And here's the type of bullshit that sets my teeth on edge.

The most read story on the BBC right now is "Spelling mistakes 'cost millions' in lost online sales". How do we know? "An online entrepreneur says that poor spelling is costing the UK millions of pounds in lost revenue for internet businesses."

Oh. It's some guy's opinion. Which guy? "Charles Duncombe says..." Who he? Someone whose opinion on this matter carries some weight no doubt? "Mr Duncombe, who runs travel, mobile phones and clothing websites..." Ah. So this is the equivalent of the BBC basing a story on grabbing someone off the street and asking them for their opinion on... stuff.

Never mind. How did Duncombe arrive at his conclusion?

"He says he measured the revenue per visitor to [WEBSITE NAME REDACTED] and found that the revenue was twice as high after an error was corrected. "If you project thisacross the whole of internet retail then millions of pounds worth ofbusiness is probably being lost each week due to simple spelling mistakes," says Mr Duncombe, director of the [NAME OF GROUP REDACTED]."

I see.

So based on no knowledge about the error that was corrected or the revenue that was lost/gained, the BBC thinks it's reasonable to project this one incident onto the entire internet.

What we have here is someone doing some puff PR for their sites, baited with a irrelevant and largely imaginary hook that the BBC have gladly bitten into.
Shared publiclyView activity