[ SECRET POST #2634 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2634 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Lady Gaga]


__________________________________________________



03.
[free!, attack on titan]


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.
(Panic! at the Disco)


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.
[Anarky]


__________________________________________________



10.
(Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)


__________________________________________________



11.
[Frozen]













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 013 secrets from Secret Submission Post #376.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

Wait. So you didn't discount the Daily Mail because it was disreputable; you discounted it because you don't like its layout?

Are you serious?

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

Or maybe it's easier to go between two-three tabs than the Daily Mail's layout. Among other reasons to not link to it, of course.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

I don't know what you're trying to say.

I don't give two craps about the ease of navigating a website. I care about whether or not that site is reputable. Daily Mail and NY Post are both disreputable, but the poster elevates NY Post over Daily Mail because NY Post has a better layout. There's something seriously wrong with that.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

DA. Uh, what? They just said that the layout was better; nothing on the quality or reliability of the information.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

That's true.

But, when it comes to something like this, I would say that the quality and reliability of information matter. People will go to that link and, based on the information contained within, evaluate whether they should support this organization.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

Your priorities are kind of wonky if you think this is a case of "seriously wrong"...

Re: Okay here are some sources

[kaijinscendre]

Two websites. Same information. Both are shitty sites. But one of those shitty sites has a good layout. So yes.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

If you know that they are both shitty, and you also know that they both put forth the same information, then why support either one? Regardless of the layout, the information is still going to be shitty.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[kaijinscendre]

Two websites. Same information. Both are shitty sites. But one of those shitty sites has a good layout. So yes.

These two websites both had the information I wanted. That information was specifically a break down of what money went where. I did not feel like looking through dozens of articles just to find a different article with a breakdown.

So, these two websites have that information. I wanted to share that information. So, I chose the website, with the information, that had a better layout.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

But they are both bad websites. They are both disreputable. They both publish bad information (up to an including information that they have fabricated out of whole cloth).

The Post may have a better layout, but it's still run by people who are known to publish stories that have no basis in fact.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[kaijinscendre]

Obviously this story has a basis in fact. Because you know...other news agencies are reporting it. And those websites reported a breakdown of the numbers. That is all I linked that story for. Of course, the information seems fairly consistent with other agencies that are reporting.

But again, I just wanted that info (the breakdown). I had TWO sites to choose from (I am not going to look through dozens of sites for that info), so I chose the one with the better layout.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

If you have two sites to choose from, and they're both bad, then you shouldn't choose either one.

Look, I get that you aren't going out of your way to post incorrect information. But the notion that it's okay to post one bad site over the other based on layout bothers me because it suggests that presentation is more important than content.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[riddian]

Not to mention the info looks to be verified by those other, more reputable sources. Even the Daily Fail does occasionally get things right.

This thread is amazing (but not exactly in a good way). I'm fairly impressed by anon's hateboner, I have to say. XD

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

The fact that it sometimes gets some things right does not mean that it should be used as a source. It's questionable at best, and downright incendiary at worst.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[making_excuses]

The thing is

1. There are a lot more important things in the world that needs our attention
2. This is a secret thread on Fandom Secrets, pick your venue: You will not win here
3. Ever heard about The GC thread, go make your case there if you care so much
4. Or better yet take it somewhere else
5. None of us are stupid, we know not all News sites on the internet are trustworthy...
6. Why the heck do this to Kaijin, what did she ever do to you?

Re: Okay here are some sources

[kaijinscendre]

I don't know what I did. I hope I didn't like...murder anon in a past life. If so, I apologize.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

1. Well, yeah, but this is Fandom Secrets.
2. Well, yeah.
3. It's topical to the secret, so it works here.
4. Why? What makes this different from any other contentious point?
5. Some people here might be stupid, ya never know. In any case, it's less about people knowing that and more about them being okay with the use of sites that are not trustworthy.
6. I don't have anything personally against Kaijin. I'm sure she's lovely IRL; she seems decent enough from what I'm seen here.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[riddian]

Some people here might be stupid, ya never know.

Oh, the irony. Delicious.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[riddian]

Now don't you point that thing at me!

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

What thing?

For some reason, all I can think about is someone pointing a banana at you.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[riddian]

Close, I meant your hateboner.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[kaijinscendre]

At first I didn't know if they loved the Daily Mail and was mad I offended it, or if they hated it.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[riddian]

Now that would be funny, someone who carries a torch for the Daily Mail... it would probably make a good parody account!

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

Are you kidding? I hate that rag.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

This thread is amazing (but not exactly in a good way). I'm fairly impressed by anon's hateboner, I have to say. XD

My reaction:
First: Why are you getting so worked up anon?
Second: Let it go, anon.
Third: Are you alright anon?