Kirby Jackson Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 (edited) Because EVERY TIME someone quoted/linked one of their pieces it turned into a giant pissing match about how bad and disreputable they are. Add that to their writers joining the board to spam their links and it was clearly a net NEGATIVE. The 1st part has certainly changed but if that 2nd part holds true that is ridiculous (and pathetic). I'd like to think that they have evolved past that now that Turner money has been thrown at them. Maybe not though... I read it regularly (still hate the format) but there is so much high quality of analysis that will raise the level of discussion on this board. There are some great posters on here that know a lot about "X's" and "O's" and others that don't. The Bowen stuff in particular will raise the overall football accumen on the board. The more knowledgeable the posters are the better the conversation will be. I can only speak for myself but I often come here to learn about the Bills. Why didn't "XYZ" play work? Why was "___" so open? I just wish that we could avoid the negatives without sacrificing the positives. Edited November 18, 2014 by Kirby Jackson
thebandit27 Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 The 1st part has certainly changed but if that 2nd part holds true that is ridiculous (and pathetic). I'd like to think that they have evolved past that now that Turner money has been thrown at them. Maybe not though... I read it regularly (still hate the format) but there is so much high quality of analysis that will raise the level of discussion on this board. There are some great posters on here that know a lot about "X's" and "O's" and others that don't. The Bowen stuff in particular will raise the overall football accumen on the board. The more knowledgeable the posters are the better the conversation will be. I can only speak for myself but I often come here to learn about the Bills. Why didn't "XYZ" play work? Why was "___" so open? I just wish that we could avoid the negatives without sacrificing the positives. Agreed--in fact it's the only thing I make it a point to read from Bleacher Report. Reading Bowen's stuff has raised my understanding of the game considerably--that's been the case going back to his days at National Football Post. Anyway, that's really the only issue I have with banning Bleacher Report links.
Kirby Jackson Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 Agreed--in fact it's the only thing I make it a point to read from Bleacher Report. Reading Bowen's stuff has raised my understanding of the game considerably--that's been the case going back to his days at National Football Post. Anyway, that's really the only issue I have with banning Bleacher Report links. I like Matt Miller too. He is no worse than McShay or Kiper and people swear by their analysis.
26CornerBlitz Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 Agreed--in fact it's the only thing I make it a point to read from Bleacher Report. Reading Bowen's stuff has raised my understanding of the game considerably--that's been the case going back to his days at National Football Post. Anyway, that's really the only issue I have with banning Bleacher Report links. I like Matt Miller too. He is no worse than McShay or Kiper and people swear by their analysis. BR also posts excellent video discussions among their NFL analysts. Their NFL draft coverage is top notch.
rsxfirefighter Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 (edited) Because EVERY TIME someone quoted/linked one of their pieces it turned into a giant pissing match about how bad and disreputable they are. Add that to their writers joining the board to spam their links and it was clearly a net NEGATIVE. Umm..this sounds like almost every forum post I have read on here. Doesnt matter if it is BR or Jerry Sullivan at BN, people will argue just to get get their posts up and vent some ridiculous comments. I dont agree with spamming their links (Have not seen it so really cant comment on the amount of the spam), but have seen other known reporters break their stories in threads over the past few years that work for AP and another that works for BN now. Edited November 18, 2014 by rsxfirefighter
SDS Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 Umm..this sounds like almost every forum post I have read on here. Doesnt matter if it is BR or Jerry Sullivan at BN, people will argue just to get get their posts up and vent some ridiculous comments. I dont agree with spamming their links (Have not seen it so really cant comment on the amount of the spam), but have seen other known reporters break their stories in threads over the past few years that work for AP and another that works for BN now. I'm really done arguing this point. I'm not going to equate professional reporters with real access, disseminating real information to Timmy in Wichita posting a "story" during study hall. This thread is prime example that happens every time.
rsxfirefighter Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 I'm really done arguing this point. I'm not going to equate professional reporters with real access, disseminating real information to Timmy in Wichita posting a "story" during study hall. This is thread is prime example that happens every time. One day Timmy will be writing for FoxSportsOne..just wait..
boyst Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 Well, let's look at the four most recent "Buffalo Bills Stories" written by "Bleacher Report Writers", which will provide the answer to your question. "Leodis McKelvin Injury: Updates on Bills CB's Ankle and Return" Allegedly written by Bleacher Report, but instead is copies of tweets from Syracuse,com, BuffaloBills.com and Buffalo News. "Fred Jackson Injury: Updates on Bills Star's Groin and Return" Copies from the WGR-AM article. "Jerry Hughes Goes Bust to Boom in Buffalo, but Can Bills Afford to Re-Sign Him?" Copies from Rochester D&C, BuffaloBills.com, NFL.com and ProFootballTalk.com "Bills' Thursday Night Loss to Dolphins All but Kills Buffalo's Playoff Hopes" Copies from ESPN.om and NFL.com Sadly, ESPN copies the BN, D&C, WGR and word for word quotes Wawrow then pastes Rodhacks name to it. There may be many reasons to block their links; there is one very good reason not to IMO: Matt Bowen His articles are often found in other places and I know you enjoy a good read. The new guy at the Cuse paper is doing a damn good job covering the Bills. I enjoy bleacher report. I don't see what everyone's problem is with them. The only thing I have a problem with is going through 100 pages to find a bill on their top 100 lists. Those lists change every week, those lists are designed to get 2 things: search results and clicks. Their lists will put Tannehill as the top QB for the Dolphins all time or say that Ricky Waters was better then Emmitt Smith so people debate it over and over and over and each time getting more clicks. Their stories are nothing to do with journalism. Propping Miller and Bowen up as legit is fraudulent. It's great they do good work but they are not sources like WGR, BB.com, D&C, etc. They are even just below ESPN - which is slowly turning to the Bleacher Report style of generating clicks. Look at how we react to Rodhack and compare it to how we reacted to BR in 2010 and 2011. It's the exact same thing. So BR does what every news agency that reports on the Internet does, compile information from a number of sources and report the compilations? Sometimes effectively, sometimes not. You really don't get it. They take everyone else's work, reword it, combine it then call it their own with absolutely no original thought or composure. It's like taking each of the headlines from the main TBD site with one paragraph from each then putting it in one article. Their articles are trash, Bleacher Report is trash. Bowen and Miller, therefore, are trash. Again though they have Bowen and Matt Miller amongst some others. I just don't understand why the posters can't link the stories and other posters can choose whether or not to read it and acknowledge it? Why is it being censored on the board? In the last few years (since Turner bought it) BR has come light years. Outside of their annoying format their content and analysis is AT LEAST as good as ESPN. The site is being deprived of some really good scheme and player analysis without it. They have but they still feed from the very bottom. If you look around at other teams boards that are less moderated you will see these articles posted by BR'ers posting their own links, often along the lines of like... "BR ranks Matt Ryan as the best QB in the game." - posted on a Saints board. "BR ranks Kaepernick the most overrated QB in todays game." - on 9ers board "Top 15 Giants of all time" - on Giants board with LT at number 8 or something (i forgot) behind Victor Cruz and Eli Manning or the better more obnoxious ones "Hey guys, I was just began to cover the Bills for Bleacher Report and wrote this column, let me know what you think." "I have been analyzing the DL from the Bills over the last four weeks - I want to share with you what I found." The 1st part has certainly changed but if that 2nd part holds true that is ridiculous (and pathetic). I'd like to think that they have evolved past that now that Turner money has been thrown at them. Maybe not though... You weren't here when they first started showing up on the scene. I don't even think you were here for Damond Talbot (just as awful) more recently. It was worse then you can imagine. Some time in 09 or 10 SDS let Guests post. During that time it was easily possible for 5 or 6 new threads spamming us with BR would be posted. The authors of the articles or who knows who would stay in the thread and be so butthurt by us chewing him out that it was pure comedy. Guest privileges were closed and it still continued. It was horrible. It still continues on other boards. They have got better at hiding their links, though. Umm..this sounds like almost every forum post I have read on here. Doesnt matter if it is BR or Jerry Sullivan at BN, people will argue just to get get their posts up and vent some ridiculous comments. I dont agree with spamming their links (Have not seen it so really cant comment on the amount of the spam), but have seen other known reporters break their stories in threads over the past few years that work for AP and another that works for BN now. On the latter, if you have not seen it and have not been here then why are you commenting on it? I was here, so were several others here that are posting about it. The thing with the Bills is that we have one of the most active national fan bases in the country. I know fans of many teams and the only ones who frequent message boards and the internet like we do are the Steelers, Packers, Chiefs and Jets. Even teams like the Patriots, Fins, Broncos, Cowboys with fans all over the place do not frequent the sites like we do - they just stick to ESPN (mostly because they get so much love there already). This site is easily one of the most active fan forums in the NFL with topic generation and discussion. This site was picked on a lot by spammers. On the former, look at how often we actually discuss Sullivan? When there is a Sullivan article I think 99% of us just mock him in posts, 1% say something about how wrong he is and somewhere in there maybe one person agrees with him but still does so in a much better way. There was an article a few years ago where Sullivan had a great point and everyone was just laughing at how horribly he posted it even though we all agreed. I think it was on Mario Williams or Marcel Dareus. As far as us responding to other sources like we did Bleacher, no. Bleacher Report was and still is written by basement dwelling teenagers. GoBillsInDallas would provide the most laughs for these links. Jerry Rodgers from Upper Sandusky would post an article about the league and rank 600 QB's ahead of Drew Bledsoe. It would cause an uproar because it was obscenely stupid. GBiD would look up info about the kid to find he was born in 1999 and is a Junior in HS who enjoys the NFL, Pokemon, pottery and playing XBox while living with his parents and sister Sally then one day hoping to study Biology at Ohio Northern.
Just in Atlanta Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 Actually, it is against the bleacher reports policy for writers to break their own news. What they do is leech off of others reporting and then instead of driving traffic to the original sites they take the traffic for themselves. Their motto is own the story after someone else breaks it. You mean what every news outlet known to man does with the AP, Reuters, Bloomberg and AFP? You also just indicted the daily in my city, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, on 90 percent of its business and national stories, most local broadcast news stations, and, frankly, many other media outlets. Bleacher is a fan and analysis site. It does a good job on that, and does a pretty good job of engaging readers.
26CornerBlitz Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 (edited) Well, let's look at the four most recent "Buffalo Bills Stories" written by "Bleacher Report Writers", which will provide the answer to your question. "Leodis McKelvin Injury: Updates on Bills CB's Ankle and Return" Allegedly written by Bleacher Report, but instead is copies of tweets from Syracuse,com, BuffaloBills.com and Buffalo News. "Fred Jackson Injury: Updates on Bills Star's Groin and Return" Copies from the WGR-AM article. "Jerry Hughes Goes Bust to Boom in Buffalo, but Can Bills Afford to Re-Sign Him?" Copies from Rochester D&C, BuffaloBills.com, NFL.com and ProFootballTalk.com "Bills' Thursday Night Loss to Dolphins All but Kills Buffalo's Playoff Hopes" Copies from ESPN.om and NFL.com Sounds quite a bit like the great aggregator known as Pro Football Talk. Edited November 18, 2014 by 26CornerBlitz
QCity Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 A lesson in metrics: how Bleacher Report gamified journalism for 1.3 billion monthly pageviews It's the dregs of journalism, somewhere between tabloid reporting and the Cable News cycle. It's tenets are not about accurate reporting, but generating pageviews with sensationalism, controversy, and pandering. I'm not surprised so many people read it, however.
Kirby Jackson Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 A lesson in metrics: how Bleacher Report gamified journalism for 1.3 billion monthly pageviews It's the dregs of journalism, somewhere between tabloid reporting and the Cable News cycle. It's tenets are not about accurate reporting, but generating pageviews with sensationalism, controversy, and pandering. I'm not surprised so many people read it, however. ...as opposed to ESPN and their respected journalists Skip Bayless and Chris Broussard.
QCity Posted November 18, 2014 Posted November 18, 2014 ...as opposed to ESPN and their respected journalists Skip Bayless and Chris Broussard. Bayless is a bottom of the barrel contrarian, designed to engage viewers by outraging them (and he does it very well). Jerry Sullivan is our own hometown light beer version of Skip.
Kirby Jackson Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 Bayless is a bottom of the barrel contrarian, designed to engage viewers by outraging them (and he does it very well). Jerry Sullivan is our own hometown light beer version of Skip. Ha ha, I don't disagree at all. The point being these places are all just trying to get clicks. Does anyone follow Sheridan Hoops? The guy broke the LeBron story and is still pathetic. All that he does is look for clicks.
Just Jack Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 They take everyone else's work, reword it, combine it then call it their own with absolutely no original thought or composure. It's like taking each of the headlines from the main TBD site with one paragraph from each then putting it in one article. A few years ago I was reading an "article" over there and something about how it was written seemed funny to me. So I picked one sentence out of the article, copy and pasted it into Google and found the exact same article from another, legit, newspaper site. Sure enough, the BR "reporter" simply copied and pasted another reporters article and claimed it as their own. They'd didn't even try to change anything in the article, word for word was exactly the same.
DC Tom Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 A few years ago I was reading an "article" over there and something about how it was written seemed funny to me. So I picked one sentence out of the article, copy and pasted it into Google and found the exact same article from another, legit, newspaper site. Sure enough, the BR "reporter" simply copied and pasted another reporters article and claimed it as their own. They'd didn't even try to change anything in the article, word for word was exactly the same. Bottom line, then: Bleacher Report promotes plagiarism, TSW doesn't. And this thread should probably be moved to customer service...
boyst Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 Bottom line, then: Bleacher Report promotes plagiarism, TSW doesn't. And this thread should probably be moved to customer service... Are you satisfied with your service?
cantankerous Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 Who cares who reported it first? It's not like their plagiarizing a best selling book, it's freakin' football news. Some people take themselves way too seriously.
FireChan Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 Who cares who reported it first? It's not like their plagiarizing a best selling book, it's freakin' football news. Some people take themselves way too seriously. I don't think you understand how journalism works.
Saxum Posted November 19, 2014 Posted November 19, 2014 I also can't believe that BuffaloBills.com stuff gets posted. If I wanted to read the official propaganda, I'd just go to the site. You could say same thing about Bleacher Report - If I wanted to read the official garbage, I'd just go to the site. If a poster can not use a redirection URL or a frame which uses Bleacher Report then it it is not worth reading. Perhaps you should read the sfweekly.com story which is the more important of the two. Saying BR is respectable because of Matt Bowen is like sticking up for ISIS because their neonatal health care plan is top notch. Or Dolphins because their colors are pretty.
Recommended Posts