K
My feedback
21 results found
-
258th ranked
K supported this idea ·
-
103rd ranked
K supported this idea ·
-
26th ranked
K supported this idea ·
-
121st ranked
K supported this idea ·
-
21st ranked
K supported this idea ·
-
77th ranked
K supported this idea ·
-
78th ranked
K supported this idea ·
-
10th ranked
An error occurred while saving the comment K supported this idea ·
-
128th ranked
K supported this idea ·
-
2nd ranked
K supported this idea ·
-
20th ranked
K supported this idea ·
-
4th ranked
An error occurred while saving the comment K commented
Mercury News has a limit on the number of articles you can look at in 30 days without a subscription.
It seems to be independent of ad blocker.An error occurred while saving the comment K commented
The Miami Herald
An error occurred while saving the comment K commented
The Washington Post. Request for "remove adblocker" or subscribe comes up on first article
An error occurred while saving the comment K commented
ESPN links with their "insider" requirement. These are a subscriber only feature. You can only view the first 2-3 lines.
An error occurred while saving the comment K commented
Dallas Morning News/Sportsday - you can go 2-3 articles before you get the "requires subscription" pop up
An error occurred while saving the comment K commented
I'd be ok if they at least stated somewhere that "subscription is required" to let you know that you'll need a sub to read it.
K supported this idea ·
-
1st ranked
An error occurred while saving the comment K commented
I'm trying not to be yet another rant in the feedback about the topic. You can scroll thru and find plenty at this stage.
But I'm just curious as to WHY the news feed has so many articles?
Lamar Odom wa a basketball player. Kanye West at least he tries to make music.
But you look at any of the Kardashian/Jenner clan ... and outside of a few "moments" ... they really don't do much that's noteworthy.Some celebrity is launching a new play/music video/movie? Sure. Ok.
Some celebrity is getting married/divorced/having kids/some other life altering event? Ok ... sure. Nice or sad for them (depending on context)
Some celebrity is launching a fragrence, clothing line, or restaraunt? That belongs more in the Yahoo! Finance section ...But for the most part, their TV show rating are so pathetic they should be pulled from the air if they were on any other network. Some of their business ventures have crashed and burned. And the Kardashian girls are pretty much aged out of the traditional "model" age range ( ... yeah yeah ... #metoo trends and "beauty knows no age" ... but the older girls are almost 40 ... and they won't appear on covers or sites for much longer)
So what exactly is it that keeps them getting posted at the frequency they are curently at?
Are the Kardashians pumping millions of dollars directly to Yahoo/Oath? Is the linking revenue that high from sister sites/news agencies?There are lots of other real celebrities out there in the world.
An error occurred while saving the comment K commented
How can the number 1 complaint still be "under review" after 3 years? THere are at least a dozen other complaints about it on the Feedback as well.
THE KARDASHIANS ARE OLD NEWS!!!! THE MAJORITY OF YAHOO USERS DON'T CARE!!
An error occurred while saving the comment K commented
I get sites using 'celbrity news' as part of their fill. But I'd like to be able to once again filter out celbrities I don't care about. (and calling the Kardasians 'celebrities' s getting old anyways ... most of them were 'doable' back in the 00's early '10s. now most of them are pushing 40 and are old news)
K supported this idea ·
-
78th ranked
K shared this idea ·
-
36th ranked
An error occurred while saving the comment K commented
I have to agree. Most of the articles are about as useless as Kardashian articles. I mean it can't be that hard to add in non-celebrity or non-op-ed articles. An article here/there about the royal family? ok ... I guess. but having 3-4 articles everyday is overkill, and makes the reader less interested.
K supported this idea ·
-
69th ranked
An error occurred while saving the comment K commented
MSN removed comments a long time ago. Given the amountof spam on there and the level of toxicity, I'd consider it a site improvement (the articles themselves are a different issue)
K supported this idea ·
-
8th ranked
An error occurred while saving the comment K commented
Agreed. I've love to filter out Kardassians and the "Royal" stuff. (Few others on that list too, but if we knock them out, we'd see a major reduction in "news" stories.)
K supported this idea ·
-
98th ranked
An error occurred while saving the comment K commented
Given the amount of spam, trolls, flame baiting, and more, (not to mention the occasionally phishing link) it's hard to feel that the feature is doing anything useful for the site and to have a "discussion" on the article.
In additon, by removing the comments, it's one less thing your staff would need to focus on/moderate, freeing up resources to do other stuff.
An error occurred while saving the comment K commented
Just remove comments all together from the Yahoo site
K supported this idea ·
-
10th ranked
K supported this idea ·
-
49th ranked
K supported this idea ·
Agreed. It's one thing when something "notable" happens ... but the level of coverage you might as well be reporting each time they go the bathroom.