This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/19/readers-editor-chocolate-peanuts-complaints

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
The readers' editor on ... why chocolate and peanuts left a sour taste The readers' editor on ... why chocolate and peanuts left a sour taste
(4 months later)
Triage is the action of sorting by quality, most often associated with dealing with wounded on the battlefield. Hospitals use it as a way of assigning the appropriate priority to patients to ensure effective treatment. On a very busy day in the readers' editor's office it is a very useful practice to adopt when dealing with 120 emails involving complaints and queries, where each person or group expects an immediate response, no matter how serious the issue.Triage is the action of sorting by quality, most often associated with dealing with wounded on the battlefield. Hospitals use it as a way of assigning the appropriate priority to patients to ensure effective treatment. On a very busy day in the readers' editor's office it is a very useful practice to adopt when dealing with 120 emails involving complaints and queries, where each person or group expects an immediate response, no matter how serious the issue.
However, it is rarely possible to apply a strict hierarchy, which is not always easy to explain to readers. They scan each day's corrections and clarifications column and are often puzzled about why a misspelling or a homophone appears before their more serious issue has been addressed. Readers may imagine that they have been ignored, or their level of concern dismissed. However, that is not the case, barring those occasions that I and my colleagues make an error of judgment. Sorting complaints and queries tends to follow the triage model.However, it is rarely possible to apply a strict hierarchy, which is not always easy to explain to readers. They scan each day's corrections and clarifications column and are often puzzled about why a misspelling or a homophone appears before their more serious issue has been addressed. Readers may imagine that they have been ignored, or their level of concern dismissed. However, that is not the case, barring those occasions that I and my colleagues make an error of judgment. Sorting complaints and queries tends to follow the triage model.
There are errors so egregious – for instance, where continued publication risks breaching the law – when attention has to be fast and effective. There are mistakes that are so straightforward to rectify that it would be foolish to let them stand while sorting out some other query. A reporter may contact the desk to let you know that he or she meant billion rather than million in the second paragraph so that what follows is rendered gibberish. These, too, tend to get fixed quickly.There are errors so egregious – for instance, where continued publication risks breaching the law – when attention has to be fast and effective. There are mistakes that are so straightforward to rectify that it would be foolish to let them stand while sorting out some other query. A reporter may contact the desk to let you know that he or she meant billion rather than million in the second paragraph so that what follows is rendered gibberish. These, too, tend to get fixed quickly.
Then there is a third group. These are generally issues that require more research, more time spent interviewing journalists or specialists who have written for the paper but are not readily available to respond. These complaints may involve potentially serious errors or issues but require thought before writing a response. Within this third group are a subset of complaints that, on the face of it, don't seem too serious and slip down the order. We can only to commit to correcting substantial errors and this subset is sometimes overlooked, much to the understandable irritation of readers who take a different view.Then there is a third group. These are generally issues that require more research, more time spent interviewing journalists or specialists who have written for the paper but are not readily available to respond. These complaints may involve potentially serious errors or issues but require thought before writing a response. Within this third group are a subset of complaints that, on the face of it, don't seem too serious and slip down the order. We can only to commit to correcting substantial errors and this subset is sometimes overlooked, much to the understandable irritation of readers who take a different view.
Here are two examples of concerns that have lacked attention on my part and have now engendered a slight case of readers' editor's remorse.Here are two examples of concerns that have lacked attention on my part and have now engendered a slight case of readers' editor's remorse.
A Press Association report published on the Guardian's website on 26 April 2013 about the decision of Booths, a supermarket chain, to withdraw packs of Whole Hearted Roasted Monkey Nuts had the headline: Monkey nuts withdrawn over 'may contain nuts' warning error. The first sentence was: "A supermarket chain has withdrawn bags of nuts from sale because they contain nuts." Well, up to a point, as many readers were quick to point out: "Shouldn't the next line in the article below the headline read 'Whole Hearted Roasted Monkey Nuts taken off Booths' shelves after label fails to warn customers packet may contain peanuts'? Then the article is factually correct and Booths' action is to be lauded, the problem lying in the wording of the warning message and not being a case of health and safety gone mad/stating the obvious/rabble-rousing on a Friday afternoon."A Press Association report published on the Guardian's website on 26 April 2013 about the decision of Booths, a supermarket chain, to withdraw packs of Whole Hearted Roasted Monkey Nuts had the headline: Monkey nuts withdrawn over 'may contain nuts' warning error. The first sentence was: "A supermarket chain has withdrawn bags of nuts from sale because they contain nuts." Well, up to a point, as many readers were quick to point out: "Shouldn't the next line in the article below the headline read 'Whole Hearted Roasted Monkey Nuts taken off Booths' shelves after label fails to warn customers packet may contain peanuts'? Then the article is factually correct and Booths' action is to be lauded, the problem lying in the wording of the warning message and not being a case of health and safety gone mad/stating the obvious/rabble-rousing on a Friday afternoon."
In fairness, the author of the article goes on to make quite clear that the lack of warning about peanuts is the problem, rather than other kinds of nuts. A collective sense of humour failure by a handful of readers? Not the issue for this reader: "For the sake of a cheap laugh ('Ha! Ha! Packet of nuts contains nuts. Tee hee.') this article has missed a great opportunity to educate and inform people. As you may detect, I'm a bit angry. My granddaughter has a peanut allergy." Bearing in mind that in the digital world the headline may be all most people see, the readers have a point.In fairness, the author of the article goes on to make quite clear that the lack of warning about peanuts is the problem, rather than other kinds of nuts. A collective sense of humour failure by a handful of readers? Not the issue for this reader: "For the sake of a cheap laugh ('Ha! Ha! Packet of nuts contains nuts. Tee hee.') this article has missed a great opportunity to educate and inform people. As you may detect, I'm a bit angry. My granddaughter has a peanut allergy." Bearing in mind that in the digital world the headline may be all most people see, the readers have a point.
Here is another issue that generated complaints that some may find surprising. It relates to a charming gallery also published online on 26 April 2013 showing how to draw cats. The last of the 11 images is of a cat eating an ice cream and the text says: "Ice Cream! (chocolate of course)". Several readers complained. One wrote: "… Chocolate is highly toxic to cats and even more unfortunately they cannot taste sweetness so will be unaware of this if it is given to them. I don't think it is over-reacting to suggest you need a readjustment of the pictures,  please, before some child does what is suggested …"Here is another issue that generated complaints that some may find surprising. It relates to a charming gallery also published online on 26 April 2013 showing how to draw cats. The last of the 11 images is of a cat eating an ice cream and the text says: "Ice Cream! (chocolate of course)". Several readers complained. One wrote: "… Chocolate is highly toxic to cats and even more unfortunately they cannot taste sweetness so will be unaware of this if it is given to them. I don't think it is over-reacting to suggest you need a readjustment of the pictures,  please, before some child does what is suggested …"
Parents, you have been warned.Parents, you have been warned.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.