T/S: Defamer v. Gawker

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (677 of them)

gawker is pound-for-pound the best website on the internet imo, slavedriving practices or w/e aside

nagl wayne (J0rdan S.), Monday, 15 February 2010 21:11 (4 years ago) Permalink

co-sign

Nagl Nagl Nagl (Whiney G. Weingarten), Monday, 15 February 2010 21:12 (4 years ago) Permalink

how many pounds does gawker weigh

max, Monday, 15 February 2010 21:13 (4 years ago) Permalink

best website on the internet?

kshighway (ksh), Monday, 15 February 2010 21:15 (4 years ago) Permalink

as opposed to websites that you view on webtv...

nagl wayne (J0rdan S.), Monday, 15 February 2010 21:17 (4 years ago) Permalink

i was more curious why you think it's the best website on the internet!

kshighway (ksh), Monday, 15 February 2010 21:18 (4 years ago) Permalink

a synthesis of interesting stories/links, have been able to write about gossip & hard news w/o damaging their reputation on either subject (can't think of another news source that can say the same), good writers, easy to nav site, constantly updated etc

nagl wayne (J0rdan S.), Monday, 15 February 2010 21:22 (4 years ago) Permalink

and i say "pound-for-pound" because if you left me with only one web site to use (email aside) i would choose twitter or ilx but there's obv a worse wheat/chaff ratio than with gawker

nagl wayne (J0rdan S.), Monday, 15 February 2010 21:23 (4 years ago) Permalink

so would you say like 6-8 pounds

max, Monday, 15 February 2010 21:28 (4 years ago) Permalink

that makes sense, J0rdan. since i noticed ilx seems to like Gawker so much i've been reading it more to see what's up, and i think it's generally pretty good.

kshighway (ksh), Monday, 15 February 2010 21:30 (4 years ago) Permalink

so would you say like 6-8 pounds

― max, Monday, February 15, 2010 3:28 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

more like the weight of deez nuts -_-

nagl wayne (J0rdan S.), Monday, 15 February 2010 21:30 (4 years ago) Permalink

all of gawker media blows

― omar little

velko, Monday, 15 February 2010 21:36 (4 years ago) Permalink

; )

velko, Monday, 15 February 2010 21:36 (4 years ago) Permalink

their weekend guy, foster kamer, is the worst writer on the whole internet

V-E-R-Y (history mayne), Monday, 15 February 2010 21:40 (4 years ago) Permalink

he should post here

velko, Monday, 15 February 2010 21:41 (4 years ago) Permalink

naww brian moylan is worse

A B C, Monday, 15 February 2010 21:46 (4 years ago) Permalink

i like gawker - pretty impressive scrappy bootstrapping operation - they get more traffic than the latimes and a bunch of other big names iirc

ice cr?m, Monday, 15 February 2010 21:52 (4 years ago) Permalink

lol foster kamer - im always like how can this guy write so many words - not a lot of qc going on there

ice cr?m, Monday, 15 February 2010 21:53 (4 years ago) Permalink

i think their weekend writing has a lot more leeway/freedom when it comes to editing than the weekday stuff does -- i think as long as the dude keeps the site moving and the commenters involved then they don't really care as much about quality -- who knows tho -- wasn't he the guy who was a major commenter player first anyway?

nagl wayne (J0rdan S.), Monday, 15 February 2010 21:57 (4 years ago) Permalink

I hate myself for knowing Gawker lore like so many X-Men family trees but I believe that was Richard Lawson

A B C, Monday, 15 February 2010 21:59 (4 years ago) Permalink

ah

nagl wayne (J0rdan S.), Monday, 15 February 2010 22:05 (4 years ago) Permalink

i like how knowing x-men lore is the LESS nerdy equivalent

amuse-douche (s1ocki), Monday, 15 February 2010 22:07 (4 years ago) Permalink

some of it i absolutely love and always read because it's mostly otm, some seems like just 'who can we hate on today' and gets tiresome - depends on the writer.

i wonder if the strongly negative tone of the content from certain organizations, and i don't just mean gawker media, is generated above all by the way they treat their own staff. nothing like working for capricious people who fire talented colleagues with no warning and for no reason related to their job performance.

daria-g, Monday, 15 February 2010 22:11 (4 years ago) Permalink

their weekend guy, foster kamer, is the worst writer on the whole internet

I refuse to believe this is real person, it sounds like a name that would be made up for a computer program.

ô_o (Nicole), Monday, 15 February 2010 22:16 (4 years ago) Permalink

rereading this, i guess i could have got it wrong. but is FK saying obama and h-clinton saved copenhagen here? for some reason this appalled me no end:

http://gawker.com/5430452/climate-changes-bad-lieutenants-barack-and-hillary-bustin-down-doors

V-E-R-Y (history mayne), Monday, 15 February 2010 22:22 (4 years ago) Permalink

FK farewell blitz has been a horror

A B C, Sunday, 28 February 2010 21:41 (4 years ago) Permalink

yeah :-(

waka flocka pedia (J0rdan S.), Sunday, 28 February 2010 21:46 (4 years ago) Permalink

Did Gawker's full-content RSS feeds just go excerpt-only for everyone else?

ksh, Tuesday, 9 March 2010 22:14 (4 years ago) Permalink

Not just me: http://search.twitter.com/search?q=gawker+rss

ksh, Tuesday, 9 March 2010 22:28 (4 years ago) Permalink

http://twitter.com/ryantate/status/10241000296

ksh, Tuesday, 9 March 2010 22:45 (4 years ago) Permalink

lol foster kamer - im always like how can this guy write so many words - not a lot of qc going on there

― ice cr?m, Monday, February 15, 2010 9:53 PM (3 weeks ago) Bookmark

lol dude left the other week. glad some1 at gawker is reading ilx for HR tips

YOURE WELCOME

the archetypal ghetto hustler (history mayne), Tuesday, 9 March 2010 22:52 (4 years ago) Permalink

Denton:

Gawker Media is an ad-supported company. RSS ads have never realized their potential. At the same time we sell plenty of ads on our website. So, yes, it is in our interest for people to click through if enticed by an excerpt.

ksh, Tuesday, 9 March 2010 22:53 (4 years ago) Permalink

Ta-da: http://gawker.com/vip.xml

James Mitchell, Tuesday, 9 March 2010 22:58 (4 years ago) Permalink

For those who want their full-content feed back:

http://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/10241832261

ksh, Tuesday, 9 March 2010 22:58 (4 years ago) Permalink

Yep, what James said!

ksh, Tuesday, 9 March 2010 22:58 (4 years ago) Permalink

imo stuff like this makes a good case for Gawker being on some bullshit in not even giving a fair amount of credit/attribution/linkage to the old media they siphon most of their content from (and usually dumb down or sensationalize in the process): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/31/AR2009073102476.html

Krusty Burgerizer (some dude), Tuesday, 9 March 2010 22:59 (4 years ago) Permalink

that said i sure do miss the gawker media checks i was getting on the reg for a while there and i def look at their various sites, albeit not all the time

Krusty Burgerizer (some dude), Tuesday, 9 March 2010 23:00 (4 years ago) Permalink

xp that Post article is depressing as hell, but not for the Gawker writer

newspapers should really act more like gawker, that an editor at a major newspaper still think links are stealing is scary

Popper, Tuesday, 9 March 2010 23:43 (4 years ago) Permalink

it's not "scary", but rewriting other people's work -- which is what gawker (and othee mnstrm blogs) does above all else -- isn't anything to brag about.

the archetypal ghetto hustler (history mayne), Wednesday, 10 March 2010 00:07 (4 years ago) Permalink

probably a majority of newspaper writing is rewriting other people's work, and at least gawker tries to add jokes.

joe, Wednesday, 10 March 2010 00:12 (4 years ago) Permalink

say it ain't so, joe

lmfao @ credulity (velko), Wednesday, 10 March 2010 00:38 (4 years ago) Permalink

it ain't so

^^^ cut and pasted that from velko's post, depriving him of revenue

joe, Wednesday, 10 March 2010 00:41 (4 years ago) Permalink

Gruber wrote a decent commentary about full-text RSS feeds just a couple days ago.

If you’ve got a model where revenue is tied only to web page views, switching to full-content RSS feeds will hurt, at least in the short term. The problem, I say, isn’t with full-content RSS feeds, but rather with a business model that hinges solely on web page views. The precious commodity that we, as publishers, have to offer advertisers is the attention of our readers. Web page views are a terribly inaccurate, if not outright misleading, metric for attention. Subscribers to a full-content RSS feed are among the readers paying the most attention, but generate among the least web page views.

A reader asking for a full-content RSS feed is a reader who wants to pay more attention to what you publish. There have to be ways to thrive financially from that.

Elvis Telecom, Wednesday, 10 March 2010 00:42 (4 years ago) Permalink

probably a majority of newspaper writing is rewriting other people's work, and at least gawker tries to add jokes.

Tries is the operative word here.

ô_o (Nicole), Wednesday, 10 March 2010 00:44 (4 years ago) Permalink

For those who want their full-content feed back:

http://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/10241832261

― ksh, Tuesday, March 9, 2010 5:58 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

thank u ksh, owe you one

call all destroyer, Wednesday, 10 March 2010 00:49 (4 years ago) Permalink

probably a majority of newspaper writing is rewriting other people's work, and at least gawker tries to add jokes.

― joe, Tuesday, March 9, 2010 7:12 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

this is a pretty dumb thing to say since what i linked was a concrete example of a print writer doing a lot of research and interviews the old-fashioned way, and explaining one of the things happening that's making it much less possible for writers to put that kind of work in (and, like, get paid for it) in the future.

Krusty Burgerizer (some dude), Wednesday, 10 March 2010 01:33 (4 years ago) Permalink

content that involves doing a lot of research and interviews the old-fashioned way is indeed v valuable and praise worthy - its also represents a tiny fraction of what actually gets published - a lot of what does get published is rewriting w/o attribution other outlets news stories -until the washpost et al cio themselves they should stfu

ice cr?m, Wednesday, 10 March 2010 02:59 (4 years ago) Permalink

the reaction is still scary, not from the reporter, he can feel deflated because he's unlikely to make any extra money from the publicity (although the gawker guy would have from a link) but for an editor to think that gawker's way of doing things isn't analogous of internet usage in general. this is what i don't get, it's like the internet operates best in a certain way and then editors expect it to act like it should all be printed out tomorrow and sold in a newsagent

Popper, Wednesday, 10 March 2010 18:52 (4 years ago) Permalink

4 weeks pass...

My only new years resolution was a hard prohibition on clicking on gawker media stuff and I gotta tell you my internet experience has definitely improved, less exasperation and erosion of worldfaith

ENERGY FOOD (en i see kay), Thursday, 30 January 2014 20:07 (9 months ago) Permalink

2 weeks pass...

tour de force today, kate upton zero g photoshoot post, north korean gulag prisoner drawings post, pussy riot police-wagon selfie post all in 24 hours

j., Tuesday, 18 February 2014 18:45 (8 months ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...
5 months pass...

http://gawker.com/against-editors-1623198702

j., Monday, 18 August 2014 20:53 (2 months ago) Permalink

dude acting like he invented http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

socki (s1ocki), Tuesday, 19 August 2014 15:30 (2 months ago) Permalink

Writers have never been in more need of editors than now

, Tuesday, 19 August 2014 15:37 (2 months ago) Permalink

^^^ tbomb

i was a downy lad, and twee (stevie), Tuesday, 19 August 2014 15:51 (2 months ago) Permalink

check avclub.com if u disagree

i was a downy lad, and twee (stevie), Tuesday, 19 August 2014 15:51 (2 months ago) Permalink

editors are vital obviously but i love the look of a writer writing against editors addressing himself to and being answered on-site by his own editor

j., Tuesday, 19 August 2014 16:17 (2 months ago) Permalink

Kinda feel bad for him that n+1 rejected his piece so he had to default to his regular platform

, Tuesday, 19 August 2014 16:20 (2 months ago) Permalink

max u r a treat

zombie formalist (m coleman), Wednesday, 20 August 2014 02:23 (2 months ago) Permalink

what is w/ this nonsense?
http://gawker.com/all-the-things-not-to-do-when-you-capture-your-own-chil-1623421423

Mordy, Wednesday, 20 August 2014 19:20 (2 months ago) Permalink

"Filed to: WHITE PEOPLE" LOL

White guilt gets clicks I guess.

everything, Wednesday, 20 August 2014 21:03 (2 months ago) Permalink

2 weeks pass...

they really do take aaages

Number None, Wednesday, 3 September 2014 21:36 (1 month ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.