More MLB.com fun

[Moderator1]

I shouldn't do this. I'm far from perfect. I make mistakes. But still, it made me chuckle.
This is from Nationals.com and the regular guy there seems to work hard. He isn't afraid to go after them. I respect the work he puts in.
But:

Schneider had a tough time accessing his season. Some in the organization believe the World Baseball Classic played a role in his bad season, but Schneider declined to give any kind of excuse.


Accessing? Maybe assessing?

Where are the editors? That isn't a typo.

Same site that used "vain" most of last year talking about "vein."

 

[Norman Stansfield]

Maybe Schneider didn't have the access code to the clubhouse door or something. All season long.

Ever think of THAT, Moddy?

;D

 

[jackfinarelli]

Assuming you are correct that this guy at Nationals.com works hard, then this is the classic example of a situation where one needs to work smarter and not harder.

 

[Moderator1]

No argument Jack.
Like I said, I feel bad knocking the guy. I screw up, too. But his screw ups seem to get through a lot more often. Are those things edited or do the beat writers post them on site on their own?

 

[BYH]

This never ends well...but the mantra at MLB.com is quantity, not quality. Get the notes up there by the third or fourth inning, get a gamer up as soon as the game is over and get a write-thru as soon as humanly possible thereafter.

There are some outstanding reporters and writers there...and some whose sophomoric (checking to make sure I spelled sophomoric correctly) errors make it in verbatim because the higher-ups just don't care enough to get it right.

 

[Buck]

I understand the time pressure, and I certainly wouldn't want my stuff being published without somebody else reading.checking it first.
But can someone actually answer the underlying question:
Are there editors at MLB.com?

 

[BYH]

There are.

But it's all about the quantity.

 

[Smasher_Sloan]

mlb.com has a few displaced beat writers (Marty Noble, Ken Gurnick) who are solid but too much of their roster is still people who are either inexperienced or terribly dull.

 

[Thanks for comin' out]

1) There are editors at MLB.com, and plenty of them... but let's not undervalue the fact that 30 notebooks, 30 earlies, 30 w-t and 30 previews are produced every night... I guess you could make the quantity over quality argument, but I don't think it's fair to say no one cares. That's just a ****load of copy no matter how you slice it. Because of obvious space freedom, their notebooks and gamers are also considerably longer than print.

2) There's also people at MLB.com like T.R. Sullivan, the '05 Prez of the BBWAA, but there are some inexperienced people, just like there are at every newspaper in the nation. It is obviously more visable at MLB.com b/c there is no high school women's lacrosse to throw someone into if they aren't as good as you thought... I guess that's what the Kansas City Royals are for....

 

[Moderator1]

If they have that volume of copy coming, they ought to make sure they have enough people to read it properly before it is posted.

They DO have some very good people there and they aren't as homerish as I thought, though I do notice some of that.

 

[SockPuppet]

Web sites have editors?

 

[EE94]

I shouldn't do this. I'm far from perfect.   I make mistakes. But still, it made me chuckle.
This is from Nationals.com and the regular guy there seems to work hard.  He isn't afraid to go after them.  I respect the work he puts in.
But:

Schneider had a tough time accessing his season. Some in the organization believe the World Baseball Classic played a role in his bad season, but Schneider declined to give any kind of excuse.


Accessing?   Maybe assessing?

Where are the editors?  That isn't a typo.

Same site that used "vain" most of last year talking about "vein."

My guess is that it's a product of spellcheck.
Piece likely given a quick read for coherence, fact, etc, with some misspelled words missed or ignored during first read.
Then person does the quick spellcheck, assessed is spelled wrong and computer makes its suggestion of accessed. Editor accepts suggestion without checking the context.
It's when editors either don't take, or claim not to have, time to give it a third or fourth read.

 

[Cousin Jeffrey]

1) There are editors at MLB.com, and plenty of them... but let's not undervalue the fact that 30 notebooks, 30 earlies, 30 w-t and 30 previews are produced every night... I guess you could make the quantity over quality argument, but I don't think it's fair to say no one cares. That's just a ****load of copy no matter how you slice it. Because of obvious space freedom, their notebooks and gamers are also considerably longer than print.

2) There's also people at MLB.com like T.R. Sullivan, the '05 Prez of the BBWAA, but there are some inexperienced people, just like there are at every newspaper in the nation. It is obviously more visable at MLB.com b/c there is no high school women's lacrosse to throw someone into if they aren't as good as you thought... I guess that's what the Kansas City Royals are for.... 

Actually a long, longtime vet cover the Royals...

 

[BYH]

Actually a long, longtime vet cover the Royals...

How is **** Kaegel? There was a thread here not long ago about how he's not doing well.

 

[Thanks for comin' out]

Actually a long, longtime vet cover the Royals...

Sorrr-ry. It was just a joke for the people who don't read MLB.com as much, Kaegel is great, I've read a bunch of his stuff this year.