×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Quoted in Google News? Post a Comment

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the bidirectional-journalism dept.

Google 53

An anonymous reader writes "Google News has a feature it calls "Comments From People in the News." (rude interrupting registration may be required) The idea is simple: if you have been quoted in an article that appears on Google News, you can post a comment that will be paired with that article. (Journalists can comment, as well, Google says, though none have done so thus far.) Since it was introduced in the spring, the feature has largely existed under the radar, with roughly only about 150 total comments having been made. Thus far, Google News has used e-mail messages to encourage people quoted in articles to submit comments — an effort to prime the pump similar to the process that results in the first issue of a new magazine magically having letters to the editor."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

53 comments

fristpstr (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21820680)

first post. My first.

it's my favorite book (0)

User 956 (568564) | more than 6 years ago | (#21820682)

...similar to the process that results in the first issue of a new magazine magically having letters to the editor.

Your ideas intrigue me, and I would like to subscribe to this magazine.

how do they authenticate the comment? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21820712)

How do they authenticate the identity of the poster? How do I know it really is the person quoted in the article and not some disgusting slashdot troll?

Not only that.. (3, Insightful)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 6 years ago | (#21820970)

Even if they do somehow verify your name, how do they know you're the right person with that name? I can't wait for someone called John Smith to make the news.

Re:Not only that.. (3, Funny)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#21821024)

Very True Mr. Lebowski... Now where's the money!

Re:Not only that.. (1)

garbletext (669861) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822888)

We believe in nothing, Lebowski. Nothing. And tomorrow we come back and we cut off your chonson.

Re:Not only that.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21823324)

Shut up Donny! You're out of your element! Like a child in the woods!

Re:how do they authenticate the comment? (2, Funny)

GuldKalle (1065310) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822284)

Easy: Google will send you an 8-character registration-code, and next time you speak to the press, just make sure they quote your registration-code

I've kind of liked this idea (3, Interesting)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#21820718)

If someone is panted in a poor light in an article they get a chance to rebut. It's a neat feature but do you really think 9/10th of people in the news will take time to respond to Google's news page and jump through the needed hoops to prove they're who they claim to be?

Re:I've kind of liked this idea (1)

Danny Rathjens (8471) | more than 6 years ago | (#21827136)

People paid to do it certainly will. I've already seen comments from campaign managers of presidential campaigns using it to spin stories their way.

Re:I've kind of liked this idea (1)

The_reformant (777653) | more than 6 years ago | (#21829060)

If someone is panted in a poor light in an article they get a chance to rebut


Heaven knows I like to ensure that my pants look their best but this is just advocating cosmetic surgery for the sake of it.

So (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21820752)

What is stoping me from saying that I'm some guy that is quoted saying something?

Re:So (3, Funny)

User 956 (568564) | more than 6 years ago | (#21820814)

What is stoping me from saying that I'm some guy that is quoted saying something?

Probably the fact that you've identified yourself as "some guy that is quoted saying something". That might tip them off.

Old and Pointless News (3, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 6 years ago | (#21820758)

I realize that this is Slashdot and there are slow news days, especially around the holidays, but for the New York Times to be that far behind the times is a little ridiculous. I know, I know they are talking about how few people have been using it since it was introduced this spring but come on.

Personally, while I read Google News several times a day, I find the feature completely worthless. I honestly don't give a flying rats ass what the people quoted in the article have to say. What I would like to see is related blog articles, with user comments, linked straight from Google News itself. Hell, Google knows what types of blogs I prefer to read (I use Google Reader), make certain that the blogs you link to are ones that I'm more likely to read and then post on.

This feature, while obviously still "beta", could be improved so much more. I know you crazy engineers are out there reading this, just do what I said and it'll be a helluva lot more popular :)

Re:Old and Pointless News (3, Insightful)

ricebowl (999467) | more than 6 years ago | (#21820778)

Personally, while I read Google News several times a day, I find the feature completely worthless. I honestly don't give a flying rats ass what the people quoted in the article have to say.

So...you skip the quotes in the articles? You wouldn't be interested if the person quoted posted a rebuttal to their own quote? Whether to say they were misquoted, misattributed or misinterpreted? How about if they wanted to add a more thorough analysis to expand upon the soundbite that the journalist used?

I don't use Google as a news source that often, preferring instead the BBC [bbc.co.uk] but if they were to adopt this idea then I'd be more than happy to see, and read, an extended analysis of the reported stories. But...you wouldn't?

Why?

Re:Old and Pointless News (5, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 6 years ago | (#21820810)

Why? Because 75% of the time, when I'm interviewed for an article, I'm misquoted. I expected people to be misquoted and thus I take articles in the news media with a grain of salt. I also know that many times people aren't misquoted and don't like the result of the article as a whole and then bitch that they were misquoted in order to cover their own asses.

What I want to see are related content where the general public can respond to the articles and I can see, from both sides of the issue, responses that are far more relevant than the two pages and misquoted whinings that appear linked from Google News.

Re:Old and Pointless News (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 6 years ago | (#21821086)

Why? Because 75% of the time, when I'm interviewed for an article, I'm misquoted.
Can we quote you as saying you were misqouted?

Re:Old and Pointless News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21821216)

Can we quote you as saying you were misqouted?

No, but you can misquote him as saying he was misqouted.

Re:Old and Pointless News (3, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822082)

Pretty much everybody is misquoted, Journalists do a cruddy job of getting it right, and in many cases they mis characterize quotes or paraphrase them. The operating assumption that people have when they read quotes in the news is that they aren't an accurate representation of what was said.

Sort of like all the buzz about Will Smith liking Hitler. It was a preposterous misquote, that was more than a little bit insulting the religions that teach people to consider every person to have a little bit of goodness inside of them. The extended quote was an amazingly insightful statement about the human condition. Of course that version isn't of any particular interest, because it wouldn't keep people reading blogs.

Re:Old and Pointless News (1)

aicrules (819392) | more than 6 years ago | (#21821232)

If only the feature could possibly live up to its potential...so far all I see are quoted people taking the opportunity to get more of the spotlight on whatever area of expertise they were interviewed for, rather than as a way to clarify a misquote. Getting everybody who was quoted and giving them a chance to say whether they were quoted accurately, and if not, what was misquoted would be great. Just having them expound on whatever book they're selling or wax poetic about something barely related to their quote is next to useless.

Slashdot does a good job of aggregating IT-related stories in a place where IT-related people can discuss them. But general public being solicited for comments/debate on any given article's content...zzzzzz. sounds great on paper, but sifting through the thousands of "First post" type posts to then have to sift through the "You're gay" type posts to find the one thoughtful response that cover a key issue addressed in the attached article doesn't sound very fun to me. I'd rather just bring it up at the water cooler.

Re:Old and Pointless News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21821354)

Why? Because 75% of the time, when I'm interviewed for an article, I'm misquoted.


hahaha. You realize that when you post on /. , you're not being interviewed, right?

Re:Old and Pointless News (1)

roguetrick (1147853) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822008)

Why? Because 75% of the time, when I'm interviewed for an article, I have a sexual attraction to the quoter.
I'm flattered.

Re:Old and Pointless News (1)

ooutland (146624) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822058)

I've been misquoted myself, by a reporter looking to sensationalize something that I thought was already dramatic enough. I think the ideal system would be one where a reporter/news agency automatically provides you with a verification key, which you can use online in the event you have to append your own correction/rebuttal to their story after it hits the wires/net. The key ensures that it's really you responding and not some nutjob. Of course, that kind of oversight would require faithful transcription of interviews, fact checking, and a whole lot of additional work for certain lazy reporters. In my town, they can't even get the sports listings right, when all it would take is a simple Internet sesrch, so how can we expect them to get the news right?

Re:Old and Pointless News (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822450)

What I want to see are related content where the general public can respond to the articles and I can see, from both sides of the issue, responses that are far more relevant than the two pages and misquoted whinings that appear linked from Google News
Surf on over to Cnet.com and enjoy the "general public" responding with such relevance as, "M$ Windoze BLOWS!", or "Macs are GAY!". If that's not enough for you, then try reading "general public"'s posts about how great "Device-X-That-Isn't-Even-on-the-Market-Yet-but-I'm-going-to-Post-How-Awesome-This-Thing-Is-Because-I-Really-Really-Own-One-Already" is.

If that isn't enough comedy for you, try reading some "User Reviews" on Rottentomatoes.com. Frankly, I don't understand the appeal of what "general public" thinks.

Anonymous source == Journalist's Opinion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21822792)

Agreed.
I also assume that any Anonymous source is really a sock puppet for the journalist.

Which is why I have such a hard time with Shield Laws that give journalists the "right" to not reveal their "sources".
1) Who is to say who is a journalist?
Do they have to write for a MSM outlet? Can they be a blogger? How about a some guy who writes for an independent paper?
Why should "journalists" have more free speech rights than the rest of us?

2) If they are shielded from any responsibility in making up sources, what is to stop them from running rampant with this?
Given the Rueters Photoshopping the Dan Rather forgery, etc. etc. (really I should catalog all of them sometime), I have ZERO trust in what the media reports. Journalism is about the narrative, not the facts.
Afterall they are called "journalists" not "reporters"

-----------------
A mini-quote on business reporting. The reporting you would think would be most about the facts. [instapundit.com]
CHRISTMAS RETAIL SALES UP, BUT BY A MODEST 3.6% -- but online sales were up 22.4%. The New York Times calls those numbers "bleak," a term that's more accurately used in reference to its stock prices . . . .

Related post here. It's all about the narrative.

UPDATE: Reader, and hedge-fund manager, George Zachar emails:

        Investors now have to gauge not only the reality of economic data, but its predictable willful misrepresentation by the press. We therefore have to speculate not only on underlying conditions, but on the effectiveness of the effort to scupper Main Street confidence.

        On another matter, tech unfriendliness is a big driver in NYC commercial real estate, and the conversion of many older buildings into residential lofts.

Yeah, the press reports have consequences besides their intended one, of swinging the elections.

UPDATE: Reader Eric West emails:

        The same schmuck, Michael Barbaro, wrote a similar story in 2005. He also wrote a story back in September of his year trying to say back to school sales only looked good, but really weren't:

        Why do we care what the some schmuck at the New York Times writes anymore, anyway?

        It's like reading something Andrew Sullivan writes and instead of saying, "Sullivan thinks....." we write, "The Blogosphere today announced that...."

        Bologne. We need to get out of the habit of saying, "The New York Times....." and giving backing to these folks. Instead, we should say, "Michael Barbaro wrote....." and treat him just like we'd treat anyone in the blogosphere.

Good point. Why let people hide behind institutions? And, of course, Barbaro's other retail coverage has sometimes been a bit tendentious.

Re:Old and Pointless News (2, Insightful)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 6 years ago | (#21820800)

So the NY Times shouldn't post this story because it is old news to you? I'm no dummy on the tech front, but this is news to me and probably thousands of others, given the NY Times editors thought it worthy. It's not like they are posting a story about those new-fangled Microsoft Xboxes.

To be even more contrarian, I think it is a GREAT concept to be able to hear more from the people quoted in an article, because the press has a bad habit of picking and choosing (taking out of context) their favorite sound bites. This seems like it could give a little more depth to any story.

Re:Old and Pointless News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21821596)

You talk like an obscure blogger who's unhappy that his blog has two pageviews a week (by yourself) and now you're trying to persuade Google to link to your crappy blog.

Re:Old and Pointless News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21822898)

i WAS going to do something along those lines, but you had to call us crazy! Us?!

Re:Old and Pointless News (1)

Quadraginta (902985) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822952)

Er...wait a minute...you don't give a fsck what comments people might make about an article in Google News, but you imagine Google engineers will be greatly caring about comments random /. geeks make about an article about Google News in old media?

>fzzt<

Damn, that logical consistency fuse went out again...must use higher rating...

There's one interesting use for that (4, Interesting)

Enleth (947766) | more than 6 years ago | (#21820788)

Journalists (not all of them, sure, but way too many) like to misquote on purpose, quote selectively, out-of-context or in any way otherwise changing the intended meaning of the quoted statement, after which the quoted (quotees? Is that even a word?) are left for the public to tear apart for something they didn't mean but the journalist wanted to put in their mouth - with no real way to correct what has already been printed, save for a few rich enough to take a legal action or just so rich to not give a crap about that.

Such a system gives a way for corrections like that to be made public instantly and directly. Maybe that has even happend already, I don't know - but I think that's the most interesting and possibly useful outcome of this.

Re:There's one interesting use for that (1)

ricebowl (999467) | more than 6 years ago | (#21820818)

Maybe that has even happend(sic) already, I don't know.

yeah that's happened. This is only the most recent example I could think of: Will Smith angry over Hitler comment... [cnn.com] .

Re:There's one interesting use for that (1)

Enleth (947766) | more than 6 years ago | (#21820856)

happend(sic)

Did I, by any chance, say anything about quoting recently? Oh. Well, crap.

*Starts writing "happened" 100 times to get it better next time*

Re:There's one interesting use for that (1)

argent (18001) | more than 6 years ago | (#21820954)

I could have used that about, oh, fifteen or so years ago when some reporter decided to make it sound like this newfangled Internet thing was just for porn, and used a drive-by quoting to make it sound like I agreed. Of course the fact that people care about what refutations someone might post vie Google News is answer enough. :)

Re:There's one interesting use for that (0)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#21821614)

I disagree.
I think this shows a lot about how humans remember and repeat things. I ahve beenr eading about recent studies about human memory, and it's quite fascinating. A lot of things that are frustrating to me, and many others, seem to be wired into the brain at some 'level'

People remember bad stuff more accurately then good.
People seem to remember something the 'easy ' way, even of that means it's wrong.
People's predisposition about something, or someone, influences how the remember thing.
People seem predisposed to believe in the supernatural. whether thats God, Fairies, or a Flying spaghetti monster. In fact, it would not surprise me to find an actually spaghetti monster religion within a 100 years.

While some people do intentional take a quote out of context, or o0nly take half a quote(I'm looking at you Rush) I thin they are in the minority. Except with pundits, in that case I think it's par for the course. OTOH, if you believe in something regardless of any actual facts, it's no surprise that everything you read gets twisted to match your view.

these things actually make sense (1)

Quadraginta (902985) | more than 6 years ago | (#21823158)

What you're saying can be boiled down to...

(1) People remember new and surprising things better than old and expected things.

(2) People are willing to believe stuff that is not well-supported by their own experience and personally known facts.

Both are clearly powerful advantages for members of a highly social species living in a changeable environment.

Obviously remembering something new and strange is more important than remembering something old and familiar, since what is old and familiar can be reconstructed from other stuff you already know, or from the memories of other members of the tribe, and you've already evolved some way of dealing with it anyway. For example, it's more important to remember that you saw strange new tracks of some large feline predator thingy at the water hole than to remember precisely where the water hole is. Other members of the tribe can help you remember how to get to the water hole, but you're the only one who can warn everyone else that something new and scary might be waiting for them there.

As for number 2, that's more subtle, but I suggest it comes in essence from the fact that individuals are quite expendable in the interests of the tribe. It make sense for the tribe if individual members of a tribe take wild guesses about what various ambiguous data mean. 90% of the time (say) they'll be wrong and perish but the rest of the tribe will learn from their mistake. The other 10% of the time they'll be right and discover as if by some magic powerful intuition some hidden fact about the world. Once again, the tribe will profit from observing them. Hence, although it's clearly stupid for the individual to make wild guesses about what causes lightning or whether this peculiar plant is safe to eat, the tribe will probably learn something quite useful if he does.

Re:these things actually make sense (1)

Grygus (1143095) | more than 6 years ago | (#21823688)

I think the second thing ties into the first thing. You come back and say there are new scary tracks, but why should I believe you? If I am a healthy skeptic, I go and get eaten. If I am a gullible idiot, I take a spear and a friend and we eat well that night.

Re:these things actually make sense (1)

Quadraginta (902985) | more than 6 years ago | (#21824392)

Right you are, and this is why the gullible tend to outlive the skeptical when both are part of a large tribe. Blindly believing what your neighbor tells you (instead of going to the considerable trouble and perhaps danger of verifying it yourself) tends, in a large community, to be a remarkably quick and efficient way to maximize your survival probability. This is, of course, why as a species we are so prone to it, to the dismay of libertarians everywhere and the glee of those who make their living in advertising.

These things frustrate clever asocial (or antisocial) geeks, of course. We'd all like to think that individual intelligence beats mindless groupthink combined with the tendency of a few individuals to make wild guesses so that the rest of the tribe can learn something (and not uncoincidentally individual cleverness triumphing over groupthink is the theme of many a geeky favorite SF story). But in practise it doesn't actually work out that way. It turns out that random guesses plus groupthink works faster and more efficiently than individual intelligence, pretty much. Oh well.

So does this mean (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21820868)

Since you can only comment if you're quoted, does that mean under all the Bush articles we're going to have "LOL" "ME TOO" and "plz send me the codes thx"?

False allegations of misquoting? (1)

Nerdposeur (910128) | more than 6 years ago | (#21821446)

When I worked as a reporter, the people I quoted sometimes remarked on the fact that I was the rare reporter who quoted them correctly. I honestly think that this was not because other reporters are dishonest, but because I type quickly and most of my interviews were over the phone. It was much harder for me to get direct quotes when interviewing with pad and paper.

While I think this is good, because it allows for sources to respond to an article, I think it's important to remember that the sources themselves may not always be truthful. If they don't like the way an article came out, they could say they were misquoted, even when they weren't.

I suppose the journalist's safeguard for this is to audio-record every interview, but danged if most sources would agree to that. There will inevitably be some "he said, she said."

Re:False allegations of misquoting? (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822268)

Wait, wait.. There are people, whom you interview, who expect that what they say is likely to appear in print in some form, but they won't agree (demand, even) to audio recording?

I'd assume they're angling for a "misquote" and not even bother with the interview. They want to use you for free publicity, but cast you aside if it doesn't turn out to be the kind of publicity they want?

The ubiquitous "off the record" (1)

Nerdposeur (910128) | more than 6 years ago | (#21823830)

...but they won't agree (demand, even) to audio recording?

Bizarrely enough, yes. People want to dictate to reporters what will and won't go in the article. I had people wanting to insert "off the record, blah blah blah" into their comments all the time. In most cases, it was their opinion or grudge, and it didn't really matter, so I ignored it. But in one case, a police officer told me something and then said, "off the record," and proceeded to tell me the exact opposite. I was appalled. Rather than try to sort it out, I just didn't quote him at all. (By the way, in journalism school they taught us that unless we both agree it's off the record before something is said, it's fair game.)

In political reporting, if you must talk to the same sources often (a city manager, for example), you develop a basic relationship with them - not too chummy, but enough to hear their private gripes once in a while. Sometimes they will give you background information that they won't let you quote, but which will help you find that info from another source.

So at least in my experience, it would have been harder to get the same amount of information if I'd wanted to record everything. And given the time and cost involved (ever tried to transcribe a 1-hour interview?) and the fact that we were nearly never challenged on accuracy, it wasn't worth it. Maybe that would be different in another time or at another newspaper.

Re:False allegations of misquoting? (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822342)

While I think this is good, because it allows for sources to respond to an article, I think it's important to remember that the sources themselves may not always be truthful. If they don't like the way an article came out, they could say they were misquoted, even when they weren't.
Well at least it is out there, so the reader can decide if he/she believes the reporter or the quotee.

Misquotes (1)

jvkjvk (102057) | more than 6 years ago | (#21822348)

Since in almost every article, especially science and technology articles that require a broad understanding and depth to write coherently about, most writers mis-understand the interviewees (either willfully or through ignorance) this appears like it could be an excellent feature. A conscientious interviewee could fill in the gaps or correct misunderstandings the journalist missed and give us a more complete picture.

This could then turn into an ad-hoc rating system for journalists. How many articles did they write that were corrected? How good is their basic understanding of what someone said vs. what they actually meant? What way(s) did they colour the interviewees thoughts with their own biases? How many interviewees reputiate quotes (I did not say that!)?

It has a pretty good chance to work IF people are cognizant of it, assuming that if someone gives an interview they are at least attached enough to their own reputation to make sure the journalist gets what they are saying right. I know if I were mis-quoted or misunderstood I wouldn't want people to get the idea that I actually said/meant X instead of Y.

Re:Misquotes (1)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#21824234)

Since in almost every article, especially science and technology articles that require a broad understanding and depth to write coherently about..

Oh my god! Imagine if there was a website of news articles about science and technology that any random Joe who thought he knew better could put his comment about the story?! ANARCHY I TELLS YOU! It wouldn't last and the comments those misinformed couch physicists make would be all a bunch of self imposed lies or just random gibberish!

I wish that was more sarcastic that it really was...

Don't be Rude! (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 6 years ago | (#21824956)

(rude interrupting registration may be required)
Not if you convert the link to its RSS version. Don't know how? Use this handy convertor [blogspace.com] .

flowers to india (0, Troll)

abhann1 (1214186) | more than 6 years ago | (#21939526)

valentine flowers gifts 2008 gift your loved ones click on the below sites, We are online florist for delivery of flowers and gifts to 250 cities in India and 23 countries across the world.Send flowers to Pune, gifts, cakes, flower delivery to Pune, Mumbai, India, Bangalore, Chennai, Hyderabad, Mumbai, Delhi, Coimbatore, Goa, Pondicherry, Ahmedabad, Calcutta, Cochin, Trivandrum, Vijayawada, Madurai and anywhere across the world. http://www.flowersfloristsgifts.com/ [flowersfloristsgifts.com] http://www.flowersnfloristsindia.com/ [flowersnfl...sindia.com] http://www.flowersnflorists.com/ [flowersnflorists.com] http://www.floristonlineindia..com/ [floristonlineindia..com] http://www.onlinefloristindia.com/ [onlinefloristindia.com] http://www.cakesflowerschocolates.com/ [cakesflowe...olates.com] http://www.colourfulflowersindia.com/ [colourfulf...sindia.com] http://www.indiafloristshop.com/ [indiafloristshop.com] http://www.giftgiftstoindia.com/ [giftgiftstoindia.com] http://www.floristindianetwork.com/ [floristindianetwork.com] http://www.bloomonlineindia.com/ [bloomonlineindia.com] http://www.indiacakesonline.com/ [indiacakesonline.com] http://www.giftflowersindia.com/ [giftflowersindia.com] http://www.flowerstochennai.com/ [flowerstochennai.com] http://www.indiaflowerwala.com/ [indiaflowerwala.com] http://www.bangaloregiftsflower.com/ [bangaloregiftsflower.com] http://www.sendflowerspunjab.com/ [sendflowerspunjab.com] http://www.sendfreshflowersindia.com/ [sendfreshf...sindia.com] http://www.allindiagift.com/ [allindiagift.com] http://www.indiachocolatedelivery.com/ [indiachoco...livery.com] http://www.keralaflorist.com/ [keralaflorist.com] http://www.sendvalentineflowers.com/ [sendvalentineflowers.com] http://www.punegiftsflowers.com/ [punegiftsflowers.com] http://www.puneflowerdelivery.com/ [puneflowerdelivery.com] http://www.hyderabadgiftsflowers.com/ [hyderabadg...lowers.com] http://www.goaflorist.com/ [goaflorist.com] http://www.floristbangalore.com/ [floristbangalore.com] http://www.delhigiftsflowers.com/ [delhigiftsflowers.com] http://www.delhiflorists.com/ [delhiflorists.com] http://www.mumbaiflorist.com/ [mumbaiflorist.com] http://www.mumbaigiftsflowers.com/ [mumbaigiftsflowers.com] http://www.chennaigiftsflowers.com/ [chennaigiftsflowers.com] http://www.globalflowerdelivery.com/ [globalflowerdelivery.com] http://www.indiafloristonline.com/ [indiafloristonline.com] http://www.indianonlineflorist.com/ [indianonlineflorist.com] http://www.giftsvalentine.com/ [giftsvalentine.com] http://www.sendvalentinegifts.com/ [sendvalentinegifts.com] http://www.indiacakedelivery.com/ [indiacakedelivery.com] http://www.aindiaflorist.com/ [aindiaflorist.com]
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...