Lazyness of correct details

I'm not trying to bad month anyone, or put-down the great process and sites which have been created BUT I believe we are reaching a turning point were something needs to give; When it comes to the bread and butter issues of presentation of television, it seems to be lacking "Correct" FACT and lacking in certain Pic & clip etc which would fill up alot of the gaps:

Im at that age where i'am in-between, Classic way of Pres trade, IE Video tapes , lists and swapping around and this new boom in Online or doing things. Neither I have very good ideas about. Im still not sure how anyone goes about doing the first. To be fair the Youtube has been part of the saveloy of TV pres, as alot of missing gaps have been filled in thanks to creations but it does not go far enough.

What really annoy me is the complete incorrect details and knowledge floating about, to name a few:

* Scottish second thistle ident, come in Jan 1989, but for unknown reason was believe to come into use in Jan 90, yet no one question the fact STV was using said ident for the ITV corp ident, and why on earth there would paid for the creation to be first used on the ITV thing.
* Grampain Black ident, first used in Jan 1980 as still and April 85 with moving, but again was believe to much later.
* Worse case: Carlton Second set of idents coming in to effect in 1995, alot of press site have it wrong and placed for 1994.
* I bet alot of people never know Channel 4 did Invison= CA during the mid 1990s?

Plenty more still needing to be sorted. I dont want to put anyone down, but I believe a GOOD KICK up the backside is needed to keep people on there toes and to make sure nothing becomes stagnate, which can not be good for any one involved.

Im was surprised that no one took a real interest in trying to create a list of Clips/pres yet to appear on the net, it could have been start of a good appeal and made alot of people aware what is missing, you never know someone might have seen it said I have that and then uploaded it, thus given more people the pleasure.

I lost you at the second paragraph. But you seem to be really bothered over things that don't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

mhm, k, that was a bit of a jumble. Have you tried contacting the sites/persons individually to discuss your concerns? I'm sure they would be more than willing to amend any historical inaccuracies.

Mistakes are inevitable but they'll rarely, if ever, be deliberate or born out of a culture of laziness, as you seem to be suggesting.

There are many such errors floating around the pres sites, usually originating from guesswork that someone did at some point. Even TV Ark has some dates and factual statements that are definitely wrong, and many that are questionable.

Its not the end of the world, but means the community's perception of when a particular ident package was introduced can be off by a few years.

The TV Ark team are usually quick to respond, and will often correct alleged errors within a week.

I welcome any corrections people have to give, if you e-mail my site, I'll respond as quickly as I can.

A classic up there with "maybe it you clooks"

I just don't wish to see what seems to be Lazyness with SOME PEOPLE who cant be brothered looking and having proper research but instead just nick things from other sites thus who have tried to have a guess with the research there have done so far. That not to say im putting them down I know it take time etc for stuff to be check etc but it does seem in some areas a general -- lacking of creativity and just copying bit that work for them ( OH The irony here)

Take wiki page for ITV night time, I have real arguments and debates with people about that page, about the content IE dates, Pres, idents etc, Now because I poke the fire and whirled up a heated debate or discussion etc it drove up standard of the page and its now 99% correct, "1% comes from certain dates that its not easy to found" It seems that part of community in this topic dont like engaging in this and dont like to rock the boat. i did the same for HTV, LWT news, STV and Grampian, which all have ref, this goes beyond and even Scot fm was dragged right up.

I believe its better if I poke the fire, rock the boat and pee some people if that can drive up the standards.

The one best things to happen is TV wiki, its seems to shotgun two things together, Details and Pres, thus you have alot of high amount of details with ref ( hopeful work in progress) and showing off the pres at the same time, and hopeful Its possible this will start to drive up standards, Exciting site are all great at what there do but something is going wrong somewhere..........Yet people seem happy to laugh and complain at TV programme when there get things wrong but not when its our community: is it because there dont want to criticise the community?

When it comes to Creation of pres still missing list, its should not be that hard, and im unsure why there seems to be a lack in creating it.

...and are working on ways to make the correcting of errors faster in future.

TV Ark's new "wiki-ish" community approach is a bit worrisome, but I'm confident that you'll work something out. I hope you'll implement something like the ref-links and the "citation needed" template on Wikipedia.

Overall, it would be very good if information on pres sites was tagged with its origin, so you can verify if its true or not. If I find an ident clip on TV Ark marked "1993", there is often nothing there to suggest whether that is a simple guess or a properly researched date. It's generally better to be openly vague than to make a definitive statement that may not be true.

Personally I believe if you aren't sure enough of a date (and this applies to YouTube and other sites too) then you should at the very least mark it as a guess, something like C. 2012 does the job.

I have to asked what you on about?

I'm not so sure about that. I posted on here in the TV Ark thread AND used TV Ark's 'contact us' form to address several inaccuracies on the ITV News Lunch page - that was months ago and I've never heard back, nor has anything been corrected.

Here's my original list: http://www.tvforum.co.uk/forums/post735411#post-735411 As you can see, the inaccuracies are quite significant here, so much so that different eras appear in totally the wrong order.