28th December 2012, 01:59 PM
P Prentice Wrote:i dont think my beef is too different from yours. you are talking about a decline in standards and i am suggesting that the decline is being driven by the market. you highlighted an inadequate report by someone not qualified to write one and i am suggesting that nowadays needs must. it is not possible to compete in the present market by doing the work to the standard that some of us were trained to do. there are though a lot of people out there doing work to a standard they were trained to do but which is far below what could be done. if fieldwork is undertaken at such a poor standard it should be no surprise that analysis and reporting is likewise. if you think that a few shoddy pot reports are a problem i would suggest that you spend a bit more time on sites. and if you think you can organise an alternative system for rectifying the problem, you are clearly ignoring the fact that any such system would be managed by the very same vested interests that have overseen the current one - and made a lot of money in the process
Absolutely, and we're fully aware of what's going on generally and why these sh*t reports are being done. The point of the paper (and the others we've done in the last 20 years) is to keep pointing this out. The 'vested interests' can carry pretending all is fine, but if there's evidence being published that shows otherwise, then it clearly isn't. We are trying to do something about it (and we're not the only ones) - at the moment, we're gauging interest and are going to take it from there. We might not succeed in changing anything, but you can't win the raffle if you don't buy a ticket, and sitting in the pub whinging never changed anything, which is all most people who are unhappy with the system seem to do
\"Whoever understands the pottery, understands the site\" - Wheeler