Yeah GamrFeed has some pretty awful stuff.

Generally I find that the best stuff by far is written by The Source - though even he has a fairly obvious bias towards Nintendo (and I say that as a person who also has a fairly obvious bias towards Nintendo).

I typically only go to IGN for game reviews and yesterday, I went there to see if someone had reviewed Starfox 64 3D. There were a couple of cringe worthy articles there that would seem right at home on the front page of this site. If IGN is doing it, I assume that the entirety of video game journalism is doing it (tolling for hits, that is). Sometimes, I call them out on their bullshit and inaccuracies. Sometimes I just roll my eyes and ignore them.

As for gamrFeed, my general rule of thumb is "if it ain't written by Stephen Kelly (spdk1) it ain't sweet like grape jelly!"

Totally aree.

I stopped reading the Gamrfeed articles because of how ridiculously bad trolling the editorials are. Gamrconnect and vgchartz are the only parts I use of the Network anymore.

Sorry for the confusion but I meant the gamrFeed articles and not the gamrConnect forums. I'm sure your post would have been a little less nasty if you would have known that.

I feel bad for the Feed guys, they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Used to be that they would just regurgitate news that was released, and that worked for a while but got a lot of complaints that there wasn't anything unique about Feed to get people to go there over an aggregater like N4G. So they changed things up and are now trying to focus on original articles written by the staff, but now if you write something that someone disagrees with they'll find whatever inaccuracies they can scrounge up and complain about those. YOu can either write things that everyone agrees with or write perfectly researched articles (more difficult than you'd think). Can't imagine it's a fun situation to be in.

Luckily it's not my department.

I understand it's tough to write a decent article, but that doesn't mean the site's users shouldn't complain if an article is horrible. And most Gamerfeed articles are just that. Like Rol said, many forum threads are better written than the Gamerfeed articles, and that's saying a lot...

I agree. There has been a substantial increase in articles written in Gamer Feed, likely due to the recent hirings. Many of these are outrageous: Sony is the new Nintendo, Recent games that hurt gaming's reputation, etc. WHen reading them the articles could have been written much more objectively.
Oh Well

But the articles should get updated with accurate info when readers give it. If it hadn't been doing so already.

I do agree that there should be more of an editing process for these opinion articles, just to make sure that there aren't any spelling errors and to check for any obvious inconsinstencies in what's written, similar to what we do with reviews, but what many are calling for is for some of these articles to just get denied at face value and I'm not a fan of that.  Even an unpopular opinion like Sony is the next Nintendo or Nintendo's Arrogance (articles I knew would get all kinds of crap from our community) should be allowed to be published, just have to be read through to make sure there's nothing obviously wrong about the supporting evidence and to check for silly spelling/grammar errors.

You can't blame them. gamrFeed's job is to get hits - nothing more, nothing less. And, if you compare the number of views that "Sony is the Next Nintendo" as a fanboy article with no proper evidence supporting it gets (over 16000, I think?) to most of the objective sales analysis articles (from under a thousand to less than five thousand), it's quite clear that the former is far, far better at getting the job done.
We should just be glad that VGC has a couple of objective articles, even if they are getting fewer and farther in between.