• The forum software that supports hummy.tv has been upgraded to XenForo 2.3!

    Please bear with us as we continue to tweak things, and feel free to post any questions, issues or suggestions in the upgrade thread.

Media mistakes

1687112994223.png
Not a "mistake" as such – it is accurate in fact – but either a case of talking down, or a comment on the state of education in the readers of the Mail.
 
On the cricket highlights yesterday evening on BBC TWO, they had a graphic with the leading century makers for England.
One of the names on the list was "Graham Cooch". How in the world can they get this wrong? Surely this comes out of somebody's database somewhere and surely it's auto-generated by something somehow, rather than some clueless gommo typing it in.
 
prpr said:
Surely this comes out of somebody's database somewhere and surely it's auto-generated by something somehow, rather than some clueless gommo typing it in.
Click to expand...
This happens a lot on many programmes. The number of spelling mistakes on BBC News and Sky News during the recent Nottingham incident was disappointing.
 
Talking about the reduction in ABV so the breweries save money on duty, the presenter had her figures all over the place earlier on Breakfast, but her script must have been corrected in the mean time. She was talking of the savings being £3 per pint!
 
EEPhil said:
Wetherspoon's owner warns the price of a pint could hit £10 one day
Click to expand...
Even if inflation had remained at about 2%, as was planned and generally happening before Covin, the price of a pint would of course hit £10 "one day".
I remember petrol at 33p/gallon - including free lead :)
 
I remember my Gran moaning about petrol going up to 3s 6d per gallon!

And beer was 2s a pint when I first started drinking (after removing school tie and blazer before entering the pub).

:D
 
The price of micro-chips is apparently going through the roof. But then again going through the roof should mean different things depending on the direction of travel.
 
Black Hole said:
Surely that proves it is some clueless gommo!
Click to expand...
Further evidence today. Not only is there an incredibly obvious error in the column heading, but the figure in the first row of the Matches column doesn't line up with the rest. It's really bizarre.
innings.png
 
Not to mention that dividing the number of runs by the number of innings is not how you work out the average.
 
Rarely have I seen a table like that that includes a "Not outs" column, so I think the intent of the above would be more than reasonable as an overview of batsman "greatness".
 
gomezz said:
Not to mention that dividing the number of runs by the number of innings is not how you work out the average.
Click to expand...
3151 ÷ 59.45 = 53, so that's out 53 times in 34 matches (68 innings?), so I suggest they've worked out the average correctly.
 
Black Hole said:
in 34 matches (68 innings?)
Click to expand...
At most, obviously. Could be anywhere in between. The higher up the batting order one is, the higher the probability of batting twice in a match is.
And declarations can mean some don't bat in either innings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top