Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Is that all you had problems with? I'm still trying to decrypt this sentence in the piece:
China’s central bank talked about the cross would save particular that there turned ample liquidity throughout the banking scheme and assist present a bag forex market.
The 150 billion yuan figure in the quoted article is a net figure, as a Reuters article explains:
China’s central bank said it will inject 1.2 trillion yuan ($174 billion) worth of liquidity into the markets via reverse repo operations. ... 1.05 trillion yuan worth of reverse repos are set to mature on Monday, meaning that 150 billion yuan in net cash will be injected.
It appears @JohnN fell for the same trap I did last week. While I knew sites like Yahoo republished news stories from other sources (for the most part faithfully and with proper citation), I hadn’t realized there are now offshore sites that actually rewrite those stories with / without proper attribution. I don’t know if it’s machine written. Appears to be a very bad human rewording / translation, perhaps dictated to machine. Why ... ? (1) Might be an effort to alter original wording enough to evade copyright law. (2) Might be an attempt to simplify or shorten the original article to attract more readers. (3) The re-publisher could be working from a previously translated copy of the original.
In my case last week, I attempted to link a perfectly well written story I’d read in the FT so readers here could access it. The FT is very hard to link, so I went with what appeared to be the same story republished by “Newslagoon”. Bad mistake on my part. Here, John is citing something calling itself “Invest Records.” Their story appears to be a poor regurgitation of a story that appeared on the BBC’s website: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51347497
From BBC: “China urged citizens to wear face masks in public places ...”
From Invest Records: “China advised voters to placed on face masks in public areas ...”
(Likely the English terms “citizens” and “voters” bear resemblance to one another in another language and are easy to confuse by those with poor English skills.)
It appears “Invest Records” is mixing into its recap more than one source, whereas “Newlagoon” simply reworked one source.
THIS IS WRONG: These after-market news sites are profiting by stealing stories from reputable sources and putting them out on the web to attract readers to their advertising (and probably planting lots of tracking cookies on our devices as well). All of us, John and I included, need to track down the original source of any article we come upon and attempt to link to that original source. Let’s not feed these vultures by posting their regurgitated crap here. *I’d like to learn more about these re-write shops and how they manage to so mangle the stories they’ve plagiarized. If anyone knows more or has pertinent links please share.
PS - In John’s defense, it’s my understanding English is his second-language. So, I’d cut him a little slack here. But, he should try in the future to track down the original source of news / financial articles before posting.
I have to wonder if John even bothers to read the stuff that he posts. I would NEVER post something unless I had read and understood it myself. John seems to believe that links are enough... let somebody else do the reading work. Really bad form.
I have to wonder if John even bothers to read the stuff that he posts. I would NEVER post something unless I had read and understood it myself. Johln seems to believe that links are enough... let somebody else do the reading work. Really bad form.
OJ - Rest assured he’s working hard on the issue. Last week I Googled a lead sentence from the FT article I wanted to share. Up popped a similar sounding read from news lagoon. I linked the damned thing without reading it - thinking it was in fact a verbatim copy. Pretty embarrassing.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
Comments
China’s central bank talked about the cross would save particular that there turned ample liquidity throughout the banking scheme and assist present a bag forex market.
The 150 billion yuan figure in the quoted article is a net figure, as a Reuters article explains: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-cenbank/china-to-inject-174-billion-of-liquidity-on-february-3-as-markets-reopen-idUSKBN1ZW074
Sheesh
It appears @JohnN fell for the same trap I did last week. While I knew sites like Yahoo republished news stories from other sources (for the most part faithfully and with proper citation), I hadn’t realized there are now offshore sites that actually rewrite those stories with / without proper attribution. I don’t know if it’s machine written. Appears to be a very bad human rewording / translation, perhaps dictated to machine. Why ... ? (1) Might be an effort to alter original wording enough to evade copyright law. (2) Might be an attempt to simplify or shorten the original article to attract more readers. (3) The re-publisher could be working from a previously translated copy of the original.
In my case last week, I attempted to link a perfectly well written story I’d read in the FT so readers here could access it. The FT is very hard to link, so I went with what appeared to be the same story republished by “Newslagoon”. Bad mistake on my part. Here, John is citing something calling itself “Invest Records.” Their story appears to be a poor regurgitation of a story that appeared on the BBC’s website: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51347497
From BBC: “China urged citizens to wear face masks in public places ...”
From Invest Records: “China advised voters to placed on face masks in public areas ...”
(Likely the English terms “citizens” and “voters” bear resemblance to one another in another language and are easy to confuse by those with poor English skills.)
It appears “Invest Records” is mixing into its recap more than one source, whereas “Newlagoon” simply reworked one source.
THIS IS WRONG: These after-market news sites are profiting by stealing stories from reputable sources and putting them out on the web to attract readers to their advertising (and probably planting lots of tracking cookies on our devices as well). All of us, John and I included, need to track down the original source of any article we come upon and attempt to link to that original source. Let’s not feed these vultures by posting their regurgitated crap here. *I’d like to learn more about these re-write shops and how they manage to so mangle the stories they’ve plagiarized. If anyone knows more or has pertinent links please share.
PS - In John’s defense, it’s my understanding English is his second-language. So, I’d cut him a little slack here. But, he should try in the future to track down the original source of news / financial articles before posting.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”