Also on AOL
- Autos
- Technology
- Lifestyle
- Gaming
- Finance
- Entertainment on AOL
- Lifestyle on AOL
- Sports on AOL
- Travel on AOL
- More on AOL
Featured Galleries
Joystiq
© 2013 AOL Inc. All rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks | AOL A-Z HELP | About Our Ads

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
1-21-2010 @ 9:42AM
PeeWee said...
"...making the system useless..."
People have said for as long a I've been here that your comments system is useless. And I mean it - IT'S UTTER AND COMPLETE JUNK!
And now we have an editor admitting to them using junk, too. Now all you have to do is admitting that you've gone and made a boo-boo by removing content that the people that actually care enough about the site to take their time to post, like and want back.
Sad thing is, as we actually show that we care about what we read and voice our opinion about it, we're generating pageviews. Pageviews that some oafs apparently think means that we like what we read. Newsflash - just because an article is loaded a lot does not mean it's good. Look at the comments, that's the _only_ way you can know what the people behind the keyboards are thinking, claiming anyting else is BS.
TLDR:
People that actually care have voiced an opinion - they want drama back. You have no idea what the rest of the readers think.
Reply
1-21-2010 @ 10:32AM
SarahTheGnome said...
I agree with this. I don't mean to be overly critical but I find it odd that editors say; the opinions you see here are the EXACT opposite of what the public really wants. Yes, the public wants what is not expressed here, the majority agrees with opinions unseen, and said majority also remains unseen.
I do not really understand the logic, and well, from what I can tell, the comment system is unreliable, the rating system is, EVERYTHING is unreliable. So why is the fact that the majority does not want drama, reliable? How do you know the data on that does fit, while the data this commenting system provides, is completely falsified?