|
Post by Admin on Nov 6, 2020 17:00:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by matthewspicer on Nov 6, 2020 18:19:27 GMT
.... that's very interesting - presumably they accept Webb - through your website, because of the link to the deaths-in custody table .... the reason I say this as I tried in July to change stuff relating to Albert Pierrepoint and was told I was an 'unreliable source'; and they did the same when I submitted the changes via the True Crime's website ....
m:)
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 6, 2020 21:58:36 GMT
.... that's very interesting - presumably they accept Webb - through your website, because of the link to the deaths-in custody table .... the reason I say this as I tried in July to change stuff relating to Albert Pierrepoint and was told I was an 'unreliable source'; and they did the same when I submitted the changes via the True Crime's website .... m:) I dont know. I didn't add Webb, but I saw a hit from Wikipedia for him and searched it out. I once tried to add the Black Kalendar to Wikipedia but was told that it was not 'notable' which I found ironic for many reasons. Mainly because of the 'notable' crime series, the Red books with all the 'notable' cases in it. I just thought his terminology was either wholly ironic and coincidental, or laden with an inside reference that would irk. I am not sure how large and significant it would need to get before it was 'recognised' as being notable. Presumaby the BBC has to 'recognise' it and until then the Black Kalendar doesn't exist in the real world. a un-'notable' web site full full of true crime. There are lots of other sites in Wikipedia are far less significant. I did actually add a few cases to see what happened and they stayed. I d'dn't add more as I am not bothere. But I did add the link to unsolved murders at the top of the wikipedia page on UK unsolved murders, being a somewhat more comprehensive list, but apparently not, it was quisky moved to the bottom and reworded so as not to offer any SEO value, such is the mindset of the Wikipedia overlords. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_murders_in_the_United_KingdomI see it has not been split for improved performance en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_murders_in_the_United_Kingdom_(1990%E2%80%93present)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_murders_in_the_United_Kingdom_(before_1990)I see they kept my link, but worded it as 'A website devoted to unsolved murders in the UK can be found at Unsolved Murders' which isn't that bad I guess. Right at the bottom in the bootom of hundreds of footnotes below a BBC link of no significance whatsover. I have seen 'notable' resources linked at the top of wikipedia pages. Guess they dont want to encourage the plebs with a hint of free traffic. I think their strategy in general is IF THEY HAVE TO. I certainly dont want any attention, but every time I see the BBC referencing Martin Lewis, the 'Money Saving Expert' I often consider whether they would want to refernce me whenever smeone got murdered or sentenced. I dont give my name out, but if my name was Bob, they might say . 'We asked Bob what he thought of the sentencing on such and such'. But they wont because I'm a bit random. I think thats putting it nicely in a way that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by liferreilly on Nov 6, 2020 23:37:11 GMT
Martin Lewis - the Money making expert.
With regards to being referenced by the Beeb, these days they'd presumably just go on twitter and get an opinion from a twelve year old who follows their narrative. It stopped doing serious journalism long ago.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 6, 2020 23:47:48 GMT
|
|