One of my never ending pet peeves is the large amount of completely incorrect technical writing which is going on out there. In fairness, I realise this could be technical writing or technical editing. I've done a small amount of paid writing before, and have witnessed the brutal things editors can do to a piece of writing if they're left alone for more than a few minutes at a time.
Latest example, in the Summer edition of the AA Magazine (thats the automobile association, not the other one). Phil Clark writes in Webspin about Cokefridge. He says:
"For more cool, see this NZ-based online music download store. Load your iPod or CD with MP3s and cruise with www.cokefridge.co.nz"
Interesting. When I last checked Cokefridge they had huge disclaimers all over the place about it not working with iPods, or any Apple machines at all. Apart from the site only supporting IE (which obviously Mac users can get around), it was the fact that they ONLY offer downloads as WMA's, which of course iPods can't play (I suspect that Macs could play them, there must be a 3rd party plugin available for common mac players to handle WMA's by now - Macheads set me straight please?).
So I checked Coketunes, and of course that's still the case. The site looks the same as it did on release, and that includes being plastered with disclaimers about the iPod support. If you're mentioning a site in your magazine, is it hard to actually VISIT that site? Maybe click on at least 1 or 2 hyperlinks and have a read? It seems so.