CSNbbs

If you google, "American athletic conference standings" the futures ECU, Tulsa, Tulane are already in them with this past years football records. Weird.

(01-18-2014 09:53 AM)NBPirate Wrote: [ -> ]If you google, "American athletic conference standings" the futures ECU, Tulsa, Tulane are already in them with this past years football records. Weird.

FYI; Anyone can update those types of posts and thus the information most often isn't totally credible.

And if you look at "Rivals.com", Cincinnati is still living in the "Big East."

Don't believe everything on the internet.

(01-18-2014 11:44 AM)USFRamenu Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-18-2014 09:53 AM)NBPirate Wrote: [ -> ]If you google, "American athletic conference standings" the futures ECU, Tulsa, Tulane are already in them with this past years football records. Weird.

FYI; Anyone can update those types of posts and thus the information most often isn't totally credible.

Google, not Wikipedia

(01-18-2014 11:48 AM)CalallenStang Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-18-2014 11:44 AM)USFRamenu Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-18-2014 09:53 AM)NBPirate Wrote: [ -> ]If you google, "American athletic conference standings" the futures ECU, Tulsa, Tulane are already in them with this past years football records. Weird.

FYI; Anyone can update those types of posts and thus the information most often isn't totally credible.

Google, not Wikipedia

Ahem... Where do you think Google gets it's search information from. Most of the articles that are general pieces come from simple web searches and then a quick rewrite. If anyone on this board has worked for a news or media company, they will agree with me. I do apologize for not being more specific.

(01-18-2014 11:51 AM)USFRamenu Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-18-2014 11:48 AM)CalallenStang Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-18-2014 11:44 AM)USFRamenu Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-18-2014 09:53 AM)NBPirate Wrote: [ -> ]If you google, "American athletic conference standings" the futures ECU, Tulsa, Tulane are already in them with this past years football records. Weird.

FYI; Anyone can update those types of posts and thus the information most often isn't totally credible.

Google, not Wikipedia

Ahem... Where do you think Google gets it's search information from. Most of the articles that are general pieces come from simple web searches and then a quick rewrite. If anyone on this board has worked for a news or media company, they will agree with me. I do apologize for not being more specific.

I know what you are saying but I'm pretty sure that the RSS feed they are pulling the standings from is not Wikipedia-based, given that Wikipedia has the correct standings.

I'm guessing that the database that their RSS feed taps into has recently reconfigured its conference listings but still has this year's scores and results under each team's individual listing. It makes sense when you consider database architecture but not for the reason you state.

(01-18-2014 12:01 PM)CalallenStang Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-18-2014 11:51 AM)USFRamenu Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-18-2014 11:48 AM)CalallenStang Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-18-2014 11:44 AM)USFRamenu Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-18-2014 09:53 AM)NBPirate Wrote: [ -> ]If you google, "American athletic conference standings" the futures ECU, Tulsa, Tulane are already in them with this past years football records. Weird.

FYI; Anyone can update those types of posts and thus the information most often isn't totally credible.

Google, not Wikipedia

Ahem... Where do you think Google gets it's search information from. Most of the articles that are general pieces come from simple web searches and then a quick rewrite. If anyone on this board has worked for a news or media company, they will agree with me. I do apologize for not being more specific.

I know what you are saying but I'm pretty sure that the RSS feed they are pulling the standings from is not Wikipedia-based, given that Wikipedia has the correct standings.

I'm guessing that the database that their RSS feed taps into has recently reconfigured its conference listings but still has this year's scores and results under each team's individual listing. It makes sense when you consider database architecture but not for the reason you state.

I see what you're saying now. Thanks for the clarification. My Old eyes never work prior to my morning "Pot" of coffee.

(01-18-2014 12:05 PM)USFRamenu Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-18-2014 12:01 PM)CalallenStang Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-18-2014 11:51 AM)USFRamenu Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-18-2014 11:48 AM)CalallenStang Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-18-2014 11:44 AM)USFRamenu Wrote: [ -> ]FYI; Anyone can update those types of posts and thus the information most often isn't totally credible.

Google, not Wikipedia

Ahem... Where do you think Google gets it's search information from. Most of the articles that are general pieces come from simple web searches and then a quick rewrite. If anyone on this board has worked for a news or media company, they will agree with me. I do apologize for not being more specific.

I know what you are saying but I'm pretty sure that the RSS feed they are pulling the standings from is not Wikipedia-based, given that Wikipedia has the correct standings.

I'm guessing that the database that their RSS feed taps into has recently reconfigured its conference listings but still has this year's scores and results under each team's individual listing. It makes sense when you consider database architecture but not for the reason you state.

I see what you're saying now. Thanks for the clarification. My Old eyes never work prior to my morning "Pot" of coffee.

LOL. I know what you mean. Fortunately I have been up for awhile now