shoddy journalism - re: leica lens

Gabriel M.A. said:
Actually, it's one of those content-appropriating farms that mess up Google searches because they simply regurgitate info that's found elsewhere. They always have a tiny link saying "read more" which takes you to the original source. They are a complete waste of time.
Click to expand...

These things are a major pet peeve of mine right now. When doing business/commercial work they'll often hijack the search. leaving you with sometimes hundreds of "directories" to pore through while trying to find what you're really looking for. It's a major headache for smaller businesses that don't have enough "ooomph" and traffic to appear on the first page of search results...
 
fdigital said:
Wrong, it's a completely different lens with a completely different mount. Different optical formula, half the size, half the weight, half the price, and for m4/3 mount rather than 4/3 mount.

So to be exact, this is a brand new lens and was announced on Monday.
Click to expand...

Confusing because that link has a picture of the old 4/3's lens. The new one looks completely different: http://leicarumors.com/
 
semilog said:
Shoddy journalism is when you publish misleading stories that start a war (e.g., Spanish-American War). This is a minor linguistic imprecision that reflects common usage and, really, is easily adequate for the story in question.

Take a chill pill.
Click to expand...

I think that was called "Yellow Journalism".
 
Mister E said:
Clearly more than a typo!
Click to expand...

I thought the same thing a few nights ago when Memphis first posted this. I did a google search on the name and a few hits came back all pointing to pop photos article. I thought it was pretty stupid on their part.

Speaking of stupid magazine articles, a couple of years ago a contributor for Shutterbug became enamored with the word "chimping". He went on and on about it, then even described where the term supposedly came from. I guess he didn't know that he was a few years late on his reporting. It seemed pretty silly and irresponsible for a professional journalist in my opinion.
 
LKeithR said:
These things are a major pet peeve of mine right now. When doing business/commercial work they'll often hijack the search. leaving you with sometimes hundreds of "directories" to pore through while trying to find what you're really looking for. It's a major headache for smaller businesses that don't have enough "ooomph" and traffic to appear on the first page of search results...
Click to expand...


Oh, come on, now: people would say that you don't like technological advancements and that your business is fundamentally flawed because it doesn't engage in spamming. But, silly me, I'd think that whoever would say that is too short-sighted to begin to understand what's wrong with that statement.

Content farms are the worst (thing ever)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom