Deceptive headlines?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 458
  • 13 comments
  • 1,180 views
4

458

Messages
8
Messages
Evanski
In the last couple days, I've noticed that a couple GT Planet headlines have shown up on Reddit. Both seem to have been intentionally written misleadingly, perhaps to boost page views and ad revenue? Either that, or someone is really dropping the ball on reading comprehension.

The headlines in question:
Gran Turismo 5 Standard Cars to be Upgraded to Premium
Gran Turismo 5 Replay Controls Coming in Next Update?

Anyone care to comment either way?
 
gtsmashbros
This should go in site feedback forum, not GT5.
Click to expand...

I was unaware of a site feedback forum, and it looks like I'm not the only one. 4 people are viewing that forum, while 2400 are viewing this one. In any case, this goes way beyond the site, is related to GT5 (and false rumors surrounding it, which GT Planet is spreading to other sites), and I had a question about it.
 
These headlines do seem a bit too sure of themselves, since nothing has been confirmed for sure yet. It's this kind of thing that is creating alot of the hype and disapointment around this game.

What they should say is "More premium cars may be in the works" and "Replay controls a possibility for future updates."
 
GTPlanet always had great pride in providing true facts. Unfortunely the article didn't specify either of these coming specifically to this game, but rather it MIGHT happen.
 
gtsmashbros
This should go in site feedback forum, not GT5.
Click to expand...

Moved.

The thread title specifically complains that the headlines are misleading, and the original post is a complaint about the articles in question. This is an issue that should reach the eyes of the Site Administrator, if it really is an issue.
 
458
In the last couple days, I've noticed that a couple GT Planet headlines have shown up on Reddit. Both seem to have been intentionally written misleadingly, perhaps to boost page views and ad revenue? Either that, or someone is really dropping the ball on reading comprehension.

The headlines in question:
Gran Turismo 5 Standard Cars to be Upgraded to Premium
Gran Turismo 5 Replay Controls Coming in Next Update?

Anyone care to comment either way?
Click to expand...
458, I'm not really seeing what you're complaining about. How are they misleading? Both are written based on the content of the article - yes, only some cars may get the Standard-to-Premium upgrade, the article quotes Famitsu, and the quote implies that all cars will get it. Likewise, the headline for the replay controls is written as a question, which makes it pretty clear it's both unconfirmed and speculative.
 
458
In the last couple days, I've noticed that a couple GT Planet headlines have shown up on Reddit. Both seem to have been intentionally written misleadingly, perhaps to boost page views and ad revenue? Either that, or someone is really dropping the ball on reading comprehension.

The headlines in question:
Gran Turismo 5 Standard Cars to be Upgraded to Premium
Gran Turismo 5 Replay Controls Coming in Next Update?

Anyone care to comment either way?
Click to expand...
I'm sorry that you found them misleading, as that was certainly not my intention when writing them. With regards to the first article, there is no indication from the source about the scale of standard/premium car updates. If anything, it suggests they all will be receiving the upgrade: "there are plans in place to upgrade the standard cars to premium status." It would be an assumption to mention in the headline that only "some" of the cars will be upgraded in the headline, and it would also be an assumption to say that "all" of them will be. I saved that discussion for the article itself, and I'll let the readers decide for themselves with regards to what to expect in the future.

The second article in question was difficult to title. I employed the question mark to make it clear that status of replay controls are decidedly unclear, though Kazunori's tweet was certainly suggestive enough to be newsworthy. It's an excellent example of why the GT series is so hard to "report on" accurately, as most of the developments are nearly always brought about in a vague cloud of uncertainty.
 
Jordan
I'm sorry that you found them misleading, as that was certainly not my intention when writing them. With regards to the first article, there is no indication from the source about the scale of standard/premium car updates. If anything, it suggests they all will be receiving the upgrade: "there are plans in place to upgrade the standard cars to premium status." It would be an assumption to mention in the headline that only "some" of the cars will be upgraded in the headline, and it would also be an assumption to say that "all" of them will be. I saved that discussion for the article itself, and I'll let the readers decide for themselves with regards to what to expect in the future.

The second article in question was difficult to title. I employed the question mark to make it clear that status of replay controls are decidedly unclear, though Kazunori's tweet was certainly suggestive enough to be newsworthy. It's an excellent example of why the GT series is so hard to "report on" accurately, as most of the developments are nearly always brought about in a vague cloud of uncertainty.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your taking the time to respond -- and I do believe you that there was no ulterior motive in the phrasing. I've noticed this phenomenon snowballing on the Web, so perhaps I'm being overly sensitive. My issue with the first headline was simply that "[at least some of]" was stated (crucially) in the article, but not the headline. And in the 2nd article, a simple 'restart replay' function is mentioned, not "replay controls," which, to my mind, is a very different thing and implies fast forward and rewind. The article clearly states that such replay controls are impossible, whereas the simple ability to start from the beginning will be included. A world of difference, and disappointing to many no doubt. But again, thanks for replying, and I humbly retract my speculation that it may have been phrased misleadingly on purpose. Cheers.
 
458
My issue with the first headline was simply that "[at least some of]" was stated (crucially) in the article, but not the headline.
Click to expand...
Ah, but you see those parentheses in there, the "[at least some of]"? Those are Jordan's words. When you are writing a news article or an essay or any other formal piece of writing and you are quoting someone, you are allowed to interject your own phrasing into a sentence for the purposes of clarification. It's perfectly acceptable; it happens all the time. It's a way of clearing up a post without puttin words in someone else's mouth. It's like writing "He [Jordan] said this" - it tells your audience who the person saying it is without corrupting the quote. Based on Kazunori Yamauchi's statement, it would be inferred that all GT5 cars will be upgraded to Premium. However, Jordan has added that "[at least some of]" line in for the purposes of clarifying, particularly only if selected cars get upgraded.
 
interludes
Ah, but you see those parentheses in there, the "[at least some of]"? Those are Jordan's words. When you are writing a news article or an essay or any other formal piece of writing and you are quoting someone, you are allowed to interject your own phrasing into a sentence for the purposes of clarification. It's perfectly acceptable; it happens all the time. It's a way of clearing up a post without puttin words in someone else's mouth. It's like writing "He [Jordan] said this" - it tells your audience who the person saying it is without corrupting the quote. Based on Kazunori Yamauchi's statement, it would be inferred that all GT5 cars will be upgraded to Premium. However, Jordan has added that "[at least some of]" line in for the purposes of clarifying, particularly only if selected cars get upgraded.
Click to expand...
Yes, but 458 argues that detail should have been included in the headline, and I understand that point. Indeed, a more conservative headline may prevent someone from making an overly optimistic assumption about the article's contents, though such a title would not necessarily have been accurate according to the cited source.

458
I appreciate your taking the time to respond -- and I do believe you that there was no ulterior motive in the phrasing. I've noticed this phenomenon snowballing on the Web, so perhaps I'm being overly sensitive. My issue with the first headline was simply that "[at least some of]" was stated (crucially) in the article, but not the headline. And in the 2nd article, a simple 'restart replay' function is mentioned, not "replay controls," which, to my mind, is a very different thing and implies fast forward and rewind. The article clearly states that such replay controls are impossible, whereas the simple ability to start from the beginning will be included. A world of difference, and disappointing to many no doubt. But again, thanks for replying, and I humbly retract my speculation that it may have been phrased misleadingly on purpose. Cheers.
Click to expand...
I agree that vague titles are a problem on the web, though I think the perceived benefit bloggers imagine they will receive from exposure on content aggregation sites such as Reddit is largely a myth, at least in my experience. Google Analytics allows me to segment revenue earned by referring site, and the results are very interesting. Even GTPlanet's most popular "viral" stories bring in, literally, only a few dollars from N4G or Reddit.

Regardless, the very fact that you felt mislead enough to complain about it is an indication that I need to work on writing even more precise headlines for people who may not read the article associated with it.
 
I don't know how "misleading" it was Jordan, I did admit seeing it and saying "all?", but you always put the little footnote under the title. It could've been better, but at least you weren't like "Standards going Premium", which would've been extremely vague and confusing.
 
Yeah it's not a major problem, and I know Jordan isn't doing it to generate traffic. But lots of other sites will read the headline and post it as fact, as apposed to drawing their own conclusions.

This leads to alot of disappointed users, I can already see in a few months threads entitled "where's my 1000 premiums kaz promised?":lol:
 

Latest Posts

Back