New Post
Search
HelpRe: Nameberry's New Article!!
in reply to a message by lakin5
I do a few of them but most are just ridiculous. Nameberry people suck so I'm not surprised Pam wrote this tripe.
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
Nameberry-BtN feud
I know Nameberry gets bashed a lot around here. And I totally get why. Just wondering if anyone from over there (ahem Pam cough cough Linda) know how much they are hated on BtN? Has anyone ever heard of hatred the other direction? (I don't frequent Nameberry so I don't know if they are gigantic and we are just small potatoes over here.)
I know Nameberry gets bashed a lot around here. And I totally get why. Just wondering if anyone from over there (ahem Pam cough cough Linda) know how much they are hated on BtN? Has anyone ever heard of hatred the other direction? (I don't frequent Nameberry so I don't know if they are gigantic and we are just small potatoes over here.)
1
I agree with mirfak and Rachel.
I think nameberry is an ugly site with annoying people but since I haven't *really* gone over there in a few years I can't say for sure if it's the same way. I just really, really, really hate Pamela and Linda.
If they did hate on BtN I doubt it'd be for good reasons. I mean, I can see bitching about posters here because we do have a lot of whiny ones, but our site is accurate and nice to look at.
I think nameberry is an ugly site with annoying people but since I haven't *really* gone over there in a few years I can't say for sure if it's the same way. I just really, really, really hate Pamela and Linda.
If they did hate on BtN I doubt it'd be for good reasons. I mean, I can see bitching about posters here because we do have a lot of whiny ones, but our site is accurate and nice to look at.
1
I think there are some 'berries' who don't care for us either.
I found a comment on it from Pam, but she's professional about it:
--
Apparently some of the users think that the complaints about Nameberry posted here are about them personally (ex: "Good for BtN. Some of the users over there don't hold us in very high regard though. I went to check out the forums a few months ago and found they'd made a lovely little Nameberry bitching thread. Needless to say, I won't be joining that lot.") .
I know when I complain about Nameberry, though, I'm just complaining about Pam and Linda–I don't know anything about the random users.
I found a comment on it from Pam, but she's professional about it:
--
Apparently some of the users think that the complaints about Nameberry posted here are about them personally (ex: "Good for BtN. Some of the users over there don't hold us in very high regard though. I went to check out the forums a few months ago and found they'd made a lovely little Nameberry bitching thread. Needless to say, I won't be joining that lot.") .
I know when I complain about Nameberry, though, I'm just complaining about Pam and Linda–I don't know anything about the random users.
This message was edited 4/22/2014, 12:36 PM
1
They're for-profit and presented as journalists, so if you buy that that makes them authoritative (most people do buy it without thinking), of course they would be "bigger" than the posters on this board. They'd have us as a peanut gallery. And there's no doubt in my mind that they are thoroughly cynical and don't really give a crap about the quality of their journalism, as long as their pages gets hits.
I doubt they would bother to respond to criticism on a message board on another site even if they do know about it. If they did respond, it would lower them from their perceived authoritative journalistic position, by drawing attention to the fact that there is something to be critical of. If someone posted criticism on their website, I have a feeling their web people would just delete it.
By the way, I didn't follow the link (not giving up any clicks to them! lol) but judging what's in it by the responses people have given here, the content is at least in part lifted from this board - er, inspired by things that have been posted here (and probably other boards that I don't frequent).
I doubt they would bother to respond to criticism on a message board on another site even if they do know about it. If they did respond, it would lower them from their perceived authoritative journalistic position, by drawing attention to the fact that there is something to be critical of. If someone posted criticism on their website, I have a feeling their web people would just delete it.
By the way, I didn't follow the link (not giving up any clicks to them! lol) but judging what's in it by the responses people have given here, the content is at least in part lifted from this board - er, inspired by things that have been posted here (and probably other boards that I don't frequent).
This message was edited 4/22/2014, 11:59 AM
1
Agree about hit count
Their "popularity" rankings are based on the number of hit counts each page gets, which a) tells you something about what they prioritize, and b) demonstrates the lack of accuracy on the site. Maybe Katniss was the third or whatever most hit name last year... that doesn't mean it was the most favorite. It means that it was brought to the mainstream and nobody had ever heard of it before, so they googled it.
Their "popularity" rankings are based on the number of hit counts each page gets, which a) tells you something about what they prioritize, and b) demonstrates the lack of accuracy on the site. Maybe Katniss was the third or whatever most hit name last year... that doesn't mean it was the most favorite. It means that it was brought to the mainstream and nobody had ever heard of it before, so they googled it.
1
Pam's writing makes me want to hurl. I wish she was one of my students so I could fail her.
1
I'm not a teacher, but I agree.
1
Failing her would indeed feel nice.
1