Well, yes, but your article was ended on the note of opinion: "In an attempt to improve efficiency, Fur Affinity has joined forces with fellow furry site Furocity, hoping to acquire new coders and administrators. However, the ability of SoFurry to answer the call of users and develop itself may make it a more attractive choice for furs."
You may be just stating and comparing abilities to update, but the conclusion derived is certainly advertisement in nature. I mean, it'd be the equivalent of a news organization going.
"BlowhornsRUs is having its second recall of blowhorns this month. Because of this a more attractive choice for your blowhorn needs may be BlowHorn city."
Stating issues and problems that people know exist are one thing, but has SoFurry really had/has no issues in development. If SoFurry were as popular as FurAffinity would it also be coming under more hard attack? Would its code be put more to the test by hackers?
Sure, I as much as the next guy would like to see FA improved, but I know it's more then just development problems that make your facts so easily shift to advertising. I mean judging by that last sentence, FA isn't what you want to see improved, but SoFurry's membership.
While I personally have no stake in the matter, as SoFurry and FA are just two means to an end to me. I'm just sort of trying to point out that the article's tone did seem to set a "Look SoFurry is updating, and FA has failed to do so, nyah-nyah." You even dug to 2009 issues to make the comparison on what SoFurry was doing now now. What about SoFurry's past? Was there any criticism on site improvements or lack thereof?
If I were the one making it I would have more went along the lines of explaining that SoFurry was releasing a Beta of 2.0, and that FurAffinity had plans on releasing their own improvements for this summer. The history of SoFurry and FurAffinity's ability to make updates is irrelevant to the article, and more likely at this point FurAffinity might miss their deadline again, so instead of concentrating on the past, looking to the future and highlighting it would put more on what they should be doing then dwelling on what's already been done.
One does not have to go about preaching the past of an organization, if you are right about their shortcomings, they will always present them time and time again. And if one does go for a historical viewpoint in their article, it's only fair we get the history both.
Well, yes, but your article was ended on the note of opinion: "In an attempt to improve efficiency, Fur Affinity has joined forces with fellow furry site Furocity, hoping to acquire new coders and administrators. However, the ability of SoFurry to answer the call of users and develop itself may make it a more attractive choice for furs."
You may be just stating and comparing abilities to update, but the conclusion derived is certainly advertisement in nature. I mean, it'd be the equivalent of a news organization going.
"BlowhornsRUs is having its second recall of blowhorns this month. Because of this a more attractive choice for your blowhorn needs may be BlowHorn city."
Stating issues and problems that people know exist are one thing, but has SoFurry really had/has no issues in development. If SoFurry were as popular as FurAffinity would it also be coming under more hard attack? Would its code be put more to the test by hackers?
Sure, I as much as the next guy would like to see FA improved, but I know it's more then just development problems that make your facts so easily shift to advertising. I mean judging by that last sentence, FA isn't what you want to see improved, but SoFurry's membership.
While I personally have no stake in the matter, as SoFurry and FA are just two means to an end to me. I'm just sort of trying to point out that the article's tone did seem to set a "Look SoFurry is updating, and FA has failed to do so, nyah-nyah." You even dug to 2009 issues to make the comparison on what SoFurry was doing now now. What about SoFurry's past? Was there any criticism on site improvements or lack thereof?
If I were the one making it I would have more went along the lines of explaining that SoFurry was releasing a Beta of 2.0, and that FurAffinity had plans on releasing their own improvements for this summer. The history of SoFurry and FurAffinity's ability to make updates is irrelevant to the article, and more likely at this point FurAffinity might miss their deadline again, so instead of concentrating on the past, looking to the future and highlighting it would put more on what they should be doing then dwelling on what's already been done.
One does not have to go about preaching the past of an organization, if you are right about their shortcomings, they will always present them time and time again. And if one does go for a historical viewpoint in their article, it's only fair we get the history both.