Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen
Today?s article dealt with the Zango case that was previously reported in November; http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=17960
While we covered the story on- and offline when it was hot, I publish online at XBIZ.com selected pieces that may have originally run in the print edition of XBIZ World Magazine and which may be based on expanded, in-depth coverage of news and current events issues, such as the Zango piece.
Due to the vast quantity of content we offer, there?s often a lag in the time between when something happens and when it appears (or reappears) online or in print. Today, it just happened to be this piece that I selected to run. Nothing new, just a good analysis of the case and the lessons learned that some readers might find helpful and informative. |
I'm not trying to bust your balls but I am confused..Which of the many reasons for the "reprint" offered above actually applies here?
The original article was published
online by you when the news of the settlement was hot. So two months later you publish an article with half or more of the same copy as the old one and the
same headline..and the other half of the copy was old news too..if you wanted to publish the unpublished old news part you should have at least changed the headline and added something
current like what happened after the appeal process ended on Dec 5 or whatever...
So a two month lag on something timely like this is cool with you? Does the removal tool mentioned even still work? Every webmaster knows about the zango hoopla except that one guy that was hibernating in a cave in Nepal during November.
It just doesn't leave a good impression that XBiz.com is the place to go for the latest industry news.
