Leaving Comments on Cricinfo

[Daemon]

Neither has CW, or any member of its staff, to the best of my knowledge.

biased ****s

 

[Jono]

Cricinfo's a good website. Plenty of information, generally timely, and whilst there are plenty of **** articles, there are plenty of good ones too.

Cricinfo may be biased towards India in terms of number of articles about it, but it is definitely not biased towards the BCCI. Plenty of hate and criticism on there.

 

[fredfertang]

I wouldn't knock cricinfo generally for one moment - it provides an excellent service - I'm just irritated by the fact that despite the apparent "openness" they don't seem to actually welcome participation other than on their own terms

 

[Jono]

Yeah sorry Tangman, discussion kind of shifted to the site in general rather than their comments/questions policy. Weird that your comments haven't been posted. That is poor form.

I find that the website responds to feedback pretty well. So maybe drop them a line/email?

 

[Maximas]

And once you get the comments working, you're ready for the big challenge... Getting your commentary feedback published!

 

[Arachnodouche]

Cricinfo is great but the Indian writers (mostly) and Indian comments (predominantly) are ****house.

 

[Bahnz]

For the record I wasn't thinking of that when I wrote biased, but if the cap fits...

Yeah, when I think of Cricinfo's bias, I normally think of the bias of the English commentators, especially back when Andrew Miller was a regular columnist.

I quite like Cricinfo, even if a lot of the articles aren't that interesting or as informative. Yes there's stuff on it that's formulaic and pointless, but also a lot of interesting analysis and the odd enlightened opinion as well. And I think the cordon is fantastic.

 

[davidmutton]

Indeed the BCCI still have not accredited Cricinfo as a journalistic organization so I don't think their guys are allowed into the media rooms on Indian grounds.

 

[doesitmatter]

World over journalism as a whole has become s****y. It's all about ratings and clicks in the wide wide west (www) of internet . was cricinfo website brought down in the past ? So i don't see anything different in what cricinfo is doing by pandering to its largest audience .

I like cricinfo as a whole. Lot of good stuff as well.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I wouldn't knock cricinfo generally for one moment - it provides an excellent service - I'm just irritated by the fact that despite the apparent "openness" they don't seem to actually welcome participation other than on their own terms

They probably think they have enough content from CW as it is, given they steal most of their interesting stats and points from here.

 

[ankitj]

I see the point about some bad articles. Likes of Akash Chopra, Bhogle or Sharda Ugra are pretty average writers. But cricinfo has its heart in the right place. They do a lot of service to cricket enthusiasts, being the same themselves. The numbers game feature is one of my favourites. The author doesn't get too nitpicky to be boring, yet brings out interesting insights. Cricinfo also demonstrate a lot of respect for the history of the game. They ran an all time XI feature, then they had ESPN legends series (the videos from that TV series were lost. Can't thank crincinfo enough for resurfacing them), they did stats from past, they did best after Bradman series, and currently they are doing features where they ask ex cricketers to name the best bowlers/batsmen they have seen (Hearing Allan Donald speak about Curtly Ambrose! wow. Thanks cricinfo). Another admirable thing that they do is that they cover domestic cricket and cricket in associate nations too. I don't follow these news items as much but once in a while it is quite fascinating to read about a cricket match played in Latin America or China.

 

[BeeGee]

I wouldn't knock cricinfo generally for one moment - it provides an excellent service - I'm just irritated by the fact that despite the apparent "openness" they don't seem to actually welcome participation other than on their own terms

Like almost all web based commercial companies they present an angelic face to the public while their heart is rotten to the core. It's all smoke, mirrors and bull****.

Back when cricinfo was run by volunteers it was awesome. The commentaries and articles were intelligent, witty and clever. Then Wisden came along and the content quality went down hill. Then ESPN came along and the content quality went into freefall. All it's good for now is scorecards and archives, imo.

 

[Jono]

I see the point about some bad articles. Likes of Akash Chopra, Bhogle or Sharda Ugra are pretty average writers. But cricinfo has its heart in the right place. They do a lot of service to cricket enthusiasts, being the same themselves. The numbers game feature is one of my favourites. The author doesn't get too nitpicky to be boring, yet brings out interesting insights. Cricinfo also demonstrate a lot of respect for the history of the game. They ran an all time XI feature, then they had ESPN legends series (the videos from that TV series were lost. Can't thank crincinfo enough for resurfacing them), they did stats from past, they did best after Bradman series, and currently they are doing features where they ask ex cricketers to name the best bowlers/batsmen they have seen (Hearing Allan Donald speak about Curtly Ambrose! wow. Thanks cricinfo). Another admirable thing that they do is that they cover domestic cricket and cricket in associate nations too. I don't follow these news items as much but once in a while it is quite fascinating to read about a cricket match played in Latin America or China.

Yeah exactly. Its coverage of the game globally all in one spot is magnificent. Can keep abreast (as much as I cbf) with as much domestic cricket in Aust, India and Eng with reasonable detail all within a few clicks.

Also learned plenty about cricket history, including those players who are "less famous" from years gone by, thanks to random articles and feature pieces.

 

[ankitj]

Like almost all web based commercial companies they present an angelic face to the public while their heart is rotten to the core. It's all smoke, mirrors and bull****.

Back when cricinfo was run by volunteers it was awesome. The commentaries and articles were intelligent, witty and clever. Then Wisden came along and the content quality went down hill. Then ESPN came along and the content quality went into freefall. All it's good for now is scorecards and archives, imo.

Are you saying that they cover and maintain archives of domestic, associate and affiliate cricket just for money? Nah, I don't buy that.

 

[Howe_zat]

Jarrod Kimber's brilliant.

 

[Jono]

Yep and I love that someone like him is able to get his blog and his videos on Cricinfo. Fantastic accessibility from someone who wouldn't get a look in at a newspaper.

 

[Bahnz]

Jarrod Kimber's brilliant.

He could seriously do with an editor though. His pieces have been littered with grammatical errors.

 

[Goughy]

Cricinfo's a good website. Plenty of information, generally timely, and whilst there are plenty of **** articles, there are plenty of good ones too.

Cricinfo may be biased towards India in terms of number of articles about it, but it is definitely not biased towards the BCCI. Plenty of hate and criticism on there.

I like Cricinfo. Like any website, you self filter the**** and read the stuff that interests you. Cricinfo has enough content that there is generally enough to find something of interest. My main issue is how deep CC is buried but it is a fine resource and website.

 

[karan316]

I read only certain articles, and the basic reporting which even their reporters can't really stuff up. Some of the opinion stuff from people like Chappell and Ashley Mallet ect that finds its way on the site is OK. Generally can't stand others like Akash Chopra.

Don't think you have actually read his articles, his understanding of the game is really good and he has written some really wonderful articles.

 

[davidmutton]

Like almost all web based commercial companies they present an angelic face to the public while their heart is rotten to the core. It's all smoke, mirrors and bull****.

Back when cricinfo was run by volunteers it was awesome. The commentaries and articles were intelligent, witty and clever. Then Wisden came along and the content quality went down hill. Then ESPN came along and the content quality went into freefall. All it's good for now is scorecards and archives, imo.

Disagree with that. Why is their heart rotten to the core? I seem to remember that it went a little off during the dotcom years but now it is without any doubt the most comprehensive cricket resource online. I doubt any journalistic enterprise has ever hired as many cricket journos, reporters and other personnel, and if their motive is only commercial they would not bother with domestic or affiliate cricket. It certainly is not perfect (oh how I would love Statsguru to include domestic games) but what is?