4 ms·

> It means the author [...] didn't give a shit Woah woah woah that's an extreme take. You don't know why she did what she did. You are pretending that somethin

> It means the author [...] didn't give a shit Woah woah woah that's an extreme take. You don't know why she did what she did. You are pretending that something subjective (what type of media included in this article) is objective evidence that the author doesn't care about doing things the right way. That's quite a leap.

observationist 3y ago
I can see evidence of objectively better crafted articles on the site, so I can assume there are no policies or rules in the way of doing it better. I notice and appreciate when there are images accompanying articles and discussion about visual things. It bugs the hell out of me when the author doesn't bother and the editor just allows it. I might not be psychic and know to 10 degrees of precision exactly what was going on in their heads, but I have met people before. I feel extremely confident in assuming things about people when it comes to them not caring over some other plausible reason for not doing something well, especially when doing something well requires effort. Even if it's just a little bit of effort, like a couple minutes using screen capture and copy and paste tools. If they gave a shit, it would have been done right, and there would be pictures accompanying the article. If the editor had high standards, they wouldn't allow pictureless articles about visual topics. There are no pictures, ergo. They wanted the clicks. There's no compelling reason to think any better of them than to assume they did whatever bare minimum was necessary, as an assignment or something else to be checked off a list. Maybe they'll see the commentary and think "gee, that makes sense to have pictures!" and for the rest of their writing career, they'll be better. Or not. Either way, I feel fine calling it out.

4 ms·

> It means the author [...] didn't give a shit Woah woah woah that's an extreme take. You don't know why she did what she did. You are pretending that somethin

by DiggyJohnson 3y ago

observationist 3y ago
I can see evidence of objectively better crafted articles on the site, so I can assume there are no policies or rules in the way of doing it better. I notice and appreciate when there are images accompanying articles and discussion about visual things. It bugs the hell out of me when the author doesn't bother and the editor just allows it. I might not be psychic and know to 10 degrees of precision exactly what was going on in their heads, but I have met people before. I feel extremely confident in assuming things about people when it comes to them not caring over some other plausible reason for not doing something well, especially when doing something well requires effort. Even if it's just a little bit of effort, like a couple minutes using screen capture and copy and paste tools. If they gave a shit, it would have been done right, and there would be pictures accompanying the article. If the editor had high standards, they wouldn't allow pictureless articles about visual topics. There are no pictures, ergo. They wanted the clicks. There's no compelling reason to think any better of them than to assume they did whatever bare minimum was necessary, as an assignment or something else to be checked off a list. Maybe they'll see the commentary and think "gee, that makes sense to have pictures!" and for the rest of their writing career, they'll be better. Or not. Either way, I feel fine calling it out.