Shetland Independent Newsletter

[Siggar]

lets hope not

[Muppet]

Hate to spoil your moment, but...........

 

http://www.thesin.org.uk/issue2/

[Ghostrider]

^^^ Well, the cover picture is down to the same low standard as Issue 1, is that it for June. Or is it just me that can't get in to the alleged 23 pages?

[tlady]

^^

 

Ican't either

[Muppet]

Maybe he doesn't think anybody will want to look beyond the cover

 

Or if you're really desperate (and I chose that word carefully), try this link and flick over from there.

 

http://www.thesin.org.uk/issue2/page2

[Frances144]

I think it is a very strange publication.

 

I could only find it from typing in Page 2 after the link. It was not obvious and I thought the standard was somewhat low.

 

There was a page at the end full of adverts shoved on top of each other. The concept is good, the content misses the spot completely and I just don't really get the point of this publication.

 

Is it me, or is it a little bit on the tacky side?

 

Could be me, though. I am not known for my intellect or much else!!!

 

Fx

[islandhopper]

... well, the best thing of the 2nd online issue is probably that all links asking you for your opinion or for further comments are either ending up in the electronical 404 nirvana or in the already closed first forum ...

[Ghostrider]

It's a quite widely proven and accepted fact of any "marketing" project, that the person being presented with the material will form their strongest impressions of it within the first handful of seconds of encountering it.

 

Either Mr Hill is unaware of this point, or doesn't agree with it. The online version at least, swings between difficult and impossible to read, and the page formatting/layout/image sizing (and consequently resolution) is abysmal. It looks like a work in progress rather than a finished article.

 

When Issue 1 was that way, I thought fair enough, its new, teething trouble, the next will be better. It's not, if anything it's worse. Looking at each page on my screen I see no incentive to try and read it, and I see a long list of reasons not to even bother trying.

 

If you want people to read this publication make it inviting, please. If I'd had paid for advertising in either #1 or #2, I'd have demanded a full refund the minute I saw the finished result online. Long gone are the days of pasting up master copies an inch at a time with much use of invisible tape and running them off on a copier, this comes across as an online version of that.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

Stuart Hill wrote:

seeking approval, happiness, or any other feeling from sources outside of ourselves. The hard reality is that it just doesn’t work. No event or person can make you feel happy, sad, angry, or any other emotion.

 

Maybe we should just use kid gloves on this issue, he's starting to sound a bit lonely, well either that or sociopathic.

[Guest Anonymous]

Now Now,, don't be so hard on Mr Hill...

He managed to choose an unusual photo of a Tammie Norrie for the cover.

He deserves praise for that because pictures of interest always grab the attention of the readership.

Now for next months issue, all he has to do is get a picture of a councillor taking a bus instead of a taxi, and everybody will rush to look at it..

[Guest Anonymous]

OK, so I had to read the Independent just for the hell of it.

Perhaps the advertisers in the trade classified section are different in the printed version but, several in the online one have no contact details.

The Roselea Guesthouse advert, I jnow it's in Aberdeen because the tel. no. starts 01224...but has no end.

Ballet classes, is missing the email address which it says to respond to.

Shetland Gardening Services, has no contact info.

Business Opportunity, stops mid sentence.

 

Hope these folks didn't pay for their adverts...

[Ghostrider]

^^^ For anybody that's not sure where Baroc is, they'd have a devil of a job trying to read the address on the 1/4 pager.

[peeriebryan]

Whilst I applaud the principle of providing the SIC with a gauge of public opinion, I am slightly confused by the lack of clarity relating to the SIC's backing of the muckle poll

 

I was in contact with council officials last year regarding setting up a regular Internet poll, and whilst they were generally behind the idea on an a personal level, they were of the opinion that the results of an anonymous poll carried out by an unverified 3rd party would not be considered as valid, and would hold little if any sway in the SICs decision making processes

 

In a statement issued to the Shetland Times regarding the closure of the 'Have your say' forum, John Smith (head of organisational development) said "no evidence gathered has been used by [the] planning services as there is a lack of confidence in evidence gathered in a largely anonymous way."

 

http://www.shetlandtoday.co.uk/Shetlandtimes/content_details.asp?ContentID=18716

 

The muckle poll may develop into a way to gather initial primary data to base further research on, but due to its methodology, I don't think it can be considered as a valid research instrument in its own right

 

If councillors have expressed official backing to the muckle poll, I would be interested to read their comments. If not, I believe it should be made expressly clear that the muckle poll is not backed by the council and is an independent entity. This is particularly important as people have to pay to vote in the muckle poll and may be mislead into believing it is they are taking part in council backed referenda

 

 

 

After saying that, if enough people vote I suppose the SIC would have no choice but to take heed

[Fifi]

where is new forum, and i wonder if there will be a second issue of this newsletter

http://shetlandindependent.niceboard.com/Your-first-category-c1/Your-first-forum-f1.htm

[islandhopper]

The muckle poll may develop into a way to gather initial primary data to base further research on, but due to its methodology, I don't think it can be considered as a valid research instrument in its own right.

Sorry, peeriebryan, but how to develop?

Phone polls might be working for some kind of tv-shows, but even their it is questionable. They are defenitely no "valid research instruments in its own right" - at least no such polls as they are planned (and not to get mixed up with phone polls based on controlable populations and quotas).

 

You had the bridge case, you had that "Hodge" case ...

Imagine: In both cases the councils would have based their decision on "da muckle poll". I am sure Scotland has some kind of "supervision of local authorities" an of course, these bodies might have failed.

 

But the judges who would have the last word anyway were surely dead by now. *sdsnla* = sudden death by super natural lough attacks.

 

The whole way that thing was launched and here especially the permanent quotes that the idea is "somehow" backed by the SIC - without stating who is backing it and how they are backing it - is nothing else but a kind of exhibitionism ...

 

Well, we never know how such a club of eldermen as the SIC might deal with such popular cases but for Shetland sake I do hope that at least folks like Allan will know how to stop such a nonesense.