I do feel that they wavered from what would have been a more clearly defined - and hence more easily defendable - brief.

If you say 'Fanfare boosts for film, and we'll then add other specific film pubs', 'Full Frame for photography, and likewise', that makes sense, and gives you the framework gradually to cover most topics, though some will fall through the gaps, and others will have to wait longer than they would like. But it's logical and consistent.

Once you start having pubs included because 'Ooh, they seem to have quite a lot of good stuff', that muddies the waters. Might this have started with the memoir-based pubs, perhaps, which whilst focused in their way, and well edited at their best, inevitably don't confine themselves to any one area, but rather 'all human life is here', by definition?

And then you have other generalist pubs added, some good, some bad, some indifferent (in my opinion, which I suspect you will share).

But they don't have an automatic pre-filter, restricting the submissions they receive, and the fact of the boost will tend to act like chum to barracuda. The programme is placing its public credibility in the hands of editors whom it cannot control, nor even effectively guide.

When you see a pub has published 50 articles in a single day, and also has a boost gallery, it's like seeing a sign in a McDonald's window saying 'Try our finest cordon bleu Kobe beef steak!'.

Burger flipping and fine dining don't mix.