Likewise with the AdelaideNOW blog, which is full of praise for the new layout?
I don't like the new page because the stories are different from the Advertiser, meaning if I want to read the front page I have to go buy the paper, which I refuse to do. I'm not paying for one or maybe two stories. Also, you used to be able to read the paper and stories from up to a week previously, but I can no longer find that functionality on the website.
Sure, I can go online and read other sites, but when Adelaide only has one news source, it kind of makes it a little hard to find stuff about us from an Adelaide perspective. But that's besides the point.
Anyway, on Sunday there was a story by Amanda Blair, an ex Adelaide radio jock, about how DJs and radio hosts are aware that most callers to the station are fake.
And it got me thinking... how do we know these blog commentators aren't fake?
The posts are moderated anonymously, and there's nothing to tie people to their posts like other sites like Kotaku or even a web forum.
I added a comment to the AdelaideNow website, and hopefully Rod, the editor, can answer...
Just like to get your opinion on something...
Given that the fake radio caller thing has been blown wide open by the Sunday Mail (well, for those listeners too stupid to realise the truth beforehand anyway), I'd like to know what guarantees do we have that people responding to these blogs aren't just newspaper people posing as 'concerned readers'.
Because the posts are moderated before we see them, I feel that this is very open to abuse, much like the Radio calls.
Surely a registered user database would be better than anonymous posting coupled with anonymous moderating.