Footy mad or Official site
 

Just a quick question what do you prefer?

Re: Footy mad or Official site
 

Footy Mad!!......Are you mad thats the question!

Official site is way better and gets my vote any day of the week...........

Re: Footy mad or Official site
 

i fink footy-mad shud be made more of a fanzine type site cause its not got anything the official site hasnt.

Re: Footy mad or Official site
 

Does it really matter?

There will always be just one official site and we should be pleased that people are devoting their time to promote Accrington Stanley on the internet. Keep spreading the word and we'll get more people supporting the team ;)

Re: Footy mad or Official site
 

It says one for footymad, wonder who that was? :)

Re: Footy mad or Official site
 

Kev, if you're going to copy articles from the official site, at least try to copy them correctly! Your piece on "Why Stanley?" is obviously lifted from the item of the same name on the official site. However, you've still managed to mess it up by missing out a chunk in the middle! Accrington FC did not resign halfway through the season because of financial difficulties. They resigned at the end of the 1892-93 season because they had been relegated to the newly-formed second division and did not want to compete in this section. You also blithely ignore the fact that Stanley were a league club for 41 years and they were the ones who resigned midday way through the season because of finance.

May I suggest that if you want to put some historical items on your site, you do some research by reading Phil Whalley's excellent book and writing your own stuff, instead of carelessly cribbing items from the the official site.

Re: Footy mad or Official site
 

Well said Whalley Red. Why has everyone got it in for AccyStanKev - we all know which is the official site so lets just let get the lad get on with it instead of ripping him to shreds, as long as he doesn't claim its the official site and acknowledges the work of others then I couldn't care less.

Re: Footy mad or Official site
 

But it does claim to be the official site on the links page and he doesn't aknowledge the stuff he takes from eslewhere.... so eeer ?

Re: Footy mad or Official site
 

Well in that case I suggest that AccyStanKev makes himself aware of the Copyright Infringement Act (or whatever) and the penalties applied to those who contravene such laws.....and then carries on with his site.

Re: Footy mad or Official site
 

Your joking... This is the internet... nowts going to happen to him...

Re: Footy mad or Official site
 

Thats true...I dont think at times (Monday-Sundays 12am-12am).

Well I would hope that ASK would be a good enough fellow and acknowledge his sources anyway out of respect for the original authors.

Re: Footy mad or Official site
 

Yeah, but the point is he doesn't and, in the case of the "Why Stanley?" story, he has so little regard for his original source that he can't even be bothered to copy it properly, thus spreading misinformation about the club's history.

Re: Footy mad or Official site
 

I don't really see the two sites as being in competition, so 'which is better' isn't really important.

I think the idea of making the accy-mad site more of a fanzine type site is very good, instead of it being just a mirror of the official site. Perhaps that's something Kev could have a think about... a fans' eye view or something similar?

The only complaint I have is the amount of material being passed off as original, when clearly it isn't. I know Kipax allows anyone to use his pictures as long as they ask, and I feel the same about other content as well. It's always nice to be credited with work you've done.

Re: Footy mad or Official site
 

The problem for me when things are being copied is... If someone goes to the footy-mad website and reads an article or match report. then arrives at the official website (or wherever the original is from) and reads something that is so obviosuly simmilar.. they could (purely because they went there first) think the footy-mad content is the original and others have taken it, spruced it up and we are the copiers.

Taking original match reports and articles and re wording them is I am afraid very obvious to those that wrote the original and equaly as obvious to those that already read the original... Some people think they do such a good job of re hashing somehting that no one will know

Re: Footy mad or Official site
 

Jeez! He is a 14-year-old Stanley fan who is running a site for the first time and he is being hounded out of town. Give the lad a break, we been through too much to need a 'holier than thou' attitude at this club.

Yes, it does say "Visit the Official Accrington Stanley club website" on his links page and it points back to his home page, but he needs to be shown how to edit that link and he has tried to manually correct the problem by adding a link titled "Accrington Stanley official site" which is to the official site.

Yes, he did copy & paste some comments from this forum about the Dagenham game. It is a bit taboo, but at least no names were given. If you think that's bad, I read an article written in Thursday Racing Post about the Ryder Cup and it was virtually word-for-word the same as an article that appeared on the ESPN website the previous Sunday! And that's from a professional journalist.

I do see that Kipax has been given full and correct credit for Leigh RMI pictures that appear on the accystan site, so why the continued pettiness? Support and encourage people who are trying to spread the word about Stanley. They'll make mistakes, but don't we all?