[...] and then blogged critically on the newspaper’s Web site about the worshop. According to Ingram’s explanation, the books editor felt the workshop stressed too much that online headlines should be [...]

I agree with Neil– when the post was taken down editors should have had a statement prepared regarding their rationale.

And Jason, as I said before, if it was up to me I would have left the post as it was. I wish we weren’t quite so thin-skinned about criticism, whether internal or external, but it is what it is.

I bet a lot of readers in the community that’s (hopefully) sprung up around the books blog would have found it a worthy debate — and it was an appropriate place, given that the subject is those readers’ experience with the paper and (again, hopefully) their daily habits. And isn’t one of the key cultural shifts of new media that reporters and editors no longer stand aloof from readers? A little bristliness is OK as part of that.

And I think the consultant could have handled it just fine. Anyone who works in this area knows some slings and arrows will come his or her way. If you can’t take ‘em, you’re in the wrong business.

That said, I’m not surprised the post got taken down, big papers being what they are, and I think you handled it pretty well from that point forward. Having been stuck with a lemon, you made pretty good lemonade.

I’m glad Mathew was able to convince them that an explanation was warranted, but it should have been automatic when the item was removed. This incident has to cause some readers to doubt the Globe’s integrity.

And the book editor’s view that he should not need to offer search-friendly headlines on web versions of his book reviews? I’m sure the Globe’s competitors would love to see that.

And Joe, the proper forum to discuss internal matters is an internal one — a lunch, a coffee, a meeting, etc.

P.S. Please feel free to take your trolling comments about me elsewhere.

As a reader, I applaud.

Quick, Mathew, if you can take a moment out of your busy day managing the for-profit conference that conflicts with your ostensible day job: What is the appropriate forum to articulate any kind of objection to nonsensical advice from a consultant? There isn’t one, right? (All you can manage so far is that a company blog is no place to discuss company business. What is right place? Specify it exactly, please.)

Maybe they should have left the offending material up? Like for you, the explanation then skirts around the hole left by the removal. People who failed to catch the initial post are left wondering what the fuss is about, or have to take it on faith that it was offensive. This is the line, right?

Editors “see” way too much, not “seem” way too much. Sorry for the sloppiness.

Editors seem far too much nuance in these matters. While some things remains out of bounds (or, north of the border, offside) those are the rare exceptions.

@Andrew — I said that I thought objectivity was obsolete, not good manners. Using our platform to insult someone we invited to speak is just rude. And the books blog is for discussions about books, not about internal Globe matters.

@Marc — If it had been up to me, I would have left the post up and had Peter or someone else respond to or update it. Once it was gone, I thought the way we handled it was the best option available. And yes, the SEO discussion is continuing.

Perhaps they should have censored the editor in question some way, or used this incident as a catalyst to implement some form of second or copy editing on their blogs. But taking the post down was wrong.

It was also pointless, as stated the post is still out there, taking it back is what gave it “legs”.

Another question: Did anyone take the book editor’s words to heart, or did they get lost in all this?

you guys got this one wrong on both parts: a blog from the online books editor, in the online books section, about how to write book reviews online is definitely appropriate; and the removal is a sign of a continuing habit by old-school media (of which you are a part, don’t kid yourself) of “do what we say, not what we do.”