Giz doesn't have a set of rules about what they can or can't post. It's a blog. They can post whatever they want.
What's with the need for readers to constantly evaluate whether a posted story conforms to their perception of Giz's mission statement, micromanage the editors, enforce a set imaginary rules that exist only in their own mind, and purify the blog of what they perceive as extraneous content that others come here to read?
Something is Giz-worthy by virtue of it being posted on Giz. There is no other standard.
Editors have discretion to shape the blog into anything they like. They're free to post, and readers are free to read... or not. But why the impulse among some readers to act like school-marmy school teachers slapping a student's wrist for not following The Rules?
You could just as well ask:
How is Lego a gadget?
How is humor a gadget?
Yet those are regular features on Giz, as well as many other topics that stray far enough from a strict definition of "gadget" to be of interest to its broader audience and make it a funner, more interesting blog.
wow... so many fascists here... maybe y'all should go start your own blog and fill it w/ content based on your narrow definitions of what's appropriate.
elaine, i hope you keep posting these types of stories
@Weihovah: Yeah, we're facists because we want gadgets in our gadget blog.
That's like going to a strip club with a sign outside that says "LIVE NUDE FEMALES" and seeing a naked guy inside. Sure you don't HAVE to look, but it's still a deception.
@UnexpectedEOF: And of course, unless you really wanted to do some serious research, it could appear that it is a man, but actually fall under the scientific definition of female. But I'm not going to make sure the penis is real before I leave. Would you?
By the power vested in me (which is none, really) I declare vietiscool the winner of this thread, for having the most logical, reasonable, and erudite comment out of the 4729 comments on here thus far.
As my girlfriend, Tina Fey, said at the Golden Globe awards, "Suck it." :D
@s017jrs: It's about 2,800 from me, but scary nonetheless.
@jallopy: Indeed as @Andyr2120 said, airplanes are naught but tremendously complex and large gadgets. To me, this presents an opportunity for follow-up reporting -- that is, gadget-related follow-up reporting -- particularly if the story involves a malfunction of some sort. Stating anything other than the straight-up facts at this point would be unprofessional. Chill out.
I am not trying to criticize this story, as it is terribly tragic, but I fail to see the gadget related material here. I go to CNN for this sort of stuff. Disemvowel if you must.
We've covered many plane crashes in the past. We've covered many planes. We've covered many people being killed by things we've covered. And that's why this story is on here.
@UnexpectedEOF: Most of the people complaining here are relatively new, like yourself. Their reader base are actually people who come here dozens of times a day and are invested in the culture of the site. The rest is just gratis.
@UnexpectedEOF: What should I go by then? Times you've been banned? Times you've had to create a new account? Just because you've been reading a while doesn't mean you are invested in the website. This is a community.
@The Magnificen7: No, it's irrelevant JUST like the v-tech beheading was. Just like how the Chinese CCTV fire was and was treated as little more than a rant on Chinese censorship.
@UnexpectedEOF: The CCTV was relevant, the censorship thing was a byproduct that created some interesting conversation... *gasp!* Elaine, you tricky tricky shrew! You know how to create conversation!
@UnexpectedEOF: But it took place at an incredibly technically advanced and noteworthy place. I found that interesting. The only connection I can find in the beheading one was that it occurred at a tech school. You want to know what's funny though? I looked at it, decided I didn't need to read it, thought "somebody will find it relevant, the author and the editors did" and then I ignored it. Learn from that way of thinking, and you and I could be much happier with each other.
@UnexpectedEOF: I didn't say that. Somebody found it relevant, so it has it's place here. That wouldn't necessarily work at CNN.com or in the New York Times, but the format here is different. This stuff shouldn't affect your day-to-day life in any meaningful way. You can certainly ignore things here.
@UnexpectedEOF: - "Protip: Don't alienate your reader base by posting irrelevant crap."
Why don't you take those "Pro tips" of yours and place them 2 feet up your ass. Nobody at Giz gives a shit about your "pro tips" and critique. This is a gadget/technology blog, not a gadget/technology website like Engadget. Get it right, buster.
@The Magnificen7: You are acting like a jackass. Your ignorance is hilarious, but stop acting like a jackass. Just who do you think you are that YOU get to define the "culture" of gizmodo and re-write the definition of "gadget"?? LOL. Ok Webster. Try again.
I will tell you exactly who you are - NO ONE.
Stop trying to speak on behalf of everyone here. And don't think that because you may or may not have been reading giz longer than another user that your opinion carries any more weight - it doesn't mean shit. I have been reading giz on a daily basis since 2003, but I'm not going to tell someone else who has been here for a shorter time, or reads less articles, or comments less, that they are any less part of the "community" than me.
If 25 new users came in this thread and disagreed with you, you would tell them all that they are wrong because you come here 15 times a day and have more comments? Bullshit. I am very surprised a mod hasn't smacked you down for you belittling and condescending attitude.
So since you think you can re-write what a gadget is, where does that definition stop? Is my toilet a gadget since it is a device built to make it easier for me to shit?
You truly have no eff-ing idea what you are talking about.
@marm0lade: You and UnexpectedEOF were a lot more belligerent than the dude you're attacking. If I were you I wouldn't be so quick to call someone else a jackass.
@borgseawolf: Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the manufacturer is Bombardier and therefore, the model is Q400. I know Bombardier is pronounced like it's French (maybe it's a French Canadian company?) and not like the English word.
@Hyman Decent: The second 'b' in Bombardier is pronounced like 'bu.' So it's Bombu-ar-dee-a. It looks weird, but if you say it a few times, you'll see what I mean.
02/13/09
What's with the need for readers to constantly evaluate whether a posted story conforms to their perception of Giz's mission statement, micromanage the editors, enforce a set imaginary rules that exist only in their own mind, and purify the blog of what they perceive as extraneous content that others come here to read?
Something is Giz-worthy by virtue of it being posted on Giz. There is no other standard.
Editors have discretion to shape the blog into anything they like. They're free to post, and readers are free to read... or not. But why the impulse among some readers to act like school-marmy school teachers slapping a student's wrist for not following The Rules?
You could just as well ask:
How is Lego a gadget?
How is humor a gadget?
Yet those are regular features on Giz, as well as many other topics that stray far enough from a strict definition of "gadget" to be of interest to its broader audience and make it a funner, more interesting blog.
02/13/09
elaine, i hope you keep posting these types of stories
02/13/09
That's like going to a strip club with a sign outside that says "LIVE NUDE FEMALES" and seeing a naked guy inside. Sure you don't HAVE to look, but it's still a deception.
02/13/09
02/13/09
Can't you two see, that you're in love with each other?
02/13/09
shut up whiners.
02/13/09
As my girlfriend, Tina Fey, said at the Golden Globe awards, "Suck it." :D
02/13/09
If you report a NY plane crash, shouldn't you also be reporting about other plane crashes? War? Etc.?
02/13/09
02/13/09
Flying out of Buffalo on Tuesday, which is nerve wracking for me at the best of times.
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
@jallopy: Indeed as @Andyr2120 said, airplanes are naught but tremendously complex and large gadgets. To me, this presents an opportunity for follow-up reporting -- that is, gadget-related follow-up reporting -- particularly if the story involves a malfunction of some sort. Stating anything other than the straight-up facts at this point would be unprofessional. Chill out.
02/13/09
02/13/09
We've covered many plane crashes in the past. We've covered many planes. We've covered many people being killed by things we've covered. And that's why this story is on here.
02/13/09
@UnexpectedEOF: Read how I defined gadget based on what Gizmodo posts below. It makes perfect sense.
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
This article has spawned conversation too, this one.
02/13/09
02/13/09
Makes perfect sense.
Yup.
Oh wait, that's stupid as hell.
02/13/09
02/13/09
Why don't you take those "Pro tips" of yours and place them 2 feet up your ass. Nobody at Giz gives a shit about your "pro tips" and critique. This is a gadget/technology blog, not a gadget/technology website like Engadget. Get it right, buster.
02/13/09
I will tell you exactly who you are - NO ONE.
Stop trying to speak on behalf of everyone here. And don't think that because you may or may not have been reading giz longer than another user that your opinion carries any more weight - it doesn't mean shit. I have been reading giz on a daily basis since 2003, but I'm not going to tell someone else who has been here for a shorter time, or reads less articles, or comments less, that they are any less part of the "community" than me.
If 25 new users came in this thread and disagreed with you, you would tell them all that they are wrong because you come here 15 times a day and have more comments? Bullshit. I am very surprised a mod hasn't smacked you down for you belittling and condescending attitude.
So since you think you can re-write what a gadget is, where does that definition stop? Is my toilet a gadget since it is a device built to make it easier for me to shit?
You truly have no eff-ing idea what you are talking about.
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09
02/13/09