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

[Bucking Bronco]

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.

 

[Dazzler9]

They're just announcing some news and advising we will get an...

More to come.

 

[Dazzler9]

They're just announcing some news and advising we will get an update once more detail comes to hand. I see no issue.

 

[Loken]

It's because the media are obsessed with being first.

They break the story and fill in the blanks later.

It's just typical of the sad state of affairs the footy media has become.

 

[Hawthorn United]

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.

 

[Cheapie out the back]

It's great when Betoota use it, not so much the AFL.

 

[M Malice]

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]

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.

 

[TheGhostOfJohnBelushi]

People check the article again later?