<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Fraction of FOI Requests Made via WhatDoTheyKnow.com Increasing Fast</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mysociety.org/2009/10/01/whatdotheyknow-foi-fraction-up/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mysociety.org/2009/10/01/whatdotheyknow-foi-fraction-up/</link>
	<description>Usability with Purpose</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:53:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Louise Ferguson</title>
		<link>http://www.mysociety.org/2009/10/01/whatdotheyknow-foi-fraction-up/#comment-1866</link>
		<dc:creator>Louise Ferguson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 07:41:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysociety.org/?p=3107#comment-1866</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s great to see stats being produced on requests.

I wonder whether collecting data on grounds for rejection has been considered - say, as part of the Classification options. It would be interesting to know which are the big hitters in terms of exemptions claimed. For example, who/how many are using the &#039;manifestly unreasonable&#039; argument, or the &#039;in confidence&#039; argument. At the moment, this data is sometimes in the reply text and sometimes effectively hidden within attachments sent by the body concerned.

I think people who had received a rejection would be willing to provide that info, say by selecting an option from a list, as they won&#039;t be best pleased with the rejection.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s great to see stats being produced on requests.</p>
<p>I wonder whether collecting data on grounds for rejection has been considered &#8211; say, as part of the Classification options. It would be interesting to know which are the big hitters in terms of exemptions claimed. For example, who/how many are using the &#8216;manifestly unreasonable&#8217; argument, or the &#8216;in confidence&#8217; argument. At the moment, this data is sometimes in the reply text and sometimes effectively hidden within attachments sent by the body concerned.</p>
<p>I think people who had received a rejection would be willing to provide that info, say by selecting an option from a list, as they won&#8217;t be best pleased with the rejection.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Taylor, volunteer</title>
		<link>http://www.mysociety.org/2009/10/01/whatdotheyknow-foi-fraction-up/#comment-1865</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Taylor, volunteer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 01:17:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysociety.org/?p=3107#comment-1865</guid>
		<description>Martin Rosenbaum, who writes the &quot;Open Secrets&quot; FOI blog on the BBC website, has written an article commenting on these statistics:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2009/10/the_impact_of_whatdotheyknow.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Martin Rosenbaum, who writes the &#8220;Open Secrets&#8221; FOI blog on the BBC website, has written an article commenting on these statistics:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2009/10/the_impact_of_whatdotheyknow.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/opensecrets/2009/10/the_impact_of_whatdotheyknow.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ganesh Sittampalam</title>
		<link>http://www.mysociety.org/2009/10/01/whatdotheyknow-foi-fraction-up/#comment-1864</link>
		<dc:creator>Ganesh Sittampalam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Oct 2009 15:45:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysociety.org/?p=3107#comment-1864</guid>
		<description>The Home Office seem to be pretty good at just losing requests, so do we know that the statistics are actually accurate?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Home Office seem to be pretty good at just losing requests, so do we know that the statistics are actually accurate?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Whitehall Webby</title>
		<link>http://www.mysociety.org/2009/10/01/whatdotheyknow-foi-fraction-up/#comment-1863</link>
		<dc:creator>Whitehall Webby</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 13:50:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mysociety.org/?p=3107#comment-1863</guid>
		<description>Nice one, glads it gaining traction.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice one, glads it gaining traction.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
