Website idea

[Rhett Butler]

It's a catchy name, but I kinda feel like the word "naked" is overused by things that do not contain nudity, The Naked Chef, The Naked Samoans etc. I kinda like http://www.gamingjournalism.com/ .

 

[Damned Registrations]

Is rereviewers.com taken? It's a lot catchier than reviewerreview, and should show up well in google. The main jist of the site will be to provide reviews of reviews and previews after all, so it seems like an appropriate title.

A name with 'mirror' in it would be good too: Something that reflects the opposite image. 'Bent' would be another good word. bentreview.net or bentmirror.com maybe?

 

[Tintin]

I suggest not going with tongue twister names like rereviewer, reviewerreview, rereviewingrevewerreviews or anything like that. Visitors would probably prefer something very simple, easy to remember and distinct.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Yeah actually, now that I think about it my last suggestions are crappy. They started better but got junked trying to get domains that aren't taken. 3-4 syllables and uncommon words would be a goal to shoot for.

Now another suggestion: Liesoftheweb.com. It will primarily be a giant archive of lie filled web reviews after all right? Aside from that, the word play pretty much sums up the target of the site: The large weave of false information produced by the industry. Being 4 words it can be referrenced as an acronym, but they're all short and easy to spell words one isn't likely to associate with any other website.

 

[DefJam101]

I have a feeling that if we call the website "Liesoftheweb.com" it will end up being some sort of Project Mayhem amalgam and I'll have to shoot myself in the face on top of a skyscraper.

Choose something simpler and less ominous. Trust me, it'll work out better for all of us.

 

[MisterStone]

How about "hypeslayer.org/com/net". These seem to be unregistered.

 

[cardtrick]

How about "hypeslayer.org/com/net". These seem to be unregistered.

I like it. It's memorable and simple, without being generic. (Although I'm still a fan of thenakedhype.com . . . )

 

[Micmu]

hyperapist.com

 

[Rhett Butler]

 

[Tintin]

That's just a black page with centered text and a header+footer.

 

[Rhett Butler]

 

[DefJam101]

I like 'Hypeslayer'. Quick, easy to understand, and catchy.

A perfect way to rebel from within the system.

 

[Rhett Butler]

I like it too, but codexers owning gamingjournalism.com and using it to criticise and mock gaming journalists would be so much mud in the eye to an industry that truely deserves it. Still, I wouldn't bitch if it were called hypeslayer. It's catchy.

 

[MisterStone]

Got to admit, RB has a good point thar.

 

[Hory]

http://w18.easy-share.com/1702527845.html

Dude. Seriously.

 

[DaveO]

Nice idea in theory, but in reality it would break down. You'd need people that cannot be assailed for having an agenda as well as being able to bear the scrutiny of investigations. Then there are the legal implications(libel, cease and desist orders, etc) that would likely be brought up. Then there's the challenge of keeping the site fresh enough without compromising the vision. At best, the hopes would be 15 milliseconds of fame or infamy. You're not going to change any behavior in my opinion.

 

[Kingston]

Nice idea in theory, but in reality it would break down. You'd need people that cannot be assailed for having an agenda as well as being able to bear the scrutiny of investigations.

Eh, wut? Its just a website. What investigations? And ofcourse we do have an agenda - to show everyone how gayass gaming journos are.

Then there are the legal implications(libel, cease and desist orders, etc) that would likely be brought up.

Could you expand? I can't think of any reason why a cease and desist would have any grounds. I can't see anything illegal with what the site would be doing. But then I don't know much about legalities.

Then there's the challenge of keeping the site fresh enough without compromising the vision.

Again - Eh, wut? There is no challenge of keeping the site fresh per se, if the journos don't improve the site will keep on getting content.

Thanks for your honesty, but I'm afraid I don't understand your points. Could you elaborate on them a bit more?

 

[IlkuWarrior]

First of, the site must not be of a very serious tone, because, if you're covering a topic like this, a negative one (in the sense that the point of the site is to show mistakes, lies, and other "negative" stuff) you need something positive to balance it (humor) or people will find it too "heavy" to read regularly.

As far as legal problems are concerned, the site doesn't have to be hosted in a proper country, does it? Sadly I'm clueless about web stuff, so I don't know the technical thingies, but if, for example, the site says I'm it's owner/leader/whatever, then shouldn't any attempts by anyone to sue me be stopped by the fact that I live in a East European country with a fucked up judicial system?

 

[Ivy Mike]

I like the idea. It would be like the codex but with less focus on RPGs and less kindergarten whining (ohoho, yes we do, don't deny it). You'd have to hook up some seriously good writes in order to have any legitimacy though.

Gamingjournalism.com is a good name for a domain. It's easy to remember and points clearly to the subject without communicating a clear bias against all gaming journalism - it gets my vote.

Since when are there legal implications for stating an opinion? If that were the case I know of quite a few blogs around the net that would burn in hell for their "libelous" content. To be on the safe side you'd just have to be clear that you call the opinion/writing shit and not the person.

Go for it.

 

[DaveO]

The only way I can see the site working is with a small sarcastic comment after the article or post. And even then you're pushing the envelope. The safest course is to get the article and let the reader decide. I can't see failure by relying on people to think for themselves. Media outlets telling people what to think are a dime a thousand.

For example, the Black and White game is a prime candidate for a target about how wrong reviews can be. The game was released several years ago though, so I'm not sure if any target audience would consider commentary relevant.

My comment about freshness is that you'd need to know a lot of the review sites to have content that is not about games before 2009 or whenever the site goes live. You could add pre-20xx content as evidence of gaming journalism gone wrong, but the draw is going to be over new information.

My concern about the libel aspect is covered in the following link: http://www.medialaw.org/Content/Navigat ... l_FAQs.htm

 

[Tintin]

The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must also be a false statement of fact.

I'm not sure what legal problems this idea would have. It would not be putting up false statements and smearing people. It would only be correcting facts, or discussing bias in articles. I cannot see how that would have "false statements".

Having an opinion has been the basis for 80%of the internet.

 

[DarkSign]

Dont quote me officially, but ...

Having defended 2 libel cases personally, the website wont be in any trouble if you stick to professional critiques of someone else's work based on reasonable interpretations.

Truth is always an absolute defense to defamation of any kind. But what you're talking about here is offering an alternative opinion and comparing it to an existing opinion.

Proving actual damages from your internet opinion will be pretty hard to prove as long as you dont make up some highly believable yet totally false personal attack on the journalists themselves.

Anyway...that's my 2 bottlecaps worth.

 

[DefJam101]

Gamingjournalism.com is a good name for a domain. It's easy to remember and points clearly to the subject without communicating a clear bias against all gaming journalism - it gets my vote.

He's got a point here, unless the name sounds sufficiently 'professional' the websites you want to expose can just brush you under the e-carpet. Even if the tone of the website comes off as sarcastic and humorous, the presentation still has to be legitimate or the butthurt reviewers won't even have to argue with you.

 

[IlkuWarrior]

Gamingjurnalism gets my vote too. It should not just be about pointing out bad journalists, but praising the good ones too

 

[Applegate's Breasts]

So what's a "good" journalist? And if he writes a crap review later on do you flip flop and call him out on it? No free rides and all that.

Why don't you guys provide an example of how you would call out a journalist on a review? We have Fallout 3, Oblivion...DaveO mentioned Black & White...a game with very divided opinions (most people acknowledge it for the crap it is but others for some unfathomable reason love the game, like the VGCats guy).