Didn't even know this was a thing but after taking a gander at the first example of this on the News Genius (http://news.genius.com/ http://news.genius.com/) we

Didn't even know this was a thing but after taking a gander at the first example of this on the News Genius (http://news.genius.com/ http://news.genius.com/) website I'm not surprised people want to get rid of it. I read the 2nd article, a buzz feed production about Trump's campaign adviser, and honestly I'm highly disappointed at the quality of the annotations. Even more so when I found out that the person doing said annotations is the Managing News Editor at Genius. Buzz feed is by no means a bastion of journalistic integrity but the superficial comments this editor left are a joke. If she was actually the editor for this article it might make sense to complain about wording choices but as I understand it Genius Annotations are meant to explain and expand upon things in the article. Here, the person Genius felt most qualified to head this whole effort, uses annotations like a permanent twitter stream of her personal opinion of the article. She complains about not expanding upon allegations but the article does. Not always but in a lot of cases they can't. No one is going on the record against a man working for the likely republican nominee. They can't afford to burn bridges because they still need access to Trump. All in all if that is the quality of annotations created by Genius' Managing New Editor this is a feature that needs to be taken out back.