Originally Posted By GOB << But I'm also not going to turn a blind eye to the multitude of problems that currently plague them. That's not my style or way of going about things. You'll never see me actively tell people not to go. But I'm also not going to stop pointing out the things that are wrong.>> And I agree with that. If anything, pointing out what's wrong should be encouraged, and nobody should be batting a blind eye to the parks' problems. But there should be nothing wrong with liking the parks either, because that's a matter of preference. Poor maintenance, cost-cutting decisions, higher prices...that's all objective. But liking the parks is a matter of taste, and the snooty (or snotty!) attitude that people who like WDW are automatically Pixie Dust magic addicts is becoming a lot more prevalent.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 At the risk of being accused of grandstanding or making this my 'personal Spirted soapbox', I'll just chime in to say that it seems with the posts I've been skimming that folks are headed in the wrong direction. The original thread and comments on it were NEVER about anyone being stupid for visiting WDW. If so, we'd all be idiots (myself included). No one was suggesting people go elsewhere (although I've suggested less WDW-centric trips to FLA and other locations both Disney and non elsewhere and I stand behind that). The thread was about using Social Media to make people believe things that were in TWDC's best interests. That's very different from telling people they're stupid for going to WDW. I honestly think that some people here choose to hear what they want and not what is written in front of them. Here's a simple thought: READ what is there. RE-READ it if you are about to go off on some emotional tirade about something you perceive to be either about you or your choices. Social Media is all about manipulation to begin with and corporations (especially Disney) pray upon emotions, so you really shouldn't help foster that by overreacting to things you may well be misunderstanding. Take a time out. If someone posts something and you really feel strongly ... why respond now? If you do in 12 hours will something be lost? People need some chilling ... ~GFC~
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<< That Disney Fan sites keep a positive view of the company because they are comped? >>> <<That is guess work. I'm sure some do, I'm sure some don't.>> It may be guess work, but it's logical. Take Disney out of it. Just look at human nature. People act in their best interests. I never said fan sites in general would do so. But I am sure some (many perhaps) do indeed think about that. I've seen some bloggers (and no right now I can't pull up specifics and I'm still not sure whether Doobie wishes us to never mention any blogger in any context here unless it's positive or not) say on their sites that they will only post positive thoughts/comments/reviews. If they experience something bad/wrong/they don't like, then they just won't comment. << Movie reviewers are comped and no one question's their ability to be honest.>> Doobie, you are hitting where I started my very own Spirited career. I was a film critic (REALLY! and BTW, my first film was the worst movie Tom Hanks EVER was in ... total crap! And yes, I gave it 1 1/2 stars out of 4) And you are comparing apples and Toyotas here. Just such a vast difference. Movie reviewers are given something of such TINY value and it is a direct part of their work. Even today, who is going to be bought off for a $10-15 movie ticket? << I think most people who bother to start a Disney fan site (including myself) already have a positive view of the company or they wouldn't bother. Questioning reviews when stuff is comped is as old a practice as reviewing. Why think anything new or novel is going on here? >> Because Social Media is blurring the lines (perhaps crossing is a more accurate description) between what is real and honest and what is PR. And when it comes to fan sites that are supposed to be independent, it is using access as tacit tools for deciding who gets in and who gets what. You must see that it is a whole lot easier to get a fan webmaster/blogger/podcaster to tow company PR talking points than it would be to do likewise with a real journalist. The former are people who have never been treated special, never had access to people they view as 'better than us', never been wined and dined. The latter is used to it and understands it's all part of the game. All of that does make this kinda new and novel. Most people can be bought for a price. But I don't think a NY Times or Newsweek or USA Today reporter is going to be bought off for say a week at the Poly ... but some Mommy Blogger from Anywhere USA ... well, her price is likely gonna be a whole lot less. For some, as a media expert mentioned to me early in the other thread, a simple lanyard around the neck can be enough as it empowers people. Suddenly, they're special ... or they think they are. <<Some people perhaps are compromised. But most people who bother to spend hours every week writing about Disney actually do like what they're writing about. Otherwise they'd be writing about something else.>> I can't disagree with that, and I worry that confusion enters on points like the above. We all love Disney or we wouldn't be here. I wouldn't want (or ever expect one to exist) a Disney blogger that hated the products writing about it. That would be insanity. The point is being positive all the time and whether there is financial incentives to do so. Not to mention, when you are positive all the time you tend to lose credibility very quickly. Nothing is perfect. WDW wasn't perfect even back when it attempted to be. It's all about integrity and who you can trust. ~GFC~
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<In my many years of doing this, however, what I've found (and I'm speaking generally here, not of anyone in these specific topics), there are some who don't want others to be able to discuss in a positive way. If someone starts a topic called "I really love X about WDW, what do you love?", in short order that topic will be taken over by posters who need to make sure these people know what's wrong with WDW, even if that doesn't interest them. I've seen that time and again over the years and I'm sure I'm not the only webmaster driven crazy by that.>> I have to say I have a bit of an issue labeling the Social Media thread negative to begin with. I don't believe it was, although I can surely see how some in the fan community (more likely those from other sites with a vested interest who wouldn't come here and discuss the subject themselves ... unlike people with integrity such as Leemac, Kevin Yee, John Frost and others who did join in) might see it thusly. It was an analysis thread. It went in many different directions because Social Media has become such a part of the fabric of life in the 21st century. Remember six years ago when no one had ever heard of FB? Yeah, I miss those days ... And while I understand and largely agree with your point above, I'd also say that many folks who didn't like the thread acted like petulant children. They couldn't simply ignore it and move on to any of the hundreds of others threads on any of the boards here, including WDW. They had to complain and bring in all sorts of issues that had nothing to do with the subject. I don't like 'what character breakfast is best for my toddler' threads because I don't generally like foamheads (although the Mice were very nice to me when I got my pic with them in their new digs in May!), I generally sleep through breakfast and I don't have any toddlers. But you will NEVER see me enter a thread like that and start spewing anything ... I know I don't have a place there, so I sit it out. I'm sorry, Doobie, but it seems like some people (adults here) have no ability to simply skip a thread or two if they find the subject distasteful or just not tailored to their interests/experience/knowledge etc. ... and instead of just changing the proverbial channel to another thread or starting one of their own about something they'd like to talk about (and, no, starting a thread stating the exact opposite of the thread that angers them isn't what I'm talking about ... that's simply childish) they want to silence the voices on the other thread. And people think the Spirit is arrogant? It's beyond passive aggressive and it's becoming more and more common, not simply on Disney fan sites but in so many parts of daily life in the USA. I've seen people whine that only a dozen people were talking in that thread, which is utter BS. But even if it was true, then they could have just moved on and started talking about whatever they wanted. But see ... this again goes back to schoolyard mentality. They wouldn't get the attention that way. If I can't add to a thread, then I stay out of it. I don't join it so I can mock it and the individuals having it. Again, I respect that it's your prerogative to close any thread you see fit (I disagree vehemently, but respect it). But I'll state what I know to be true, and that is that thread was the most interesting, intellectual and meaty thread on ANY/ALL Disney forums going right now. <<And some (including myself in the past) have used that as a reason to ban people. You can interpret that as restricting negative talk. I would interpret it as facilitating positive talk for those who want it.>> Positive talk flows naturally, though ... about anything. It's very easy to cheer on anything. It is much tougher to be negative ... but again, that thread was not negative. Now, maybe there were negative real world consequences for some people and the fear of others to come, but I've always lived by the mantra that if you aren't doing anything wrong, then you absolutely to be ashamed of or fear (of course, that could be used by the TSA so I think I need to call it a night!) ~GFC~
Originally Posted By GOB My post was not written with anyone in mind, and I hope it didn't come acrss as an emotional tirade (at that, it probably was more suitable for the mental health thread). I wrote it based off of attitudes that I've perceived based on reading several years worth of posts; whether or not others feel the same way is based on their own worldviews, and I can guarantee that I'm not one to make posts say whatever I want them to. My apologies to all if my post was taken the wrong way.
Originally Posted By Bolna <<I'd rather say, "Thank you very much" for a wonderful 1100 post thread and continue talking about Disney's future attempts at Social Media, rather than talking about the 'process' of laughingplace.com.>> ChiMike said this in post #25 and I very much agree. However, the following discussion in this thread raised a few questions. First of all - what can be discussed and to what extent? How can we talk about Social Media without citing examples. I have been one of those that were active in the Social Media thread - but I always tried to actually look at the facts that can be found out there, collect them and put them into context. I think any serious discussion needs knowledge about the underlying facts. Spirit did get into this issue about what is still ok and what isn't in post #80 - and I really hope we will get an answer from Doobie on this. The other issue which has come up and which truly baffles me is that people claim that the Social Media thread was so negative and just the talk of some oldtimers who are fed up with WDW (that's the kind of summary I came up with from reading through this thread, not meant as a quote from anyone's individual post). I guess I will just have to accept that people's perception of negativity varies. First of all, I don't think that there was only a handful of people involved. There was indeed one point in the thread when it seemed like there were only three people posting on it anymore (I was one of those three). But then it went on and I was surprised how often I would read a comment from someone who hadn't been active in that thread for quite some time - there seemed to be a lot of people reading along and only commenting now and then. I really don't want to be forced into writing about how much I love WDW in order to kind of "defend" myself here - and not because I don't love it. Just as I would never tell anyone who decided to book the Disney Dining Plan that they are an idiot (even though I might try to convince them that this isn't as good a deal as it might look like on first sight), I rather strongly object against being told that I don't love WDW just because I enjoy an intelligent discussion about the social media policy of the company which runs WDW. Nobody has to post in every thread - I actually really enjoy those happy threads and regularly take part in them. But why are those the ones which don't really get that many posts? There is a really neat thread on the "WDW Trip Planning" board about what you are looking forward to in your next trip. It was started a week ago and only has 30 posts so far... But it did get some different people to post and I think that's great. But nobody is stopping anyone from creating these threads.
Originally Posted By Doobie So many points have been raised that I'm not going to address everything because I've said my thoughts on the subject, you've said yours and and people can make their own opinions. I'm not the type that can go back and forth on a discussion board in a debate (in person is another matter - that I love). But I will on one point. I don't think the movie reviewer is a major difference. Seeing 2 or 3 movies a week gets very expensive. Getting access to early screenings and press junkets and even flown out to them is a great perk. Getting every DVD and Blu-Ray under the sun is a great perk. All of these can theoretically affect what someone writes. I also think you're holding "fansites" to an unfair standard. Most don't claim to be journalists. So what if they only want to write positive stuff and ignore the stuff they don't like. I disagree with the line "fansites are supposed to be independent." By definition they are independent - they're not owned by Disney, but they're still free to write whatever they want. Whatever makes them happy. Whatever makes their readers happy. I think specifically making the Company happy is so low on their list - it just naturally falls in line with the other two priorities for most sites. This is what frustrates me so much. I see so many people here who are convinced that people are affected in what they write but the perks they get from Disney and their desire to keep them. But here I am, someone who's been doing this for 12 years now, one of the first websites to be recognized by Disney, we've probably gotten more perks than anyone if you add it all up over the years, and not upsetting Disney just isn't a factor in what we do. It wasn't back when we were the only online website at events, and it's not now with Disney having a social media department and 50 blogs being at events. It just doesn't matter. I want to be on the positive because it makes me happy and it attracts the kind of readers I want to attract and frankly - IT'S DISNEY - and even if they double the price and stop maintaining for six months - yes, it's not as good as it used to be, but it's still Disney and chances are, I'll still love it. And if I don't, it's time to move on to something else I do love. I'm not giving opinion here, I'm not speculating, I'm telling you facts from someone who's actually in this business and I can't imagine I'm the only person who has this point of view. Sitting here typing this it's so easy to understand, and all the motivation ascribing is frustrating and perplexing (and yes - we've been accused of the same thing many times over the years).
Originally Posted By Doobie Putting on my Admin hat ... you can discuss other websites here but our policy has always been to not be critical of other websites. You can link to them and talk about their content (as happens here all the time with Al Lutz as you mentioned), but not about the owners or the sites themselves - at least not in a negative light. I agree, they are public and they are putting themselves out there, but even with that, I don't permit that here. This topic in particular makes that a very tough line to draw. That's part of the reason I let the other topic go on so long. But I've decided to pull back again to where I've always been in the past. If that means this topic can no longer be discussed as well since you can't get into specifics - I'm sorry. As for Disney people - again, you can talk about Disney's public figures and the work they've done, but you cannot have personal attacks or be overly malicious. They're human beings with families doing a job the best they can. They're not celebs, they're not politicians, and they must be treated with respect - even if they're work is not. Where's that line? Hard to define - it's up to me to decide. There are also people who work for Disney who I don't consider public figures. In this age of company blogs some people who otherwise no one would've ever heard of are now doing posts on the Internet. I don't consider them Disney public figures. There are also many others whose names aren't public at all but someone here knows it because they're an "insider" and bring their name out. I don't consider them Disney public figures either and in both cases would prefer they not be mentioned by name at all and even when referring to them without a name, be particularly respectful. IMHO, just because you work for Disney does not mean you're fair game to be publicly critiqued - at least not here on LP. Doobie.
Originally Posted By Doobie <<< Nobody has to post in every thread - I actually really enjoy those happy threads and regularly take part in them. But why are those the ones which don't really get that many posts? There is a really neat thread on the "WDW Trip Planning" board about what you are looking forward to in your next trip. It was started a week ago and only has 30 posts so far... But it did get some different people to post and I think that's great. But nobody is stopping anyone from creating these threads. >>> It's not surprising controversial threads get more posts than happy ones. It's not surprising that negative threads (not saying the Social Media was one) gets more posts than positive ones. It's human nature. Also, just having a debate is going to create more posts than topics without a debate. And hard core fans are more likely to visit and post repeatedly and most hard core fans have already gone through their "what's your favorite ride" phase and are now looking to participate in something deeper. There are so many factors, too. If I go to a new discussion board and just start poking around and looking at lists of topics, I'm going to form an impression about what kind of place it is decide if I want to be a part of it. So while it's great in theory to say just participate in the threads you're interested in and skip the rest, in practice, just the existence of certain topics is a factor. Even readers who've been on the site for a while form an impression just by looking at a topic list or noticing which topics are popular and which aren't. Maybe they shouldn't be, but they are. Maybe they're even drawn into a debate they'd rather have not been because they couldn't resist. Should they have the self-control to just pretend like it's not there? Probably, but there's human nature again. Most of the people who've recommended I get rid of the World Events section completely are people who regularly participate in it. Rationally illogical - just don't go there - but human nature again. So as a fansite owner I have to deal with reality and hopefully create a place that's welcoming to all, even taking human nature into account. I wish it were as simple as to "just ignore the threads that don't interest you", but the reality is not that simple and I - and every fansite that wants to be successful - has to deal with these realities. And once again - these realities are more likely to drive the content and policies on my website than a desire to keep Disney happy (to bring it back around to the main topic). Doobie.
Originally Posted By KevinYee I think Doobie is being extremely judicious. There's no requirement that says a webmaster *must* be nice to external websites, Disney employees, or personalities, yet to his credit Doobie built that into his expectations. He's a natural "nice guy" so it's not surprising, but I didn't want to miss the chance to point it out.
Originally Posted By ReelJustice <<But I will on one point. I don't think the movie reviewer is a major difference. Seeing 2 or 3 movies a week gets very expensive. Getting access to early screenings and press junkets and even flown out to them is a great perk. Getting every DVD and Blu-Ray under the sun is a great perk. All of these can theoretically affect what someone writes.>> I would imagine that critics get comped by all studios, so it's a wash. Whereas, a Disney blogger isn't getting comped by Universal, just Disney exclusively. If you want the free cruises, Poly stays, or interviews with celeb imagineers, you better toe the company line or you get thrown off the gravy train.
Originally Posted By EPCOT Explorer >>>You'll never see me actively tell people not to go. But I'm also not going to stop pointing out the things that are wrong.<<< That's my idea as well. It's still a FANTASTIC destination.... ...but I know it could be a ton better.
Originally Posted By Doobie <<< I would imagine that critics get comped by all studios, so it's a wash. Whereas, a Disney blogger isn't getting comped by Universal, just Disney exclusively. >>> Why is it a wash? There aren't that many studios releasing movies. A reviewer can't afford to lose access to one of them. Can you imagine a reviewer that doesn't get access to anything Universal does? They wouldn't be a legit critic anymore. Anyone that gets freebies and perks and is then expected to comment on the same companies that gives those perks is in the same situation. It's the reason some newspapers don't allow their reporters to take any freebies under any circumstances. <<< If you want the free cruises, Poly stays, or interviews with celeb imagineers, you better toe the company line or you get thrown off the gravy train. >>> This is just such a wrong assumption (speaking from lots of experience) that, as I posted above, it's frustrating. Doobie.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>>But there should be nothing wrong with liking the parks either, because that's a matter of preference. Poor maintenance, cost-cutting decisions, higher prices...that's all objective. But liking the parks is a matter of taste, and the snooty (or snotty!) attitude that people who like WDW are automatically Pixie Dust magic addicts is becoming a lot more prevalent.<<<< That's one of the things that I find the most frustrating. We need to all let people be themselves. If I like Disney (which I do) I don't want to have someone introducing or stereotyping my enjoyment into a mental illness or one size fits all mode. I like it cause I like it. Why or to what extent is totally nobody's business but my own. I want to find a group of people that I have something in common with, but if I want bad news I will watch TV news. I don't want that from a site that I go to because I want to feel good. I know from experience that certain threads started by certain individuals will all be, in some form or the other, a dire warning of evil or half truths that are put out there only to create discussion. For the most part I completely ignore them. I know where they will lead and I withdraw. Sometimes I am accidentally drawn into a thread and during the process of glancing through it, I see something that just hits me wrong and I react. Didn't plan too, but being human, I just do. The irony in this whole situation is that those that are spieling about how others are obsessive what with their pixie dust and all, are constantly dropping Disney names, that most of us "day" threaders, have never heard of. They know them, they somehow are knowledgeable about their everyday activities, detailed job description and for all I know how often they head to the rest room. And yet, it's the Pixie Dusters that are obsessed. It's the ones that are oblivious to minor physical deficiencies at Disney parks because we are looking around instead of down, that are obsessed. It all just makes enjoying this a little harder.
Originally Posted By Bolna <<There are so many factors, too. If I go to a new discussion board and just start poking around and looking at lists of topics, I'm going to form an impression about what kind of place it is decide if I want to be a part of it. So while it's great in theory to say just participate in the threads you're interested in and skip the rest, in practice, just the existence of certain topics is a factor. Even readers who've been on the site for a while form an impression just by looking at a topic list or noticing which topics are popular and which aren't. Maybe they shouldn't be, but they are.>> That is indeed a very interesting point you make - and it even kind of connects with something that we discussed on the old Social Media thread. About how social media in general tends to limit what kind of news/topics/opinion we see so that we only see our own point of view reconfirmed. Because we go to the websites/blogs etc. where we find people who agree with us. Just as you described it above. I am very much for a diversity of opinion, makes life much more interesting. So I agree that a diversity of topics should be encouraged.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Ah, but it's mot that cut and dry, Skinner. Goodness knows that I still love the parks, but there are a lot of areas in which they need help. >> YES IT IS. These are statements of facts. Either you love Walt Disney World or you don't. If you don't love it, you probably won't visit it. If you do love it, you may or may not visit it. You can love the parks and still see the deterioration. The two are not mutually exclusive. And if you see the deterioration, it's still your decision on whether or not you choose to visit. This is all about perception, and what bearing that perception has on you visiting the Disney parks. There is nothing elitist about it. Either you choose to spend your money in order to visit, or you don't. And if you're choosing not to visit, the deterioration is one of many possible reasons for that choice. It ain't rocket science, folks. But for some reason, many here want to make it complicated.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<My post was not written with anyone in mind, and I hope it didn't come acrss as an emotional tirade (at that, it probably was more suitable for the mental health thread). I wrote it based off of attitudes that I've perceived based on reading several years worth of posts; whether or not others feel the same way is based on their own worldviews, and I can guarantee that I'm not one to make posts say whatever I want them to. My apologies to all if my post was taken the wrong way. >> Wasn't your post. I was speaking about a few pages of posts that appeared to be stating that the whole purpose of the Social Media thread and the discussion on it was that people who go to WDW are idiots. I don't like lies. I don't like PR spin. ~GFC~
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Spirit did get into this issue about what is still ok and what isn't in post #80 - and I really hope we will get an answer from Doobie on this.>> I would as well. I have the feeling that it's going to be a constantly changing/shifting line, and likely depend on who is posting things. I worry about that. I see on the ESPN Weekends thread people talking about Danny Cockerell, basically saying what I have and what I know to be true. But one wonders if others were to chime in would their words be censored, would they be attacked for criticizing a highly paid executive of an entertainment company who IS a public figure? This speaks to a danger of Social Media and propaganda and putting out one side of a story. It's a very slippery slope to where discussion boards like this become useless echo chambers where topics and opinions must be placed through Pixie Dust filters before going out. If I wanted to read that, then I'd go to The Disney Parks Blog. <<The other issue which has come up and which truly baffles me is that people claim that the Social Media thread was so negative and just the talk of some oldtimers who are fed up with WDW (that's the kind of summary I came up with from reading through this thread, not meant as a quote from anyone's individual post). I guess I will just have to accept that people's perception of negativity varies. >> It absolutely differs. I'd like to think we can have real analytical discussions of topics that really matter to Disney fans without a few voices, who either dislike the topic or don't understand it, trying to shut it down. Or worse, worrying what Disney Social Media and Burbank would think. We know they don't like discussions like this. If they did, then they'd either allow them on their site or they'd allow their bloggers (who are paid precisely TO INTERACT with the fan community) to post here. <<I really don't want to be forced into writing about how much I love WDW in order to kind of "defend" myself here - and not because I don't love it. Just as I would never tell anyone who decided to book the Disney Dining Plan that they are an idiot (even though I might try to convince them that this isn't as good a deal as it might look like on first sight), I rather strongly object against being told that I don't love WDW just because I enjoy an intelligent discussion about the social media policy of the company which runs WDW. >> Agreed on all counts. I've had this used against me personally here (and other sites) for years. That because I often criticize Disney that I somehow need to prove I'm fair and balanced by posting something positive. That's patently absurd. I don't have the time/desire even if I wanted to. I don't. Anyone who has spent the kind of time and money at WDW that I have (and I'd put myself up with anyone here) and didn't love the place would be certifiable. And a discussion on Social Media and how Disney is using it really isn't a thread on the merits (or not) of visiting WDW. I tend to think it's a whole lot more important. Companies do NOT need you to tell them what they are doing right. That's always pretty obvious. What they are getting wrong, the target they are missing is not always so obvious ... or they may not think people are even noticing or caring. If companies have any place in Social Media, then you'll find that place, that voice, as one of dissent on sites like this one. Corps like TWDC have no reason to follow most of the others because they, for lack of a better term, follow the script. They simply regurgitate company talking points. Lost in all of this is that each blogger/podcaster is in competition with the others to gain that next invite or simply gain access to information, which is why it always has perplexed me to see links to other sites. As this webmaster has pointed out, LP.com was there from the start of fan sites. Back when WDW wouldn't spit on anyone from the online world being granted an official acknowledgement, let alone an invite. It is bizarre to see some of the same individuals (who now have their own Disney-based businesses) who used to complain about how LP.com was credentialed for events now in competition with them. It isn't one big happy family. More like an MTV reality show. <<Nobody has to post in every thread - I actually really enjoy those happy threads and regularly take part in them. But why are those the ones which don't really get that many posts? There is a really neat thread on the "WDW Trip Planning" board about what you are looking forward to in your next trip. It was started a week ago and only has 30 posts so far... But it did get some different people to post and I think that's great. But nobody is stopping anyone from creating these threads.>> That's what I've said. But you have people who 'can't help themselves' (now is that the sign of illness? and is that somehow an unfair question here?) and must wade in when they can't understand the issues, don't wish to understand the issues or simply wish to let people know 'here I am ... still alive!' If you can't control yourself to the point of posting on (or staying out of) a Disney fan discussion board, then I have no idea how someone like that functions in the real world. That's the response of petulant children, not rational, educated, well-balanced adults. ~GFC~
Originally Posted By -em I'll admit I haven't stayed caught up with the original thread though have read most of this one but wanted to add my 2 cents- As for the 'comps' I see a place for it in many manners of business as long as its done equitably and not skewed to a certain demographic (i.e unknown mommy bloggers) in order to guarantee certain results. I think social media has a needed place and I feel that reputable establish sites (including LP, DIS etc) should be considered "true" media and have a place alongside traditional newspapers etc as I feel they promote a fair view towards the the company and offerings and often give more detailed press and coverage to events than most press would do, as well as reach the more "fanatical" crowds (which IMO would give more true results and immediate feedback towards offerings) I however don't feel anyone with a blog or website should be included for a multitude of reasons but simply because anyone can create a blog or a website but it takes talent, dedication and knowledge to get and keep a reputable site that reports things fairly and they should be recognized as such and I feel that including those sites in the same category as "mommy bloggers" is disrespectful to them. As for the whole doom and gloom vs defenders of mediocrity,,, I feel there needs to be a happy medium. I like the happy fluff topics but I also want a place to be able to intelligently discuss issues within the company. I think unlike some communities LP has "aged" beyond the all fluff topics of "favorite place to eat" "where to meet the fairies" that is so prevalent on other boards and gritter topics never get a chance to develop and thats great cause there is a place and need for them and I will say I think a LOT of this has to do with the demographics of the posters in esp the WDW section. Most do not have young kids, most get to WDW more than the average guest but don't spend hours upon hours of trip planning down making the "perfect" vacation and scheduling it down to the minute but all (for better or worse) love this company but don't like everything that is transpiring right now and can't do much besides type to change that. -em
