Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Buzzfeed decides to protect those precious snowflake authors from meanies who submit negative reviews of their crappy books   (nytimes.com ) divider line 68
    More: Stupid, book reviews, Harold Bloom, Poynter Institute, genre fiction, Margaret Atwood, The Sunday Times, Sheryl Sandberg, electronic publishing  
•       •       •

6259 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Nov 2013 at 9:28 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



68 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-30 09:30:11 AM  
Sponsored link?
 
WGJ [TotalFark]
2013-11-30 09:35:11 AM  
So now it will be nothing but reviews for books of cat pictures?
 
2013-11-30 09:39:38 AM  
However they will allow book reviews in the format of 17 pictures with a single sentence caption.
 
2013-11-30 09:39:38 AM  
Because when I think "High literary and editorial, standards." I think "Buzzfeed"

Oh wait, When I think "Buzzfeed" I think of a turd.
 
2013-11-30 09:40:51 AM  
Given that most "establishment" criticism is in the pocket of the entertainment industry, and as such routinely praises mediocre/awful films, books, music, etc., it's really hard to see how this sort of thing is going to have much effect one way or the other.
 
2013-11-30 09:41:22 AM  

fluffy2097: Because when I think "High literary and editorial, standards." I think "Buzzfeed"

Oh wait, When I think "Buzzfeed" I think of a turd.


BuzzTurd.

Book it.

Done.
 
2013-11-30 09:43:12 AM  
An entire article written in questions is pretty farking annoying
 
2013-11-30 09:43:32 AM  
I'd like to review that awful farking article
 
2013-11-30 09:44:39 AM  

markfara: Given that most "establishment" criticism is in the pocket of the entertainment industry, and as such routinely praises mediocre/awful films, books, music, etc., it's really hard to see how this sort of thing is going to have much effect one way or the other.




This, ladies and gentlemen, closes this thread. Please find your way to the exit.
 
2013-11-30 09:45:53 AM  
I particularly enjoyed this comment to the article:

great article, I never read book reviews, no one knows what I like to read, I have read many negaive reviews and loved the books, but more important, I have read many positive reviews and wondered what was so great after I read the book.
 
2013-11-30 09:45:58 AM  
I understand there are some stinkers out there. Just between you and me, James Patterson's latest didn't have the usual sizzle. And recently, I was quite put off by "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." But what purpose is served by publicly finding fault with a volume that some author has worked very hard to produce, when there are many, many excellent books upon which to lavish praise?

You were "put off" by The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Jesus Christ, how did you feel about Mein Kampf?

Now look, I'm no Pollyanna.


Well yes, you are, because you think it's Buzzfeed's job to protect your fragile little psyche. We are all responsible for our own emotional well-being and comfort. No one else's. Anyone who asserts otherwise is a child in an adult's body and they've come to the wrong forum to find their mommy.
 
2013-11-30 09:48:01 AM  

NutWrench: I understand there are some stinkers out there. Just between you and me, James Patterson's latest didn't have the usual sizzle. And recently, I was quite put off by "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." But what purpose is served by publicly finding fault with a volume that some author has worked very hard to produce, when there are many, many excellent books upon which to lavish praise?

You were "put off" by The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Jesus Christ, how did you feel about Mein Kampf?

Now look, I'm no Pollyanna.

Well yes, you are, because you think it's Buzzfeed's job to protect your fragile little psyche. We are all responsible for our own emotional well-being and comfort. No one else's. Anyone who asserts otherwise is a child in an adult's body and they've come to the wrong forum to find their mommy.


I think the author was being sarcastic, Nut.


FTA:
"You see it in so many old media-type places, the scathing

Man, what a tool.
 
2013-11-30 09:49:11 AM  
They promised me a flying car, and we all see how THAT turned out. I doubt that I'll ever see diet bacon either.

Oops, that might constitute a negative review.
 
2013-11-30 09:50:44 AM  
You don't like negative reviews fine, stop producing crap.
 
2013-11-30 09:51:59 AM  
Of course the article mentions Margaret Atwood. Blech.
 
2013-11-30 09:52:25 AM  

thecpt: An entire article written in questions is pretty farking annoying


If those are rhetorical questions does that mean there should be no comments?
 
2013-11-30 09:53:44 AM  
I found that article shallow and pedantic.
 
2013-11-30 09:55:55 AM  
In other news, Buzzfeed had book reviews.

/Didn't realize you could compose a book review with only the words LOL, ROFL & FAIL.
 
2013-11-30 09:57:16 AM  
All the article is saying is that BuzzFeed is making a mint recommending "good books" and offering a link to buy them on Amazon. Said link is linked to their promoter account so they get a cut of each sale. Which is why they're not going to publish negative reviews, because those won't make them more money. In short, BuzzFeed is full of cocks.
 
2013-11-30 09:59:52 AM  
Ah, Buzzfeed - once they're bought, they stay bought. Have to admire them for that, at least. "We make money on ads, and we can't funnel folks to the appropriate products if we have negative reviews for those products - that just seems counterproductive."

Hopefully, we can mark this day as the beginning of the end of stupid-ass sites like "Buzzfeed", which spend more time manipulating their visitors into buying someone else's products than they do producing anything of value.
 
2013-11-30 10:00:50 AM  

rocky_howard: All the article is saying is that BuzzFeed is making a mint recommending "good books" and offering a link to buy them on Amazon. Said link is linked to their promoter account so they get a cut of each sale. Which is why they're not going to publish negative reviews, because those won't make them more money. In short, BuzzFeed is full of cocks.


Well, of course - they're an online whore, happy to spread for anyone willing to pay them, at the expense of their own value.
 
2013-11-30 10:03:58 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: I think the author was being sarcastic, Nut.


50 paragraphs of trite sarcasm better summed up in 5 words: We're threatened by the internet.

So they pick on BuzzFeed, the retarded birth defected half-dog half-potato content aggregator, not the 800-lb gorillas, Amazon and Goodreads (now one and the same).

Show of hands, who here even knew that Buzzfeed offered book reviews? I sure didn't.
 
2013-11-30 10:05:15 AM  

The Gordie Howe Hat Trick: I found that article shallow and pedantic.


Hee-hee. . . .
 
2013-11-30 10:07:25 AM  

FormlessOne: Hopefully, we can mark this day as the beginning of the end of stupid-ass sites like "Buzzfeed", which spend more time manipulating their visitors into buying someone else's products than they do producing anything of value.


The internet has become progressively more greedy, not less, and content aggregators just keep multiplying. It's headed for realizing Idiocracy even before the rest of the world.
 
2013-11-30 10:16:00 AM  
So long as the negative review has some merit, I embrace it and simply strive to be better.

The problem these days is that most negative reviews can be mistaken for YouTube comments and aren't really worth anyone's time.
 
2013-11-30 10:18:35 AM  
General interest book reviews are useless anyways. If you are reviewing books I'd want to read, they would be in the place that reviews the kinds of books I like to read. Book reviews are just space fillers too. Good magazines have book reviews, hence a magazine must have them to appear good - which is wrong, and even more tortured than my first point.
 
2013-11-30 10:20:19 AM  
Ignoring the Buzzfeed part of it (since it's obvious there's a monetary reason behind it for them), I don't disagree with the idea behind it. Waste less time being snarky and negative and use that column space for recommending books that are good.
 
2013-11-30 10:20:51 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: NutWrench: I understand there are some stinkers out there. Just between you and me, James Patterson's latest didn't have the usual sizzle. And recently, I was quite put off by "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion." But what purpose is served by publicly finding fault with a volume that some author has worked very hard to produce, when there are many, many excellent books upon which to lavish praise?

You were "put off" by The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Jesus Christ, how did you feel about Mein Kampf?

Now look, I'm no Pollyanna.

Well yes, you are, because you think it's Buzzfeed's job to protect your fragile little psyche. We are all responsible for our own emotional well-being and comfort. No one else's. Anyone who asserts otherwise is a child in an adult's body and they've come to the wrong forum to find their mommy.

I think the author was being sarcastic, Nut.


FTA:
"You see it in so many old media-type places, the scathing

Man, what a tool.


Christ on a cracker, the sarcasm levels have torn a hole in the space-time continuum. If this goes on, it may tear reality apa-товарищи, мультивселенной является-los pantalones son brillantes-すべての子どもたちにガメラの友人- and because Miley Cyrus has developed the ability to make peoples heads explode, she has been crowned supreme dictator for life. Hail Cyrus.
 
2013-11-30 10:21:47 AM  

foxyshadis: So they pick on BuzzFeed, the retarded birth defected half-dog half-potato content aggregator, not the 800-lb gorillas, Amazon and Goodreads (now one and the same).


Hell, Amazon is really bad about removing negative views, imho.  Take a look at the amount of political/PETA spam in the foie gras reviews.
 
2013-11-30 10:26:56 AM  

fluffy2097: Because when I think "High literary and editorial, standards." I think "Buzzfeed"

Oh wait, When I think "Buzzfeed" I think of a turd.


Seems like good a time as any to whip this out.

img.fark.net
 
2013-11-30 10:28:02 AM  

FormlessOne: Ah, Buzzfeed - once they're bought, they stay bought. Have to admire them for that, at least. "We make money on ads, and we can't funnel folks to the appropriate products if we have negative reviews for those products - that just seems counterproductive."

Hopefully, we can mark this day as the beginning of the end of stupid-ass sites like "Buzzfeed", which spend more time manipulating their visitors into buying someone else's products than they do producing anything of value.


Remember, Buzzfeed is an important source of inane, Fark-worthy articles.
 
2013-11-30 10:28:05 AM  
I hope none of you ever click on those sponsored (no comment) links, I know I certainly do not, regardless of how enticing the headline might be.
 
2013-11-30 10:29:09 AM  

Langdon_777: I hope none of you ever click on those sponsored (no comment) links, I know I certainly do not, regardless of how enticing the headline might be.


What sponsored links?
 
2013-11-30 10:29:29 AM  
...and the culture of ridiculously high self-esteem and shielding snowflakes from the awful truth continues.
 
2013-11-30 10:31:14 AM  
You were "put off" by The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Jesus Christ, how did you feel about Mein Kampf?

Oddly enough I have both books and the later was better (both worthy of toilet paper, but still the later was better .... softer paper.)
 
2013-11-30 10:31:31 AM  
Can't trust Amazon reviews.  People will 5 star anything.  Not sure about goodreads.com either.  The problem is people think that books like twilight are actually well written.  Don't even get me started about dinosaur porn.
 
2013-11-30 10:49:12 AM  

foxyshadis: FormlessOne: Hopefully, we can mark this day as the beginning of the end of stupid-ass sites like "Buzzfeed", which spend more time manipulating their visitors into buying someone else's products than they do producing anything of value.

The internet has become progressively more greedy, not less, and content aggregators just keep multiplying. It's headed for realizing Idiocracy even before the rest of the world.


Yep. Strangely, though, the Internet is more closely mirroring the real world - we're a world of middlemen, in which there are few creators, but a lot of folks happy to take a cut of the profit from their creations. The only interesting part is watching such middlemen claim that they're somehow "changing the game", when, in fact, they're simply taking the same tired game and playing it in a new environment.
 
2013-11-30 10:50:32 AM  

I probably make 75% of purchasing decisions based on Amazon reviews.  And yes, the negative ones are in fact usually more helpful than the positive, as they go into more detail and let you know why it sucks.


/yes, it's easy to tell real reviews from BS ones

 
2013-11-30 10:51:34 AM  

Gergesa: Can't trust Amazon reviews.  People will 5 star anything.  Not sure about goodreads.com either.  The problem is people think that books like twilight are actually well written.  Don't even get me started about dinosaur porn.


You can't trust any online "review", not when there are entire business models built around manipulating such reviews for money - the new "reputation management" business. Unfortunately, you're still stuck with actually talking with people you trust, in an environment that cannot be manipulated, to get a useful opinion. About the only "review" I take seriously would come from Consumer Reports, and that's it - and they're not reviewing books.
 
2013-11-30 10:53:06 AM  

Langdon_777: I hope none of you ever click on those sponsored (no comment) links, I know I certainly do not, regardless of how enticing the headline might be.


I do all the time. Maybe one day we can suck up enough bandwidth to make them unprofitable.
 
2013-11-30 10:53:33 AM  

fluffy2097: Because when I think "High literary and editorial, standards." I think "Buzzfeed"


As opposed to, say, "punctuation."
 
2013-11-30 10:58:31 AM  

FormlessOne: Gergesa: Can't trust Amazon reviews.  People will 5 star anything.  Not sure about goodreads.com either.  The problem is people think that books like twilight are actually well written.  Don't even get me started about dinosaur porn.

You can't trust any online "review", not when there are entire business models built around manipulating such reviews for money - the new "reputation management" business. Unfortunately, you're still stuck with actually talking with people you trust, in an environment that cannot be manipulated, to get a useful opinion. About the only "review" I take seriously would come from Consumer Reports, and that's it - and they're not reviewing books.


I find it pretty easy to weed out the BS reviews on Amazon. Then again I probably buy half my shiat on there.
 
2013-11-30 11:01:08 AM  

abhorrent1: I'd like to review that awful farking article


Came here to say the same thing!
 
2013-11-30 11:02:18 AM  
I don't like this guy's negative attitude towards Buzzfeed's attitude towards negative attitudes.

And I don't like not liking it.
 
2013-11-30 11:04:17 AM  

rocky_howard: All the article is saying is that BuzzFeed is making a mint recommending "good books" and offering a link to buy them on Amazon. Said link is linked to their promoter account so they get a cut of each sale. Which is why they're not going to publish negative reviews, because those won't make them more money. In short, BuzzFeed is full of cocks.


This.  The negative review certainly has it's place.  I've even posted a few--generally a this-doesn't-live-up-to-the-author's-other-work type reviews.  And a few times I've kicked myself for not reading the reviews first when I am disappointed and then go find a bunch of such reviews.
 
2013-11-30 11:13:32 AM  

NutWrench: You were "put off" by The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Jesus Christ, how did you feel about Mein Kampf?


We need a final solution to the people who click on Buzzfeed links question.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-11-30 11:16:06 AM  
"You see it in so many old media-type places, the scathing takedown rip."

And you see in other places a policy like Buzzfeed's that only positive reviews are wanted. Locus, for example, depended on ads from SF publishers and had a positive review policy. (For all I know it still does. I haven't seen a copy in years.)
 
2013-11-30 11:32:40 AM  

CruJones: Then again I probably buy half my shiat on there.


Man, they really DO sell everything, I guess.
 
2013-11-30 11:36:37 AM  
Maybe they're just trying to stop offering book reviews because, let's face it, buzzfeed readers are mostly illiterate. So they say contributors can only post positive reviews. With the pretty alarming amounts of crappy books coming out lately, it's guaranteed to make reviewing books nigh impossible for buzzfeed authors, achieving their desired goal of stamping them out, but without having to come right out and say it. This is just a theory.
 
2013-11-30 11:55:41 AM  
Dnrtfa, but..

Has anyone read Rush's new kids book. I got it for my kiddo and she loved it.
 
Displayed 50 of 68 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report