This Headline Will Change In 20 Minutes Also
Really? Is "Ferris Bueller to Have No More Days Off, Ever" that much of a better headline (to accompany a picture of Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick and their new twins on Gawker) than the originally-published headline, "Rare Twin Foals Yielded from Successful Studding"? What behooves (HA, "hooves"!) a blog to make regular after-publication changes like this? (This happens as often as a few times a day.) Is it just because one can? It is one of the great and, yes, rather uninteresting mysteries of our modern times. I have lost interest already really. OH and also today! "Billionaire's Wife Valued Solely For Her Smarts, or Whatever" just now became "New York Times Lavishes Praise on Lady Married to Its Third Largest Shareholder"! Which isn't really what the "post" is "about" but hey. Now I have lost interest in this minor matter again.
Perfectionists.
No. Wait. I can do better.
"That Horse Has Sailed."
Ha. Reminds me of this http://www.theonion.com/content/news/idiom_shortage_leaves_nation_all
It's not just Gawker – the NY Times does it, too, esp. when the article appears in print after the website. It's just taking advantage of us to get more clicks, I think. Or else appealing to several different demos with the same article.
But it's definitely a business practice, and it must have been discussed somewhere.
Speaking of revisions,I could swear there was a plug for Pareene's other gig on Gawker earlier this morning. If I'm dreaming/imagining Gawker posts I should probably consult a Doctor.
Well no wonder I can't find it on Gawker since it's a Wonkette post. More Caffe, less Coretto in the morning from now on.
I had some very lucid dreams about a website hybrid between Gawker and Manhunt. I'll leave the details to your imagination.
Sometimes even I rethink a horse joke, Choire.
It just seems like you're closing the barn door after Sarah Jessica has bolted.
Maybe it was just the need for steed.
Everyone knows you don't change headlines mid-stream.
It's just that this is such a good point:
JerseyCurl
10:13 AM
The headline on this page is different than the caption on the main blog page. For what it's worth, I think the caption is really harsh. They're babies. Whatever you think of their mom, they don't deserve that.
Why does Gawker hate babies so much? First that Pollock kid, and now this. What a world.
The changed the billionaire's wife picture too, not just the headline. Who would have thought it was worth it to spend so much time changing a blog post?
Your attention span seems to be suffering today, Choire. This will surely keep you sane one more day.
Theory: Requiring your readers to click on the same article throughout the day to see if you've gotten wittier = more pageviews..?
I will never forget the bait and switch that Gawker pulled when it linked to Scott McClellan and his high school yearbook photos. I could have sworn that the original headline was "Once Fuckable?" But they seemed to have changed it to the more chaste "Former Hottie" later that same day. Although Wonkette won the contest with: Scott McClellan Was Not Born A Fat, Bald Weasel.
Far more egregious was the NYT quickly switching out "Occasional Smoker, 47, Signs Tobacco Legislation" last week.
In fairness, the babies were born to a surrogate so there may not be any equine genes in them. Hence, the original headline was a little mean for a baby. Mocking Broderick is fair game.