent about mistakes and admit when they make them.
The thing I don't understand about NYTPicker is how many commenters come here just to attack it. You'd almost think the mere existence of this site was bothering some people.
At minimum, I think you still owe an explanation as to why you deleted the post on Nick Bilton. I understand mistakes are made and you sometimes hit the wrong button but it's really not acceptable to delete posts and then not re-post them when they're finish. What was wrong with the post on Bilton?
Gawker is slick?! Whatever, it's a breeding ground for sickos and stalkers. At least here, there is the benefit of the doubt.
Good site. And will come back. but what people have said all along, a bit more transparency and accountability from you guys would be good since you guys demand it from the Times.
More Paterson stories, please. I liked the way you were going after the NYT on their coverage. Not defend to defend Paterson or anything, but the stories have been especially sloppy and one-sided on this one.
Nice. A correction. Impressive and commendable.
"Hundreds of posts"?
Come on, guys. In 2010, you're averaging less than one post a day. You can't use high volume of output as an excuse.
hardly a correction. more of a poor excuse for bad journalistic behavior.
I dunno, a site built around Anonymous writers from Anonymous sources with Anonymous comments doesn't really have to answer to anyone, right?
I like this site but I wish they'd get rid of the "Anonymous" option in the comments section and force anyone who wishes to make a comment to use some kind of name, even if it is a ridiculous, completely-random, made-up moniker like ?!. Even that would be an improvement over "Anonymous."
It makes it really hard to follow and enjoy the comments since it's impossible to tell if it is the same person posting all the comments or different people. Yeah, I know that people can come up with different username names on blogs, but still.
This was really an excuse, not a correction. You said some things about Mr. Bits and implied that there was something wrong with his advice for spouses to spy on each other. So is it right now? Do you just want to focus on big issues like whether it's okay for the NYT to use the power of the front page to railroad a blind guy who can't read the pages themselves? (Isn't that sort of philosophically like talking about someone behind their back?)
You don't owe us squat but I'm just curious why.
You know... the New York Times could say basically what this post says for everything you complain about... just sayin'...
Post a Comment