Fucking Kotaku

[Cyber Rat]

Just read that article.

 

 

Urge to stab growing.

[Cyber Rat]

Seems the AU Gizmondo editor had a few things of her own to say:

http://www.gizmodo.c...ors-online-too/

 

By the way, .au also has the unedited version of the MtG nerd article, which is even worse:

http://www.gizmodo.c...thering-player/

 

Also, for all you world famous nerds out there: Don’t go after two Gawker Media employees and not expect to have a post written about you. We live for this kind of stuff.

Edited August 30, 2011 by Cyber Rat

[Thursday Next]

That's atrocious behaviour. If I went out with a journalist/blogger I would not expect an article to be written about me without my permission. Never mind integrity, it's just common courtesy.

 

If he was hitting on her at a MtG tournament (i.e. "at work") then that's one thing, but this is completely out of order.

[fuchikoma]

Seems the AU Gizmondo editor had a few things of her own to say:

http://www.gizmodo.c...ors-online-too/

 

By the way, .au also has the unedited version of the MtG nerd article, which is even worse:

http://www.gizmodo.c...thering-player/

 

Also, for all you world famous nerds out there: Don’t go after two Gawker Media employees and not expect to have a post written about you. We live for this kind of stuff.

 

I found another article linked from the international site's comments:

 

The Science of Gawker's Nerd-Baiting [Forbes]

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

On the bright side, this whole debacle has encouraged me to dust off my MTG box.

[Mr W Phallus]

Seems the AU Gizmondo editor had a few things of her own to say:

http://www.gizmodo.c...ors-online-too/

To be honest I don't think much of that article either. The first thing to say is it's a pretty pointless article, since any valid points she makes go without saying, so all she is doing is riding in on her high horse and asking everyone to pat it and tell her how lovely and tall it is.

 

My biggest objection is to this paragraph however:

The fact that you don’t know when you’ve had too much alcohol already says a lot about you. Any guy will tell you that there’s nothing more unattractive than a drunk girl falling all over the place and having no idea how stupid she looks. The fact that you don’t know your limits when it comes to alcohol — or that you might have even deliberately got yourself drunk — doesn’t make you look very credible.

The opening sentence here is a far greater leap in reasoning than any made in the original article. I was drunk last night. Drunk enough that for a laugh my fellows drunks and I sent semi-abusive messages to a friend on facebook chat and found it pretty hilarious. But despite being in a slightly more silly mood than normal I could still have consumed more alcohol and remained coherent, and I was a hell of long way from 'falling all over the place' and looking stupid. 'I would have gone out of my way to ask him about it rather than make nasty assumptions about him online' the writer assures us, having just taken the word 'drunk' and assuming the absolute worst possible meaning, despite strong evidence to the contrary - who the hell could sign up to a dating website when they can't even stand up properly?

 

But as if making slanderous remarks about the first writer's drinking habits wasn't enough, she then comes out with this beauty: 'or that you might have even deliberately got yourself drunk'. Yep that's right, the first writer is a terrible person because she deliberately got drunk. Leaving aside the fact that she is most definitely in the minority if she has never purposefully been drunk before, the whole point of her article is that she is criticising someone else for judging a person based on a single lifestyle choice. It's fine, however, for her to make the exact same kind of judgement, because look at how high her horse is.

 

Moving further through the article, she proceeds to dish out a few backhanded insults of her own about the poor World Champ.

I’ll readily admit that if he’s anything remotely like how Alyssa described him [just to remind you, this was Alyssa's description: 'He was thin and tall, dressed in a hedge fund uniform with pale skin and pierced ears.' - pretty unassuming right?], I probably wouldn’t be interested in him romantically myself.

Erm

I’m only really sexually attracted to blokey blokes. You know, the manly types that look good without trying

I'm sorry, but based on a very vague description of you I've decided you are not manly and probably don't look good (if you do you must have put a lot of effort in). Hey but I don't mind patronising being friends with nerds like you!

 

Having made clear that she probably wouldn't be sexually attracted to World Champ, and not quite happy with the levels of hypocrisy in the article so far, she concludes her article about how women can be sexual predators too by asking out the poor, written-off-as-a-love-interest chap on a date.

 

You know the first article was mildly offensive, but the second one offends me so much more.

[excel_excel]

He answers questions in this reddit thread http://www.reddit.co..._me_anythin.../

 

he answers the part where she says

"I later found out that he infiltrated his way into OKCupid dates with at least two other people I sort of know, including one of my co-workers… Also, for all you world famous nerds out there: Don’t go after two Gawker Media employees and not expect to have a post written about you. We live for this kind of stuff."

 

 

Maybe 3 or 4 months ago a different girl who works at one of gawkers other sites sent me a message on OK Cupid, we went out twice. They were better dates but after the second one with her we parted ways and never contacted each other. But she didnt post about it on the internet

 

So in other words she makes him out to be this slimy geeky creep, who dates two of her friends, as kind of 'evidence' that she made the right choice in not going out with him again, when in fact its a total fucking lie. Bitch.

 

Her article, especially the unedited one makes me just utterly....I don't know. a mix of anger and sadness and shame that this was even posted anywhere. Its basically saying "oh look at those nerds! fucking nerds trying to live a normal life! I'm a shallow asshole but its ok its natural" its like fuck being natural, there's being a decent human being and giving people a chance.

 

It was all to get pageviews though. Gawker got what they wanted.

[CorgiShinobi]

Before I left Kotaku, I never bothered with the actual Gawker blog. The few days I read articles off the blog were filled with bias simply because the writers couldn't keep themselves and their opinions out of the story. Instead of a simple sentence, it had to have a little zinger to make it saucy.

 

Then again, Gawker is pretty much an online tabloid if you ask me.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Atomsk88

[TheRevanchist]

That is exactly what Gawker is: an online tabloid.

 

I love the recaps of Real Housewives and Jersey Shore. They make me laugh something fierce how they make fun of those shows/people. And the coverage of LiLo leaves me wanting more.

 

Maybe that is it. The answer is that Kotaku, Giz, i09, are just drama queen extensions of Gawker.

[Luftwaffles]

Bitch.

 

 

My thoughts exactly.

[Enervation]

Maybe that is it. The answer is that Kotaku, Giz, i09, are just drama queen extensions of Gawker.

 

I keep telling that to everyone I know in real life. No one takes me seriously. Then they start spewing drama about certain articles, like the one about Finkel.

 

THIS IS HOW THEY MAKE MONEY. Is it really any wonder that they keep doing this? Ever since the hack and the redesign they've had to all but bait every demographic out there to rake in the pageviews.

[fuchikoma]

Maybe that is it. The answer is that Kotaku, Giz, i09, are just drama queen extensions of Gawker.

 

I keep telling that to everyone I know in real life. No one takes me seriously. Then they start spewing drama about certain articles, like the one about Finkel.

 

THIS IS HOW THEY MAKE MONEY. Is it really any wonder that they keep doing this? Ever since the hack and the redesign they've had to all but bait every demographic out there to rake in the pageviews.

 

Apparently it's less about total pageviews now, and more about unique visitors trending up. To that end, Nick Denton said (my emphasis):

 

But it's mainly up to you — by which I mean you and your editorial

colleagues. What can you do to bring in new visitors? Well, first of all,

simply keep doing what you're doing right now! Most of the stories that

resonate are also stories with high pageviews — with the flames that

everyone so prizes.

 

Over time I'd hope writers will focus more of their energies on the

stories that have the potential to break out on Twitter, Facebook or

in TV coverage — which shouldn't be that big a challenge. It just

means you have to be even more original, even more provocative or even

more of a hustler than usual.

 

So basically, this is why we're seeing so many editorial pieces vs straight news, and why we're getting articles that are so outrageous all the other gossip and news trending websites repost them. They want to be a train wreck because people who don't even read the sites will come to... gawk at the spectacle.

 

Here's Gawker's announcement about it.

Edited August 31, 2011 by fuchikoma

[Mal]

Eh? I thought I had a double post.

 

In short: I always thought of Gawker as a tabloid, thus I never went in there save for once or twice. Sadly Kotaku and my beloved i09 and perhaps Lifehacker are the same. Well, Kotaku for sure. I don't even want to see i09.

[Thorgi Duke of Frisbee]

Fuck that woman. She specifically baited the readers just to get hits. She is the definition of someone who sells her soul for a paycheck, while trying to take down an innocent person at the same time. It's sad and depraving, and I thought Gizmodo was above this. I almost never use this word because it is a disgusting word, but she's one of the FEW women who deserve the title; she's a cunt.

Edited August 31, 2011 by DukeOfPwn

[Keywork]

So i heard alot of people rage quit kotaku and flocked over here due to the razer blade? i think its pretty damn silly from what i heard about joels article*I don't visit kotaku, im the original notakuite btw*. Dont care if its $2800, those with cash to spend are gonna pick it up. Lord knows if i could spend 2800 on a laptop i would. Thing is sexy. Gonna make due with the SWTOR Keyboard with the LCD panel and 10 LCD Hotkeys. Anyways Kotaku Rage Rage Rage grumble Rage Rage Rage!

*edit*Ooops, kinda missed the last page and saw razer rage was the last topic. Its Queen hate on magic bitch currently, well.....shes annoying but im not clicking anything of hers. Not gonna support her in any way. Rage Rage Rage Grumble Rage Rage Rage

Edited August 31, 2011 by Keywork

[RockyRan]

Rage rage indeed.

 

TheRevanchist is completely correct. Gawker Media IS a tabloid. I'm not presenting it as opinion, I'm presenting it as fact. That was actually the entire reason why they did the shitty redesign in the first place, because Mr. McDouchy CEO (I forget his name, but it's close enough) wanted to "class it up" a little by having the redesign not be so tabloid-y. I do believe his exact words were something along the lines of him wanting people to take "Gawker more seriously now". It was a "turning over a new leaf" of sorts, but clearly they stopped that shortly after the redesign happened.

 

In my time at the big K I never really put two-and-two together. The reality is this: All the Gawker blogs ARE the original Gawker, just in different flavors. Gawker is a tabloid, ergo, all their others are the same. Some are slightly more respectable than others, but overall they're all styled practically around the same approach. Kotaku is the tabloid blog of the video game industry, and while it wasn't too terribly evident in its first few years it's extremely obvious now. And I don't know about you, but when I see tabloids of any kind (the ones in print, etc.) they simply turn me off completely. The gossip-y tone of every single thing they write, the attention-whore headlines, the purposefully provocative content, the lack of writer dignity (they'll write something grossly ignorant so long as more people will read in disgust, only caring about the "more people will read" part), it's all there. That entire charade of OMG JENNIFER ANISTON HAS CELLULITE! LOOK AT THIS CLEARLY PHOTOSHOPPED PIC OF HER AT THE BEACH! SHE'S ALSO SNEEZING BUT WE'LL SAY SHE'S HIGH just makes me gag.

 

Treating Kotaku and those celebrity gossip tabloids as one as the same has everything fall into place. It all made sense very quickly when I first realized it.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Are you a spambot?

 

Edit: Not you, Rocky. You're more of a tl;dr bot. =p

Edited August 31, 2011 by Faiblesse Des Sens

[RockyRan]

One of these days, I'll make a tl;dr summary that turns out longer than the actual post. Just for you

[Johnny]

So i heard alot of people rage quit kotaku and flocked over here due to the razer blade? i think its pretty damn silly from what i heard about joels article*I don't visit kotaku, im the original notakuite btw*. Dont care if its $2800, those with cash to spend are gonna pick it up. Lord knows if i could spend 2800 on a laptop i would. Thing is sexy. Gonna make due with the SWTOR Keyboard with the LCD panel and 10 LCD Hotkeys. Anyways Kotaku Rage Rage Rage grumble Rage Rage Rage!

*edit*Ooops, kinda missed the last page and saw razer rage was the last topic. Its Queen hate on magic bitch currently, well.....shes annoying but im not clicking anything of hers. Not gonna support her in any way. Rage Rage Rage Grumble Rage Rage Rage

 

It wasn't so much over the article from my understanding as it was from Joel's shit in the comment section.

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

The Razer article wasn't very good, but not because it was trollish, just because it was wrong. It was definitely his reaction to the criticism that drew the most ire.

[MasterDex]

The Razer article wasn't very good, but not because it was trollish, just because it was wrong. It was definitely his reaction to the criticism that drew the most ire.

 

Most certainly. The article was terrible but Joel's reaction to the criticism was the worst.

[MasterDex]

Sorry for the double post but I had to post this: http://kotaku.com/5834795/i-cant-believe-it-the-razer-blade-might-not-just-be-the-future-of-pc-gamingit-may-be-the-future-of-pcs?comment=42354642#comments

 

Ohhhh, Joel. You're really not doing yourself any favours.

[P4: Gritty Reboot]

The blood flows freely from the banhammer of Joel the Dexslayer.

[madbassman39]

Wow, I want to jump in and just start railing Joel, but to be honest it wont do any one any good, the guy can't see his own flaws. His response is "Fuck-off" and when you respond with a retort that is way better than that, he bans you. Ugh, it makes me angry

[Thursday Next]

Hahahaha. I almost liked Joel as well. Almost.