If you want to have your comment published, or if you have published a comment and it hasn’t been published, it is quite a good idea to read through this little piece.
Our original starting premise was to publish most stuff, but in fact we’ve got to the point now where only about half of the comments we get are published. Many of the rest of rejected by software that sifts out things that are not relevant to us – but of course that can mean that sometimes good stuff goes out with the junk.
But beyond that please remember this web site was set up to support the manager, the players and the club because we felt very few sites did this. And we also support the use of statistical analysis, the scientific method, logical deduction and the like. If you feel that’s not a good idea, you will find vast numbers of other sites that are more to your taste. We’re not moving from that fundamental so simply telling us that the manager is useless is unlikely to get published.
To clarify this a little more, forget Arsenal and imagine we had set up a web site about bee keeping. And imagine you didn’t like bee keeping, arguing that it harmed bees, caused inbreeding or something like that. And imagine also that there is a magazine that does follow this line of thought.
I am sure you can imagine that as people publishing the bee keeping magazine we’d probably not publish articles arguing that our entire premise was wrong. In fact with Untold we have published some commentaries arguing against our standpoint, but have taken the view that having done that there is not much point in publishing more and more of them, nor indeed in publishing commentaries that say we are contradictory. We don’t think we are, some people think we are, ok we know that. There’s not much further to go.
Our position is we’ve run the arguments too often now, and have run out of time, so such commentaries do tend not to be published or if they do slip through, not answered.
We also try not to publish comments which…
1. Have nothing much to do with the article in question. There are over 6000 articles on the site, so we hope you can find an article that deals with your topic and comment there. If not, write an article and send it to TonyAttwoodofLondon@gmail.com
2. Contain abusive remarks about the writer of the article or other commentators, or indeed about the publisher (that’s really not a very clever idea). Some do get through however and if you see one that is abusive against you, email TonyAttwoodofLondon@gmail.com and give the date and time of the post, plus the sender’s name as shown next to the post.
3. Argue against the article, or indeed the entire ethos of this site without putting forward any evidence of the type we accept. The point of this is that this site contains a huge amount of evidence and deduction to support its standpoint, and simply to write in and say we are wrong is, well, basically very dull and boring.
Please note that we get comments each week saying “to prove your point about referees you need to have non-Arsenal people doing the reviewing, and analyse non-Arsenal games.” We have done this. It is on the Referee Decisions website.
And saying that “you didn’t put any evidence on your article” doesn’t work either. We’ve been publishing for eight years and have vast numbers of articles with huge amounts of evidence. If you want to argue against us, do your homework, find our original article and argue against that evidence. We’re not doing your hard work for you.
4. Simply repeat points that have been made many times before. We expect everyone who wants to comment to do us all the courtesy of having a look through the site first, and understanding what it is about and the sort of things that have been said. One common point is to blame Wenger for a lack of signings when it is obvious that we needed a player – without contemplating the issues involved. This is probably the biggest problem of all with comments we receive.
5. Contain religious points or issues, either for or against any particular religion. It just seems irrelevant to this site and its ethos. I’m sorry if you disagree but that is where we are.
6. Suggest that the whole basis of scientific enquiry is false. If you feel our sample is warped, that’s another matter, but the essence of the scientific method is not one we are going to argue about. It is simply too well established throughout western civilisation to be countered in a football site. Try looking up the “scientific method” if you don’t get what I mean.
7. Suggest that Arsenal supporters are inherently stupid or of less intrinsic value to mankind than supporters of other clubs. (It might seem odd that we get such comments, but we do).
8. Threaten the writer or a commentator. Please remember that if you say something that would represent criminal behaviour (such as threatening violence) if said face to face, it is criminal behaviour if you put it on a web site. We do pass on the details of such comments and their originator to the police.
9. Do not provide a valid email address or send in articles from different email addresses and/or names from the same computer. Sorry if you share a computer, but this is a common trick of those trying to disrupt our site.
10. Reprints something that has been published elsewhere.
11. Contain a phrase along the lines that “you probably won’t publish this” or “you will ban me for this” or anything similar.
On the other hand, sometimes comments that break one or more of the rules are of themselves so funny or bizarre we do actually publish them, along with the details of the sender.
Now if you’re comments are not published and you think they should be
- Email address sent from
- the user name used
- the IP address (if you don’t know it go onto google and type in “What’s my IP address”)
- the time (roughly) and date sent.
and send me the commentary that you sent in.
Publisher, Untold Arsenal