AFL.com.au's lazy use of 'more to come' in articles

Joined
May 5, 2014
Posts
275
Likes
395
AFL Club
Fremantle
Thread starter #1
Does this annoy any one else?

Every second article is only half complete and they don't finish updating it for like 6 hours forcing people to keep clicking back 5 times in the ensuing period.

How about just post the article when it's finished instead of pre-ejaculating and releasing it half complete and missing half the relevant information.

Maybe if it's a big braking story that happens twice a year, but they do it with every second article.

Get your **** together you bunch of fools.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Hawthorn United

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 16, 2007
Posts
13,663
Likes
10,578
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
MUFC, Storm, Rebels
#5
A lot of it is to do with social media too. Players will post something, or the clubs will, then people start talking about it and wanting to find out more.

Instead of doing their jobs properly and finding out first, then reporting it, they jump in and report the initial story first. Fill in the other stuff later.
 

jason pm

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Posts
15,210
Likes
27,435
Location
Omnipresent.
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Fortitude Valley Diehards. Chelsea.
#7
Does this annoy any one else?
Every second article is only half complete and they don't finish updating it for like 6 hours forcing people to keep clicking back 5 times in the ensuing period.
How about just post the article when it's finished instead of pre-ejaculating and releasing it half complete and missing half the relevant information.

Maybe if it's a big braking story that happens twice a year, but they do it with every second article.

Get your **** together you bunch of fools.
Is there medication available for that?
 

Fatrollo

Senior List
Joined
Oct 1, 2007
Posts
150
Likes
228
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Liverpool
#8
It's because in this hyperconnected world, you need to be as early as possible with news otherwise someone else will be/the audience will get it from somewhere else.

At the end of the day, the full article/information is still going to be in that article once the author has all of the information/quotes. You just have earlier notification of that news and have to wait a little bit longer to get all of it (not to mention sometimes it can take a while to get proper confirmation of information or quotes from relevant people, but a journalist still has the news at hand and wants to get it out as soon as possible).

News isn't based on newspapers any more - you don't wait 12 hours to find out about something any more.

Would you rather have a less-detailed article earlier, or have to wait later for a full article (which the less-detailed article would become at the same time anyway)? Honestly, this really isn't an issue.
 
Top Bottom