<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for currybet</title><link>http://disqus.com/people/currybet/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:01:39 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Which newspaper mentions Twitter the most? (UK)</title><link>http://140char.disqus.com/which_newspaper_mentions_twitter_the_most_uk/#comment-20872021</link><description>It has been rightly pointed out to me that TelegraphTowers should be @telegraphoffers</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">currybet</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:01:39 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Which newspaper mentions Twitter the most? (UK)</title><link>http://140char.disqus.com/which_newspaper_mentions_twitter_the_most_uk/#comment-20869973</link><description>See, I knew you'd start applying more rigourous logic to the tracking! I'll definitely start looking at those pages, but the flaw will be if Twitter is mentioned in contexts other than technology - such as celebrity, or general news. Plus there's no handy number for a total of articles on those topic pages!&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;But there's definitely a lot of scope for improvement, as Jonathan and yourself have said - I'll be investigating better ways shortly as there seems to be some interest in the findings!</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">badgergravling</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:40:17 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Which newspaper mentions Twitter the most? (UK)</title><link>http://140char.disqus.com/which_newspaper_mentions_twitter_the_most_uk/#comment-20865875</link><description>Hmm, I think you'll find there is a big difference between authored articles that mention Twitter, and HTML pages that have been indexed by a search engine that mention Twitter - for example in the first page of Telegraph results this page is listed - &lt;a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/promotions/6415819/Food-offer-2-for-1-main-meals-at-Prezzo.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/promotions/6415819/F...&lt;/a&gt; - and the only mention of Twitter is a 'Sign up to our TelegraphTowers feed' at the bottom. Likewise this Guardian URL is listed in our site search - &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/datablog/2009/sep/18/uk-swine-flu-cases-data" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/datablog/2009/s...&lt;/a&gt; - but the only mention is in the generic "• Get the A-Z of data • More at the Datastore directory • Follow us on Twitter" in the foot of the article. You might get a better idea of frequency by comparing the rate at which stories are appearing on these two keyword / topic pages &lt;a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/twitter" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/twitter&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/&lt;/a&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">currybet</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 12:38:47 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: OJR: Michael Jackson&amp;#8217;s death and its lessons for online journalists covering breaking news</title><link>http://martinstabe.disqus.com/ojr_michael_jackson8217s_death_and_its_lessons_for_online_journalists_covering_breaking_news/#comment-11786023</link><description>It isn't that bit I don't agree with. It is the assertion that MSM should have been actively tweeting "Hey, we heard this rumour, and we have no verification, but hey, here is the rumour". Seriously, I sign up to news alerts for news. If I want a rumour alert about celebs I'd sign up to Popbitch. Or maybe the Daily Mail's Femail RSS feed.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">currybet</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:02:46 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: NightJack - issues raised</title><link>http://fromtheonline.disqus.com/nightjack_issues_raised/#comment-11056307</link><description>I think this has been really tricky. I think that The Times was right to investigate a prominent award winning anonymous blogger to check if they a) had the credentials they said they had and b) were not a really senior figure in public service. But having done that and established his identity, I don't see that *in this case* they should have fought tooth'n'nail to publish.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">currybet</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:56:12 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: O2 dips hand in the cookie jar</title><link>http://smstextnews.disqus.com/o2_dips_hand_in_the_cookie_jar/#comment-6284865</link><description>Considering how worried Blue Peter were about calling a cat "Cookie", I'm surprised that the product angle O2 &amp; LG have taken here is that this is the cheapest touchable white cookie on the market...</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">currybet</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 15 Feb 2009 17:06:22 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Stop selling Ringtones and start selling Frequency Data</title><link>http://smstextnews.disqus.com/stop_selling_ringtones_and_start_selling_frequency_data/#comment-5441999</link><description>Gahhh I knew I should have used someone else's last.fm account!</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">smstextnews</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:36:33 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Stop selling Ringtones and start selling Frequency Data</title><link>http://smstextnews.disqus.com/stop_selling_ringtones_and_start_selling_frequency_data/#comment-5436807</link><description>Great post, but surely slightly undermined by the very visible inclusion of 2 Unlimited in the graph ;-)</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">currybet</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:00:27 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Joe The Dough</title><link>http://joethedough.disqus.com/joe_the_dough_32/#comment-3579062</link><description>After I'd seen the URL, that *so* wasn't what I was expecting. On reflection, I'm quite glad.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">currybet</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2008 20:07:38 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: iPhone: Just sit there and take it</title><link>http://mathewingram.disqus.com/iphone_just_sit_there_and_take_it/#comment-2717924</link><description>I particularly liked the fact that he cited 14 million users as a reason to stick with the Apple way of working, seemingly oblivious to the fact that Nokia sold 122 million handsets in the last financial quarter alone.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">currybet</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:48:11 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Express Newspapers to axe more than 30 subs and introduce new "revolutionary" computer system - Press Gazette</title><link>http://pressgazette.disqus.com/express_newspapers_to_axe_more_than_30_subs_and_introduce_new_revolutionary_computer_system_press_ga/#comment-2258236</link><description>I wonder how much time they spent considering whether it wasn't actually the credit crunch causing "the substantial drop in our advertising revenues and the continuing drop in our circulation figures", but in fact was more to do with their editorial - "Now they want to ban your lawn"?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">currybet</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 07:56:55 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Murat libel payout hits £600,000 - Press Gazette</title><link>http://pressgazette.disqus.com/murat_libel_payout_hits_600000_press_gazette/#comment-920566</link><description>&amp;gt;&amp;gt; The sight of lawyers standing outside court crowing about substantial damages they have won clients should depress and frustrate anyone who loves journalism&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Surely it is the 'journalism' that led to them standing outside the court which should have got us  depressed first?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">currybet</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:12:37 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Press Gazette - PCC rejects privacy complaint from JK Rowling</title><link>http://pressgazette.disqus.com/press_gazette_pcc_rejects_privacy_complaint_from_jk_rowling/#comment-770266</link><description>It is a somewhat circular argument of course. Wikipedia doesn't allow primary research, and so all of the information about her house on Wikipedia is on the basis of a names and cited article from The Scotsman.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">currybet</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2008 13:24:18 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Press Gazette - Free archive plan could boost Gramophone search optimisation</title><link>http://pressgazette.disqus.com/press_gazette_free_archive_plan_could_boost_gramophone_search_optimisation/#comment-420187</link><description>It is very good to see someone being so upfront about search engine listings being a huge potential driver of traffic, and building it into their content publication strategy.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">currybet</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 08:00:32 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>