Reply to post: Looks Ok so far.

The Register comment guidelines 2010

Charley 1
Pint

Looks Ok so far.

Can't really quibble with most of it. Just common sense really. Just a couple of points:

1. Titles optional would be good. Unfortunately most of us proles can't even begin to be compared with El Reg's headline writers. I still chuckle about the story on the roads in the Netherlands that was subheaded "Dutch traffic unclogged".

2. Any idea how I would be able to navigate back to this story? It comes up as "site news" which seems to be a black-hole that can be only found by going to the beginning of the article and clicking under the author's name, which is a bit recursive. Nothing in the header bar to give a hint either.

3. Looking back over My Posts, I can see why some posts were rejected and am surprised by some that were accepted. And then further surprised by some that were rejected. While I can see that mentioning something that happened to one of the Beatles in Japan about 40 years ago would probably be labelled "Libellous" and then a discussion about whether the truth is libellous would be a waste of your esteemed publication's time, it may give commentards an opportunity to rephrase/rethink/calm down a little and try a second time. A "No discussion entered into" and an ignoring of anyone who tried to enter into discussion may work.

I'm sure the ODFO button could be macroed to label different sorts of rejection such as Libellous, Repeated Point, Not Funny, Rascist/Sexist/etc W*nker et al.

4. Strike/Bold/Italic good. Anchored links, not so much. Over use, see 3. above.

Good to see you're keeping things fresh and listening to your readers. Especially about that grey on grey on grey page listing.

Cheers.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR WEEKLY TECH NEWSLETTER

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019