Wondering what EA’s stance is on SOPA?

I am most certainly not a supporter of SOPA or PIPA Just because I made a critique does not mean I am against the article. As I stated the point is a fair one; it is the presentation I have issue with.

Oh, the amusement.

I am writing this to address the point from the perspective of a media site. For the purposes of my response, I ask that you frame yourself in the bounds of an editor, or owner, of such a site:

I hate to break it to you, Mark, but when offering a public service – let’s say, for example, an online media site focused on gaming – one of your primary concerns should be the quality of the content. If you are suggesting that you do not, in your professional opinion, take the critiques of those who would read your site to heart, regardless of who they are or what their opinion is, then you are failing at a most basic and fundamental level in your duty.

I can, if you wish, list a number of glaring grammatical errors in the article above, as well as a gross number of other articles on your site; apparently you are liberated from even the most basic of editorial controls here on MMOMFG. When offering written content professional media organisation often run from a bible of rules, those rules more often than not grounded in the academic truth of the English language. Again a suggestion you may be making here is that MMOMFG.com is, unlike sites like IGN, Gamespot, Destructoid and even blogs like Massively, free of such controls on quality, controls that are industry wide and respected for their ability to maintain a uniformity in presentation and, as previously mentioned, quality.

These organisations do not do this because they’re pretentious, or because they’re snobs. They do it because it increases traffic by servicing reliably legible and inoffensively presented content. It allows them to maintain a uniformity of image and brand that can then be marketed, thus furthering their commercial interests and, obviously, profit margins through mediums such as advertising, affiliation and syndication.

And syndication is a big thing. A well presented site, regardless of the topic of the content, often finds itself in the position where articles may be purchased to appear in other publications. Those same organisations will often find that their tight control on presentation furthers the coverage and notoriety that their content and writers attain, which is a very good thing as it inevitably attracts MORE writers with the same ambitions (as well as, of course, more readers and thus more clicks).

My criticism may well have been harsh, but it was not dishonest. This article does not glow. There isn’t an air of quality about it. It’s the product of chaotic writing habits and a lack of care. The writing conveys the meaning. It is equally as important as the point the article is trying to make. If the writing is poor, which it very much is, the point is marred. If the point is marred, the website (and your brand) suffers. If your brand suffers, you will forever be “just another site” on the Internet, dwarfed and shunned by rivals.

Regarding my “nameless, faceless criticism”: I’d be more than happy to make the same criticisms in the same tone via phone. Perhaps we could meet for lunch? I am not hiding behind the Internet. I am offering you valuable feedback that you could then use to improve the quality of the service you are offering.