I don't care for Facebook - as its founder is the Rupert Murdoch of social networking - but I'm not asking for FB to be banned from boards I rarely frequent. Some of the Twitter/'dodgy sources' critics in this thread are hardly ever-present in the Transfer Forum.
Can we ban certain sources in the transfer forum?
- Thread starter Wumminator
- Start date
Don't see any need to ban certain sources. People are smart enough to ignore the ones they know are less than reliable.
But, pretty much everything around the transfers is BS at the end of the day. It's all just gossip and stories. It's a bit silly to expect transfer threads to contain any solid information leading up to transfers if that's what people are expecting - somewhat close to the truth reports. About the only time those happen is a few hours or day before the actual confirmation.
Even with De Gea's signing which was the worst kept secret - there was still so much speculation about well it's because he is changing agents nonsense. If one of the most sure signings is littered with BS - then these others which are far more more volatile, it's safe to bet even a bigger dose of BS. Just up to people to think for themselves and which source stories to ignore. Not everyone may have the same feelings on each source
But, pretty much everything around the transfers is BS at the end of the day. It's all just gossip and stories. It's a bit silly to expect transfer threads to contain any solid information leading up to transfers if that's what people are expecting - somewhat close to the truth reports. About the only time those happen is a few hours or day before the actual confirmation.
Even with De Gea's signing which was the worst kept secret - there was still so much speculation about well it's because he is changing agents nonsense. If one of the most sure signings is littered with BS - then these others which are far more more volatile, it's safe to bet even a bigger dose of BS. Just up to people to think for themselves and which source stories to ignore. Not everyone may have the same feelings on each source
Twitter is for braindead kids @Mickey
Twitter is not one source, it's repeatedly pointed out that it contains the exact same spectrum of people as the internet does as a whole. It has raging spastics but it also has every major newspapers's journalists as well, so unless you think the BBC, the broadsheets and just about every other journo you will ever hear footballing news/opinion from is 'for braindead kids' then it's extremely short sighted to just brush twitter aside in that way.
I'm sure 15 years ago people were saying the internet was for stupid kids as they struggled to read their broadsheet on the train.
As an totally unrelated aside, did you get my PM re my email?
Twatter is for turds.
When did you start using it?
I don't use it. What are you, some kind of stupid asshole?
I agree with this, whoever you are...
You think Sky and the BBC don't mind if their staff post stuff on twitter before they publish it themselves? Any sane company would have that prohibited in their contract as gross misconduct. Associated tossers, pretenders and wannabees quite likely, genuine staff no.
No, they're real, and normally just a matter of minutes before they go live with the story.
I repeat, educate yourself.
Twitter isnt just a bunch of 15 year olds posting random shit. Official sources such as sky (as seen above) use it to deliver breaking news
So i repeat, if breaking news is posted on that twitter account right there, lets say, 5 minutes before its on your television, are you going to brand it as "nonsensical" rubbish? Even though its the official twitter account of skysports and therefore a reliable source?
Youre so far off the mark with twitter its unreal.
Thanks, I'll take that as fact, but it seems a strange way to run a railway. I mean news provider. Maybe it's a case of the cork being out of the bottle, and it can't be stopped, or maybe the employers will get control again. Doesn't alter the fact that 90% of the posts quoting twitter on here ('he's normally reliable' etc) are complete bollocks. Then again most of it is, I suppose.
Its like talking to a brick wall.
Explain to me how quoting something from twitter is any different to quoting articles from newspapers?
The people quoted on twitter are 99% of the time the people who write the same articles, so how does it being on twitter make it any less reliable than being in the telegraph?
They use it as a promotional tool, it gets people reading their paper or website or watching their channel for more details on the story.
I can see individuals using it for self-promotion, yeah, still not how their employers see it though. Then again, maybe the employers haven't figured it out yet either.
I don't know where you work, or whether you've ever read a contract of employment. Maybe it's a grown-up thing?
thats not true though is it, i currently have 3 twitter accounts for posting nonsense
and those journo's on twitter are as bad as the next person, they simply retweet the same rumours
What are you on about? You're making it sound like employees of BBC are leaking information via their personal twitter accounts. There are plenty of nameless accounts on twitter belonging to reputed corporations who use it in an official capacity. More often than not, Twitter is the first place they go to when breaking news, which is then followed by a more detailed statement on the via the usual channels.
How self promotion and employee contracts come into it beats me.
go to sleep..
If you're trying to hypnotize people into ceasing to take Twitter seriously, it won't work. I've tried.
Twitter is a great resource - some of the rubbish spouted in this thread is hilarious.
But nobody quotes you. Im talking about the vast majority of twitter quotes posted outside the twitter speculation thread. 9 times out of 10 it'll be a journalist of some sort.
Dont bother. He fails to understand that organisations use twitter, not just employees and random people.
Yeah, where else could I have spread my random funny thought yesterday?
Deserved its own thread on the Caf, surely?!
If I had the time to put together a Mockney style scene between the two maybe.
You're absolutely right Mickey, I didn't know that was the case, but I've got it now.
To show willing I've just spent a whole 20 minutes reading twitters from the people in the twitter thread, and my conclusion is that I don't care who they are, it's utter shite. Each to their own though, just preferably in a separate thread then one can avoid it.
Just ban 711 and do us all a favour.
I wonder what the odds would be on which one of us will get banned first?
Are you on a wum?
Does twitter have shareholders?
Certainly. I realise now that I may have been wrong, but my thoughts were that if I were an employer such as a tv or newspaper company, and I was paying a reporter to find out news so that it could be published by my organisation I would be a bit pissed off if they broadcast it first somewhere else. As Mickey said I didn't understand that such organisations actually used twitter deliberately. How you find decent stuff amongst the relentless tide of shite I don't know, but I'm beginning to realise people think they do, so fair enough.
As for employee contracts it is normal in all sorts of employment to have confidentiality clauses. I would imagine for example that a reporter working for the Daily Mail would have something in his/her contract to prevent him selling information to the Mirror under the table.
Yea I get what you're saying now, you have the wrong idea of what Twitter is all about. Its as simple as searching "BBC" on twitter and finding the official BBC account for breaking news. These companies have in house or outsourced social media departments where they actually pay their employees to maintain these official accounts.
Its not hard. You follow respected, trusted, reliable twitter accounts.
Its no different to using the internet. Im sure youre more likely to believe an article from the telegraph and not caughtoffside ride? Its the same with twitter. Im more likely to believe a tweet from telegraph journalist or ben hibbs who works for united, then i am from an obvious wum who has the name @Golden_Blunder for instance.
Can i just say thank you to the mods for allowing this discussion to take place. Its not normal for something like this to go on in the admin forum, so cheers.
Shit, I've had an infraction for posting here before, sorry, I'm off.
Thanks though lads, talk of the BBC and Telegraph might just be enough to bring me round, damn fine institutions that they are.