Hey Sup Forums my dudes, I got an idea for you, i'm not an HTML guy, I fucking hate that nerd shit, but I had an idea that maybe some entrepreneur faggot over here might be interested.
You guys know how rotten tomato or metacritic site and how they work? i'll throw in some other shit sites like amazon or ebay, but you get the idea, the purpose is to review shitty platforms like movies, books, videogames, products, basically everything you can pick up and consume even if its free that shit gets reviewed.
but you know what I don't see getting reviewed? JOURNALISTS, yeah thats right, those fucking faggots with 0 quality control, look, i've been around enough to see so many shitty articles to know that regardless if its shitty clickbait or not, you're wasting your time consuming that "product" except that people won't see it as a product, like an android/tablet game that goes for free and you can mess around with it all you want but you'll have to go through all the shitty ingame stores and random advertisements, well articles written by these sissy journalists are no different for sure, its a platform, why the hell do you hear the following "media news outlet" because its a platform from a multimedia, its a branch and that branch isn't getting reviewed.
my theory is that because journalists only get bad comments on their article page but doesn't get a proper review from some third party site could be the potential reason as to why we constantly see shit like "CAN MILK MAKE YOU RACIST?" articles, those fuckers are like directors, and since they know they won't get shit on they will continue to act retarded on this environment where they have full control, so back to what I stated before regarding the idea: how about this, would it not be nice if we had a metacritic like website that reviewed journalists and articles?
The site would work as legitimate as possible since people are bound to shit on journalist regardless, we have the critic score and the user score, the critic score checks on all the horrible shit like bad grammar, how often the writer fucks up, his dynamic writing style or how he explains the story he's reporting, some university level journalist major type shit that I don't fucking understand, not my field anyways but its like rating art and seeing how shit it is, then you have the user score, users will be able to rate certain articles made by said journalists, most of them are guaranteed to go red because of the screech and shitpost, although this will get normalized overtime, the whole user score from each article will sum up the total user score given to the journalist, the site if acts accordingly and looks legitimate, in the future people can use it like a linkedin, "writers" will be judged by their quality of writing or style and business that wants to hire these faggots will have a look at this site to see if he's shit or not, I mean don't you want them to starve to death now that they finally have people controlling their quality? I do believe full heartedly that if we start to judge this platform the quality will increase in some way.
Anyways tell me what you think, this shit is long but its only for those that gives a shit.
Elijah Smith
didn't read OP is a faggot
Daniel Roberts
>i'm more of an idea guy
i'm sold, have an upvote
Charles Torres
minimum wage?
Brandon White
More thinking and less posting, actually it would be better if you just stop coming here and stick to like reddit.
