i was more curious why you think it's the best website on the internet!
― kshighway (ksh), Monday, 15 February 2010 21:18 (3 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 (3 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 (3 years ago) Permalink
so would you say like 6-8 pounds
― max, Monday, 15 February 2010 21:28 (3 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 (3 years ago) Permalink
― 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 (3 years ago) Permalink
all of gawker media blows
― omar little
― velko, Monday, 15 February 2010 21:36 (3 years ago) Permalink
; )
http://gawker.com/5472344/gawker-eic-fired-in-cityfile-acquisition
― kshighway (ksh), Monday, 15 February 2010 21:37 (3 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 (3 years ago) Permalink
he should post here
― velko, Monday, 15 February 2010 21:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
naww brian moylan is worse
― A B C, Monday, 15 February 2010 21:46 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 years ago) Permalink
ah
― nagl wayne (J0rdan S.), Monday, 15 February 2010 22:05 (3 years ago) Permalink
i like how knowing x-men lore is the LESS nerdy equivalent
― amuse-douche (s1ocki), Monday, 15 February 2010 22:07 (3 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 (3 years ago) Permalink
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 (3 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 (3 years ago) Permalink
FK farewell blitz has been a horror
― A B C, Sunday, 28 February 2010 21:41 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah :-(
― waka flocka pedia (J0rdan S.), Sunday, 28 February 2010 21:46 (3 years ago) Permalink
Did Gawker's full-content RSS feeds just go excerpt-only for everyone else?
― ksh, Tuesday, 9 March 2010 22:14 (3 years ago) Permalink
Not just me: http://search.twitter.com/search?q=gawker+rss
― ksh, Tuesday, 9 March 2010 22:28 (3 years ago) Permalink
http://twitter.com/ryantate/status/10241000296
― ksh, Tuesday, 9 March 2010 22:45 (3 years ago) Permalink
― 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 (3 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 (3 years ago) Permalink
Ta-da: http://gawker.com/vip.xml
― James Mitchell, Tuesday, 9 March 2010 22:58 (3 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 (3 years ago) Permalink
Yep, what James said!
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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 years ago) Permalink
say it ain't so, joe
― lmfao @ credulity (velko), Wednesday, 10 March 2010 00:38 (3 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 (3 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.
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 (3 years ago) Permalink
Tries is the operative word here.
― ô_o (Nicole), Wednesday, 10 March 2010 00:44 (3 years ago) Permalink
― 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 (3 years ago) Permalink
― 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 (3 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 (3 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 (3 years ago) Permalink
http://www.observer.com/2010/media/alex-pareene-leaving-gawker-join-salon
― ksh, Wednesday, 7 April 2010 21:17 (3 years ago) Permalink
dope -- pareene is consistently great
― goon with the wind (J0rdan S.), Wednesday, 7 April 2010 21:19 (3 years ago) Permalink
Wait, he's only 24?
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 7 April 2010 21:20 (3 years ago) Permalink
i had the same thought, Ned
― ksh, Wednesday, 7 April 2010 21:20 (3 years ago) Permalink
yeah, all those Gawk dudes are mad young and make me feel like a total failure tbh
― pencil island (Whiney G. Weingarten), Wednesday, 7 April 2010 21:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
john cook too?
hmm, they have kind of lost their best two writers there
― yella card THIS, yatches (history mayne), Wednesday, 7 April 2010 21:21 (3 years ago) Permalink
― AMERICA IS ABOUT RESSLING (DJP), Friday, 17 May 2013 15:55 (5 days ago) Permalink
― AMERICA IS ABOUT RESSLING (DJP), Friday, 17 May 2013 15:56 (5 days ago) Permalink
this dude is very good at falling over/walking into things
― AMERICA IS ABOUT RESSLING (DJP), Friday, 17 May 2013 15:57 (5 days ago) Permalink
mostly knowing people from the coasts of canada has really poisoned me on toronto, and this dude is soooo not helping
― tweeship journey to 51 (mh), Friday, 17 May 2013 15:57 (5 days ago) Permalink
Sounds like this woman may have been on the money
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2526042-sarah-thomson-offers-no-proof-to-back-rob-ford-cocaine-speculation/
“I looked up (Ford’s) symptoms and it looked like it was cocaine use. It could have been anything like that. I’m not sure what it is,” Thomson said Monday on Toronto radio station KiSS 92.5. “I don’t have actual proof, it’s just based on the symptoms,” Thomson said. “And the symptoms I’ve read on cocaine seem to fit.” MORE: More on former Hamiltonian Sarah Thomson She said Ford had been behaving in an “erratic” manner and that her Internet search also suggested his behaviour could be attributable to diabetes.
“I don’t have actual proof, it’s just based on the symptoms,” Thomson said. “And the symptoms I’ve read on cocaine seem to fit.”
MORE: More on former Hamiltonian Sarah Thomson
She said Ford had been behaving in an “erratic” manner and that her Internet search also suggested his behaviour could be attributable to diabetes.
― how's life, Friday, 17 May 2013 16:10 (5 days ago) Permalink
The secret is out, we're all crack smokers ;_; The coasts don't understand Toronto. It's a lovely place but loudmouths make press!
― she started dancing to that (Finefinemusic), Friday, 17 May 2013 16:17 (5 days ago) Permalink
This Indiegogo Crackstarter scheme is ridiculous.
― Van Horn Street, Friday, 17 May 2013 18:14 (5 days ago) Permalink
Tom Scocca's twitter feed rules today
― flamboyant goon tie included, Friday, 17 May 2013 18:29 (5 days ago) Permalink
Thanks for the #exclusive heads up, this is gold!
― she started dancing to that (Finefinemusic), Friday, 17 May 2013 18:58 (5 days ago) Permalink
#exclusive #huge
― flamboyant goon mayor denuded (flamboyant goon tie included), Friday, 17 May 2013 20:26 (5 days ago) Permalink