Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
"It's just a comedy site, the fact-checking, etc. doesn't matter"
How come you never see this in response to praise? That is, praise that has nothing to do with the comedy.
Take the famous "Monkeysphere" article on Cracked- if one guy says "I think this article jumps to conclusions a lot about the subject", someone'll go "It's just a comedy site, man", but then some other guy might say "This article has made me change my life philosophy somewhat", and he won't get that response. But shouldn't he, since he's focusing on a different aspect than the comedy?
Comments
Are you sure about that? Because from what I've seen, people who take Cracked articles too seriously get shouted down with "it's just comedy" all the time.
I saw that coming (/lie), so here's some proof:
"After reading this article years ago (and several rereads as well), I have always been as polite and respectful in online forums as I can. Always."
Responses:
"Thank you"
"GAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY" (probably more good-natured than what the subject is about)
"How come you never see this in response to praise?"
A lot of praise tends to be vague and general. From what I've seen, in response to people taking, say, Internet reviewers as gospel, people will point out the inaccuracies to refute them, essentially the reverse effect.
It really bugs me when people use the title's line. Really, the real and interesting subject matter is the center of most articles and the style and jokes for the most part serve as coating, do you like them so much that you'd read complete fabricated entries about, say, 6 Badass Dentists Who Were Supersoldiers? That, and the factual inaccuracies are rarely part of the joke.
Bummer, I had a wall of text on this saved somewhere on IJBM1.
I've mentioned how much I despise Cracked, mainly due to the fact that some assholes with an internet connection think they're suddenly experts in the entertainment field.
^What.
Hundreds of different people contribute articles for Cracked every year. You can't possibly generalize them as just "some assholes." How the hell do you "despise" a website where someone entirely different has their writing on the front page every single day, on an entirely different subject every time? It sounds more like you're just bitter about something you haven't explained
And whether or not you personally find it funny, the editorial staff ARE experts on entertainment. That is why the site is an absolutely phenomenal success. They assemble comedy writers from across the web and hire experienced editors to uphold a certain style not necessarily based on what they personally think is good, but based on what they know has worked and attracts readers. It's professionally run and has grown exponentially in readership due to grueling and meticulous effort behind the scenes.
Sometimes in the editorial process, facts are lost or distorted. My own articles wound up making a distinction between "insects" and "animals" (my BIGGEST SCIENCE PEEVE EVER) once they left my hands and there's nothing I can do about it, but I'm still pretty proud to have been "published" by a site that has some pretty strict standards of what they will and will not run as an article.
They do, in fact, check facts pretty carefully. Mistakes are bound to happen, and they exaggerate almost everything because YES, they ARE just a comedy site and they admit as much on a regular basis, claiming to be "experts" only in sarcastic self-deprecatory jabs. Otherwise, there's generally truth to every claim they make. In years of writing for them and helping out around the writer's boards, the only article I've seen that I found total bullshit was the recent "5 reasons rats are way scarier than you think." Way below their usual standards of accuracy.
Also, sorry Don, but your originally complaint is another massive peeve of mine, enough that I'm going to start a whole thread for it.
aren't insects a type of animal?
The main accuracy problem I've seen on Cracked is something I'd call "one-source-itis", where Cracked lists have only a single scientific paper per numbered entry.
>they exaggerate almost everything because YES, they ARE just a comedy site and they admit as much on a regular basis
So if a person does change their life philosophy after reading an article, that's not an appropriate response? I'm not being rhetorical in asking this, I'm just trying to understand.
^^^Yes, hence it being a huge peeve of mine that one of my own articles was edited to say "insects and animals" and later "animals or insects." Insects are the planet's primary example of an "animal."
^^Actually, during the writing process they request at least two to three sources per entry, they just usually only link to one in the final article. When dealing with scientific hypothesis however they will usually link to whoever proposed it and acknowledge throughout the article that it's all just an idea, like the recent one about time.
^See the topic I just started in general
>See the topic I just started in general
Sorry, I'm not seeing an answer there. I'm seeing points on positive and negative responses, but not on whether people should take life advice from comedy articles.
>And whether or not you personally find it funny, the editorial staff ARE experts on entertainment. That is why the site is an absolutely phenomenal success.
Whether or not you like the Star Wars prequels, George Lucas is an excellent filmmaker. That's why they made so much money.
>They do, in fact, check facts pretty carefully.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Well, they do. I frequent the writer's forum where articles are made and the mods constantly ask the writers to provide more information they can look up and make sure that the claims they're making have some basis in truth. Like I said, as an article goes through several layers of editing things can get mixed up.
It's not like most articles even deal with really touchy scientific subjects. Most of them point to facts you can look up yourself pretty easily.
Your comparison to George Lucas isn't accurate. He made three movies himself under his total control. Cracked has content made by many totally different people.
You're ignoring where I pointed out that they NEVER claim to be experts on a subject. When they act like they know what they're talking about it's always rather obviously part of the joke. They make fun of themselves all the time as just a bunch of internet weirdos commenting on second-hand knowledge, how can you even miss that unless you've read maybe one paragraph of the site, ever?
>the mods constantly ask the writers to provide more information they can look up and make sure that the claims they're making have some basis in truth.
Funny how the articles lack that then.
>Your comparison to George Lucas isn't accurate. He made three movies himself under his total control. Cracked has content made by many totally different people.
Nope. Your argument that they were objectively good because they were successful. The amount of bakers for the bread is irrelevant.
It is when they all make different kinds of bread for different tastes. I think my articles have preserved some of my writing style, even though the editorial dresses everything up with their own in-jokes. I can pick out different articles by different repeat contributors and they vary widely in feel as well as content.
Where are all these articles you're even talking about that are so full of enraging inaccuracies?
Editorial Columns (like the Monkeysphere article) are openly opinion-based. "Feature" articles, the ones about things like new discoveries in robotics, scary animals or historical myths, are normally right on the mark when it comes to facts.
>I think my articles
Oh I see now.
>Where are all these articles you're even talking about that are so full of inaccuracies?
The one dealing with marijuana, any bitching about modern video gaming, and especially any history articles.
What do you mean "oh I see now?" It's pretty widely known here that I've written for them and I already said it several times in my earlier posts, I guess they were tl;dr for you. I devoted a whole paragraph to complaining about how editorial screwed up some facts in some of my own, but they still kept everything important to me.
http://www.cracked.com/members/scythemantis/
Except for when they wound up calling spiders insects, I can assure you everything my nature articles otherwise claim to be true is absolutely true, drawn from my whole life experience of studying insects and other organisms. If I have any other complaint, it's the cheesy titles and intros they add themselves. They almost never keep my title ideas or opening paragraphs. They also change around half of my jokes to their own frat-boy sort of humor, but I was already aware of that when I signed up.
I haven't read the marijuana article, but the ones about gaming and gamers are examples of personal, opinion-based editorial columns. The marijuana one might be as well. These are indicated by large banners telling you whose column they are.
You have yet to show any logical reason for you to supposedly hate everything written for the site in such a broad, sweeping fashion. How many have you HONESTLY read? There's no single unifying style or quality level. It's nowhere near as centralized as you seem to think it is, and no one subject is any more common than any other. There should be something for everybody.
Okay, so the joke with Soren Bowie's articles is that he's narcissistic and looks down on the less privileged. The joke with Dan O'Brien's articles is that he's a depressed nerd. Both of these are very clearly revealed in the way the articles are written, and in general, you can see that the people in the comments realize this and take the joke accordingly.
I'm not seeing either of those with articles like these:
http://www.cracked.com/article_15231_7-reasons-21st-century-making-you-miserable.html
http://www.cracked.com/article_18544_how-the-karate-kid-ruined-modern-world.html
(Yeah, this is pretty much just about David Wong now, sue me)
So, anyone. Put your hand up if you knew this guy actually wrote for Cracked.
-keeps hands down-
Also, he's saying "Oh, I see now" because you've revealed you have a personal/professional bias here.
-puts hand up-
*puts his hand up*
-raises hand-
Awesome. Two for, two against. -expects to be ninjad-
Told you.
Of course, there's every chance he revealed this while I wasn't here. Or I've just suppressed it because he annoys me. Either way.
I didn't know. -shrug-
Hand goes up.
Also, for actual content, I mostly find Cracked entertaining, though I don't read it much.
How many people know is irrelevant. I didn't know, which is where the comment came from.
From what I've seen, most factual inaccuracy on Cracked is from David Wong.
I knew as well.
So, UP IT GOES!
course it's relevant.
I hate their columns (except Cleese, I even skip Christina's now). I skip them and go straight to the main article.