ESPN acquires Cricinfo !!!

[Griffo]

i would love to hear more of your issues with them andrew nixon it would be incredible to hear

 

[andrew_nixon]

There's also the fact that a good chunk of their articles (more than half on some days) are actually just verbatim or slightly changed press releases credited to "Cricinfo staff". I get the same press releases as cricinfo does for some things, and whilst I try and write an original article, they don't, and I'm hardly a professional.

When I do use a press release verbatim, I always indicate it, something cricinfo rarely do. Plus they have plagarised my work on one occasion, which I didn't take too kindly to.

Anything else, I'm not willing to divulge in public.

 

[Sureshot]

On the plagiarism (2 i's or 1?) subject, is that actually illegal or just an internet no-no?

 

[andrew_nixon]

On the plagiarism (2 i's or 1?) subject, is that actually illegal or just an internet no-no?

It's probably illegal, as I own the copyright on the article that they copied. They apologised though, so I'm not kicking up a fuss.

 

[Griffo]

Anything else, I'm not willing to divulge in public.

What honestly can be that bad. Cricinfo conspiricys

 

[Insomniac]

It's probably illegal, as I own the copyright on the article that they copied. They apologised though, so I'm not kicking up a fuss.

What article was this, and how do you get press releases?

 

[andrew_nixon]

What article was this, and how do you get press releases?

My original article: http://www.cricketeurope4.net/DATABASE/ARTICLES/articles/000033/003335.shtml

Their article: http://blogs.cricinfo.com/btw/archives/2006/11/channel_islands.php

They only ripped of the first paragraph, but still...

 

[smssia0112]

Cricinfo already is about making money, so nothing will change there. You may not care about Vincent Barnes stats (but surely you agree that a 300 wicket error is just stupid!), but how about a lengendary player like Basil D'Oliveria, whos stats are also wrong on cricinfo, substantially enough for them to have his first-class batting average under 40 when it should be over 40. Relying on cricinfo for stats is treading on dangerous turf.

Whilst it is comprehensive for Test and ODI cricket, it is far from the most comprehensive cricket site out there, as would be obvious if you went looking for anything below Test and ODI level.

Perhaps my view is tainted as I know what some of cricinfo's writers are like behind the scenes.

Yes I'll certainly agree that 300 wickets is a ridiculous error to make, but as far as Test, ODI and domestic cricket in AUS and ENG goes, I'm happy enough with it.

 

[sohum]

I don't think (or rather hope) that this will affect to much of the day-to-day maintenance of Cricinfo. We may see some integration with the people we know from ESPN-Star (such as Harsha, Ravi and Sunny) into features on Cricinfo. They would not dare change the name because Cricinfo is to cricket as Google is to the rest of the internet.

As for database accuracy, I'm sure their main purpose is to serve as a resource for current statistics rather than a communing place for cricket stat buffs. They get many, many, many times more hits than howstat, cricketarchive and other stat sites combined, I would presume, and they will probably have to dish out a bunch of money just to keep the site and statistics accessible.

Their editorials are good, though sometimes iffy. Haven't read the blogs too much, though.

As for the allegations Andrew has mentioned above, some of them are pretty pathetic on Cricinfo's part and I would presume that it is the fault of the individuals rather than the organization. Deadlines, procrastination, we've all felt the temptation (although most have been intelligent and respectful enough to take the hard way out).

 

[nightprowler10]

My original article: http://www.cricketeurope4.net/DATABASE/ARTICLES/articles/000033/003335.shtml

Their article: http://blogs.cricinfo.com/btw/archives/2006/11/channel_islands.php

They only ripped of the first paragraph, but still...

Sheesh, that's pretty poor.