Although we are only 20 months old, a few subjects keep rearing their heads. Sometimes I have dealt with them before and you were not an early adopter of i and missed it, and sometimes you just won't take our "no" for an answer.
Sport is one area, despite our "concise, quality" mantra, you seem to want more of. More football that is not Premier League or even English; more coverage of the Six Nations teams (other than England); more rugby union, and more rugby league, for that matter. Many of you want more motorsports, but no two of you agree on which motorsports: recent laments include the lack of speedway, Moto GP and Le Mans.
Horse-racing is in the "please sir, can we have some more" box too. And when you watch, as I did online yesterday, footage of the fabulous Frankel decimating yet another top-class field, you can understand why. Trouble is, it is so often not Frankel. We can never cover it as well as our tabloids, let alone the Racing Post, so we bring you edited highlights.
Another tricky issue is coverage of women's sports. Some wrote in to complain that we didn't feature the England v Holland qualifier at the weekend. I watched that on TV with my football-loving girls. I shared the dilemma about coverage with them, and they looked at me as if I was from Mars (a common occurrence). "It's just not good enough" was their immediate response. Now, I am not sure that's fair, but I do know it does not yet have enough mass appeal to justify the investment in resources.
And there you have it. i can only cover so much, both because of our resources and pagination. There are some (crazy) readers who even think we have far too much sport as it is. Hmm. Decision, decisions... I am sure you will give me your thoughts.Follow @stefanohat Reuse content