This is so minor but if you have some spare time why no implement it?
Why cant we +frag articles
posted in
Site Discussion
I don't think it should matter. The articles, like any good journalism, should be presenting facts, not opinions which need to be voted on to understand the popular beliefs.
I don't think it should matter. The articles, like any good journalism, should be presenting facts, not opinions which need to be voted on to understand the popular beliefs.
reillyI don't think it should matter. The articles, like any good journalism, should be presenting facts, not opinions which need to be voted on to understand the popular beliefs.
what about power rankings and editorials
[quote=reilly]I don't think it should matter. The articles, like any good journalism, should be presenting facts, not opinions which need to be voted on to understand the popular beliefs.[/quote]
what about power rankings and editorials
what about power rankings and editorials
If you like/dislike it, you can give feedback below the article. Words are the higher form of currency when compared with +/-frags.
Then again, it's probably really easy to implement so it wouldn't really be a bad thing.
If you like/dislike it, you can give feedback below the article. Words are the higher form of currency when compared with +/-frags.
Then again, it's probably really easy to implement so it wouldn't really be a bad thing.
Then again, it's probably really easy to implement so it wouldn't really be a bad thing.
VirulenceIf you like/dislike it, you can give feedback below the article. Words are the higher form of currency when compared with +/-frags.
Then again, it's probably really easy to implement so it wouldn't really be a bad thing.
So very true. I feel we should do without being able to frag at all, so people can say why they like or dislike something instead of doing it silently.
[quote=Virulence]If you like/dislike it, you can give feedback below the article. Words are the higher form of currency when compared with +/-frags.
Then again, it's probably really easy to implement so it wouldn't really be a bad thing.[/quote]
So very true. I feel we should do without being able to frag at all, so people can say why they like or dislike something instead of doing it silently.
Then again, it's probably really easy to implement so it wouldn't really be a bad thing.[/quote]
So very true. I feel we should do without being able to frag at all, so people can say why they like or dislike something instead of doing it silently.
MaxHaxVirulenceIf you like/dislike it, you can give feedback below the article. Words are the higher form of currency when compared with +/-frags.So very true. I feel we should do without being able to frag at all, so people can say why they like or dislike something instead of doing it silently.
Then again, it's probably really easy to implement so it wouldn't really be a bad thing.
The only problem is not everyone will follow that. Since we're on the topic of frags, can we have it so posts collapse on X amount of -frags again?
[quote=MaxHax][quote=Virulence]If you like/dislike it, you can give feedback below the article. Words are the higher form of currency when compared with +/-frags.
Then again, it's probably really easy to implement so it wouldn't really be a bad thing.[/quote]
So very true. I feel we should do without being able to frag at all, so people can say why they like or dislike something instead of doing it silently.[/quote]
The only problem is not everyone will follow that. Since we're on the topic of frags, can we have it so posts collapse on X amount of -frags again?
Then again, it's probably really easy to implement so it wouldn't really be a bad thing.[/quote]
So very true. I feel we should do without being able to frag at all, so people can say why they like or dislike something instead of doing it silently.[/quote]
The only problem is not everyone will follow that. Since we're on the topic of frags, can we have it so posts collapse on X amount of -frags again?
What's the point of that though, honestly?
If there is a post with -47 frags, everyone is going to click on it anyways because they wanna see how shit the post was.
What's the point of that though, honestly?
If there is a post with -47 frags, everyone is going to click on it anyways because they wanna see how shit the post was.
If there is a post with -47 frags, everyone is going to click on it anyways because they wanna see how shit the post was.
I wrote the enigma/harbleu interview article, and before that I was an amateur games journalist reviewing games and writing about game design.
reilly makes an excellent point about one type of journalism; reporting. The other hand is editorials.
The reason that there aren't upfrags and downfrags on articles, at least in my interpretation, is that up/downfrags are used to validate an opinion. An inflammatory comment would receive downfrags (ideally) and a well-spoken, fact-driven comment would receive upfrags. Since all the article writers are curated to a decent extent (through enigma), all of them are held to a journalistic standard (which is not to be inflammatory, be informative, and be fact-driven), thus it's far more useful to communicate with the article writer through comments (and/or discussion with others!) rather than through up/downfrags.
Plus, it's awesome to see your own article with lots of congratulatory comments AND upfrags on those. It's the best. <3
I wrote the enigma/harbleu interview article, and before that I was an amateur games journalist reviewing games and writing about game design.
reilly makes an excellent point about one type of journalism; reporting. The other hand is editorials.
The reason that there aren't upfrags and downfrags on articles, at least in my interpretation, is that up/downfrags are used to validate an opinion. An inflammatory comment would receive downfrags (ideally) and a well-spoken, fact-driven comment would receive upfrags. Since all the article writers are curated to a decent extent (through enigma), all of them are held to a journalistic standard (which is not to be inflammatory, be informative, and be fact-driven), thus it's far more useful to communicate with the article writer through comments (and/or discussion with others!) rather than through up/downfrags.
Plus, it's awesome to see your own article with lots of congratulatory comments AND upfrags on those. It's the best. <3
reilly makes an excellent point about one type of journalism; reporting. The other hand is editorials.
The reason that there aren't upfrags and downfrags on articles, at least in my interpretation, is that up/downfrags are used to validate an opinion. An inflammatory comment would receive downfrags (ideally) and a well-spoken, fact-driven comment would receive upfrags. Since all the article writers are curated to a decent extent (through enigma), all of them are held to a journalistic standard (which is not to be inflammatory, be informative, and be fact-driven), thus it's far more useful to communicate with the article writer through comments (and/or discussion with others!) rather than through up/downfrags.
Plus, it's awesome to see your own article with lots of congratulatory comments AND upfrags on those. It's the best. <3
reillyWhat's the point of that though, honestly?
If there is a post with -47 frags, everyone is going to click on it anyways because they wanna see how shit the post was.
Not necessarily. On NATF2 and Gotfrag, I'd only see what they wrote if someone replied in a way that made me wonder what they had said. Oh, that guy's reply got 200 plus frags? I have to see what he said now.
[quote=reilly]What's the point of that though, honestly?
If there is a post with -47 frags, everyone is going to click on it anyways because they wanna see how shit the post was.[/quote]
Not necessarily. On NATF2 and Gotfrag, I'd only see what they wrote if someone replied in a way that made me wonder what they had said. Oh, that guy's reply got 200 plus frags? I have to see what he said now.
If there is a post with -47 frags, everyone is going to click on it anyways because they wanna see how shit the post was.[/quote]
Not necessarily. On NATF2 and Gotfrag, I'd only see what they wrote if someone replied in a way that made me wonder what they had said. Oh, that guy's reply got 200 plus frags? I have to see what he said now.
Please
sign in through STEAM
to post a comment.