http://www.theawl.com/2010/02/nick-denton-asks-gawker-editor-to-step-down-purchases-cityfile
― kshighway (ksh), Monday, 15 February 2010 21:10 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
co-sign
― Nagl Nagl Nagl (Whiney G. Weingarten), Monday, 15 February 2010 21:12 (fourteen years ago) link
how many pounds does gawker weigh
― max, Monday, 15 February 2010 21:13 (fourteen years ago) link
best website on the internet?
― kshighway (ksh), Monday, 15 February 2010 21:15 (fourteen years ago) link
as opposed to websites that you view on webtv...
― nagl wayne (J0rdan S.), Monday, 15 February 2010 21:17 (fourteen years ago) link
i was more curious why you think it's the best website on the internet!
― kshighway (ksh), Monday, 15 February 2010 21:18 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
so would you say like 6-8 pounds
― max, Monday, 15 February 2010 21:28 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
― 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 (fourteen years ago) link
all of gawker media blows
― omar little
― velko, Monday, 15 February 2010 21:36 (fourteen years ago) link
; )
http://gawker.com/5472344/gawker-eic-fired-in-cityfile-acquisition
― kshighway (ksh), Monday, 15 February 2010 21:37 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
he should post here
― velko, Monday, 15 February 2010 21:41 (fourteen years ago) link
naww brian moylan is worse
― A B C, Monday, 15 February 2010 21:46 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
ah
― nagl wayne (J0rdan S.), Monday, 15 February 2010 22:05 (fourteen years ago) link
i like how knowing x-men lore is the LESS nerdy equivalent
― amuse-douche (s1ocki), Monday, 15 February 2010 22:07 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
FK farewell blitz has been a horror
― A B C, Sunday, 28 February 2010 21:41 (fourteen years ago) link
yeah :-(
― waka flocka pedia (J0rdan S.), Sunday, 28 February 2010 21:46 (fourteen years ago) link
Did Gawker's full-content RSS feeds just go excerpt-only for everyone else?
― ksh, Tuesday, 9 March 2010 22:14 (fourteen years ago) link
Not just me: http://search.twitter.com/search?q=gawker+rss
― ksh, Tuesday, 9 March 2010 22:28 (fourteen years ago) link
http://twitter.com/ryantate/status/10241000296
― ksh, Tuesday, 9 March 2010 22:45 (fourteen years ago) link
― 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 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
Ta-da: http://gawker.com/vip.xml
― James Mitchell, Tuesday, 9 March 2010 22:58 (fourteen years ago) link
For those who want their full-content feed back:
http://twitter.com/nicknotned/status/10241832261
― ksh, Tuesday, 9 March 2010 22:58 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
say it ain't so, joe
― lmfao @ credulity (velko), Wednesday, 10 March 2010 00:38 (fourteen years ago) link
it ain't so
^^^ cut and pasted that from velko's post, depriving him of revenue
― joe, Wednesday, 10 March 2010 00:41 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
Tries is the operative word here.
― ô_o (Nicole), Wednesday, 10 March 2010 00:44 (fourteen years ago) link
― 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 (fourteen years ago) link
― 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 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
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 (fourteen years ago) link
i liked gawker when it first came out, back when it focused mostly on the NYC publishing and media scene. now it's all about publicly humiliating mentally ill actresses and reposting Reddit content.
"so what's in the news today? a popular former child actress is slowly developing schizophrenia - what a loser!" it's like one of those dark parodies of tabloid journalism, but for real.
― CoolRadio, Wednesday, 7 January 2015 18:30 (nine years ago) link
probably the worst site for those stories that i've read is LAist (don't know about the other "ist" sites)
― LIKE If you are against racism (omar little), Wednesday, 7 January 2015 18:31 (nine years ago) link
Jalopnik and Deadspin are good reads IMO.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Wednesday, 7 January 2015 19:55 (nine years ago) link
i liked gawker when it first came out, back when it focused mostly on the NYC publishing and media scene. otm tho gawker stalker was gross back then too.
― Mordy, Wednesday, 7 January 2015 20:12 (nine years ago) link
love me some gawker
― flopson, Wednesday, 7 January 2015 22:42 (nine years ago) link
yeah, i don't want to be disingenuous, i probably read gawker too much for my own good
― CoolRadio, Thursday, 8 January 2015 03:52 (nine years ago) link
This was the most tone deaf thing I've read so far this year:
http://gawker.com/woman-who-sleeps-22-hours-a-day-craves-unhealthy-food-1678481884
This is a sensitive topic for me because my wife has a debilitating sleep disorder. It has ruined her life. And one of the challenges that people with sleep disorders face is that there's almost no public understanding of them, and a tremendous stigma around them. So here we have a Gawker writer mocking somebody with a debilitating disease, undermining its severity, like, "lol, you sleep 22 hours a day? who hasn't been there? I wish I got to sleep in all day!"
I just don't get the lack of basic sensitivity. I'm sorry, but if you can't understand how having to sleep 22 hours a day would completely torpedo even your most basic hopes and dreams, or your ability to live something resembling a normal, happy life, then you are a monster. The basic lack of decency/sensitivity our society extends to the disabled is utterly appalling, and I don't get how somebody could write this, or how an editor could allow this, without realizing how cruel it is.
― Evan R, Friday, 9 January 2015 17:03 (nine years ago) link
Again, sorry to vent about all this, but lack of public awareness about diseases is a huge challenge that many disabled people face. Insensitive shit like this, as inconsequential as it might seem on the surface, can actually have a huge on people's quality of life, because it fans the stigma around certain conditions. I usually try to temper my outrage over stupid Internet content, but in this case it's actually making people's lives worse, so I feel the need to try to do something to correct it.
― Evan R, Friday, 9 January 2015 17:07 (nine years ago) link
having been in the professional blogging trenches, i think in the grind you become a cross between joel mchale on the soup and jake gyllenhaal in nightcrawler
― da croupier, Friday, 9 January 2015 17:33 (nine years ago) link
p4reene to reenter Gawker trenches btw
― touch of a love-starved cobra (Dr Morbius), Friday, 9 January 2015 17:39 (nine years ago) link
dan lyons seems not very bright and very un-gawker-like :(
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Tuesday, 20 January 2015 17:05 (nine years ago) link
Lyons, whose idea of a joke involves strikethrough text and whose idea of a lede is "Imagine a room full of these things,"
loool
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Wednesday, 21 January 2015 00:10 (nine years ago) link
i'm never ever #teampando but their piece on lyons was in very nice form http://pando.com/2015/01/18/dan-lyons-career-an-obituary/
― celfie tucker 48 (s.clover), Friday, 23 January 2015 02:07 (nine years ago) link
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/28/why-i-m-coming-out-as-a-christian.html
― hunangarage, Monday, 2 March 2015 22:07 (nine years ago) link
a fish a barrel and ilx
― mushaboom kids (rip van wanko), Monday, 2 March 2015 22:11 (nine years ago) link
St. Ann O'Tate
― maura, Monday, 2 March 2015 22:14 (nine years ago) link