I've revisited that FB post. Since it was first posted it HAS been edited. Perhaps someone else found it misleading, too.
Let's look at it purely from a story standpoint, first: RS reported the news first based on some info from a TRU computer in the UK. It came with UK pricing (it's own issue) , etc. That's the first step in the story. A perfectly acceptable way of passing that info onto readers is to post a headline and a link to the other sites story. There's nothing wrong with that. Especially if you offer attribution and links to the original source. That's journalism 101. I don't even care if you provide a link to a topic about it in the forum section of your site. Topics like this are good for discussion.
So where does the actual story go from there? The next step would be to develop the story: release dates, figure lineups, price points, and most importantly IMAGES. When you can provide a verified IMAGE of a new figure/vehicle/multipack you are going to see a tremendous uptick in site traffic. And you get the ultimate confirmation in the story.
But ask anyone who runs a SW collecting website about when they get a new product image. There is a DRAMATIC increase in site traffic. And those clicks don't just translate to popularity. They can also translate into higher advertising revenues for a site.
Very often when a story like this breaks you may have multiple outlets working a story. One site may get the initial product listing info. But another may get an image. It happens all the time. But in this case the RS story got people interested. All of a sudden YF has something on the story and THERE'S AN IMAGE. WHAT?!?! An image in relation to a story like this INSTANTLY draws interest. But since it was not an image of the product in question, what are readers left to think?
As for "Likes" and comments on FB postings? Having worked at a SW collecting site that had a Facebook presence, I was witness to instances where responses that were critical of certain postings were deleted. Some people have thin skins when it comes to their social media presence. And some websites are not interested in having a dialogue about the quality or integrity of their content. Likes and comments can be manipulated to suit the needs of a given page, so I'm not that inclined to give all of that information a tremendous ammount of creedence.
And following the Rancor posting, there was ANOTHER FB posting about wishlist type content. On that occassion the first posting showed images of Hoth themed items as part of a proposed battle pack. Evidently, that posting seemed questionable, as well. Because there was a followup posting with almost identical imagery that now featured the bold word MOCKUP. But already there was misleading imagery that might have led someone to think that some new Hoth themed exclusive multipack was on the way.
FWIW, JediJman, I am entitled to an opinion about what I find annoying in terms of content. Especially if a collecting site wants people to follow them on social media. If you put your content out there for public consumption, then that outlet opens themselves up for honest criticism in how they present their content
After the discussion here, and via PM, I went back and clarified the post to avoid any additional confusion. Again, FWIW, I'll state that absolutely ZERO
attempt was made to deceive anyone. We posted links to YN story on May 23, RS developing story on May 28, "All of a sudden" (i.e. 2 days later) Justin posted his mockup/what if image on Facebook ONLY - not our front page. I'm clearly not understanding the vitriol about it.
That being said, I'm no journalist, nor do I pretend to be one but I am responsible for the content on our site and social media channels and stand by our method(s) of reporting as flawed as they may be.
Anyway, how 'bout those TBS figures? I'm not convinced that the Endor set is all repacks. Something about that Imperial Officer looks "just different enough to make you madô*".*Credit Adam Pawlus, EntertaimentEarth, Galactic Hunter, 16bit.com