 Hey everyone! I am the boss man, the editor-in-chief of Zeldinformer.com and today we're going to be talking about why the heck do we at Zeldinformer split up interviews, split up reports into all these little tiny bits and pieces of information on the site over 10, 15, 20 different posts. So let's get into what some of you describe as one of the most annoying things we do at Zeldinformer. Well, a common question we are always asked is why do we break things up at Zeldinformer? Why do we break up reports? And a lot of times people respond with, oh, it's for the clicks. It's for the clicks. They're not 100% wrong, but just saying it's for the clicks is a bit not correct. I'm really bad. I'm really sorry about all that bad English. But let me get into it. See, I typed up this big long thing. So some of this you can blame on the era of social media. While it is true that in large part things will get split up to increase page views, we're not shying away from the fact that this happens. It's not as simple as to break that down as the only reason that it happens because we love comprehensive coverage and it's one reason that we frequently do summary posts to wrap up the large swaths of information into a single post. However, have you ever heard that people's attention spans for, say, reading editorials, news, watching videos, about news, yada yada, all have a very tight limit where people simply check out and become misinformed because they only read, see, or hear part of the story? While this isn't true for every person, some love long-winded material are podcast as an example. Reality is, it is true for a large enough chunk of people that it actually makes up a majority of most audiences, including our own. Because this is the case, the only way to ensure people are informed on any individual topic is to, well, highlight that individual topic. There are other reasons we do this that are also not inherently about the clicks. As an example, did you know that copy pasting interviews and quotes in their entirety over to your site, or our site in this example, in a single post is not only considered morally wrong, but it's also at times completely illegal? It's true. And while it's not illegal to summarize the entire interview into your own words, and heck, most don't consider that morally wrong either, the very fact you have to use your own words leaves very little room for interpretation by our readers. As what we would be reporting would be how the writer themselves interpreted the information. This is something that many popular news organizations do. As such, it creates a rather slanted report at times that appears, at least on the surface, to serve an agenda, without the reader usually recognizing that this is the case. And I have kind of a recent example of this. So Cheese Master was, a guy on Twitter named Cheese Master was translating quotes from another person on Twitter who was at the investors meeting, the 76th annual investors meeting. And in one of the translations, Cheese Master wrote that the Nintendo's not given up on the Wii U, the Wii U has lots of momentum for next year. However, basically Breath of the Wild will be the only game releasing on the platform. So that's not what the original source said, which is already a second-hand source because it's someone who's at the meeting, it's not someone from Nintendo. So what the actual source just said is that Zelda's going to be coming next year and that they're going to have a strong lineup for Wii U next year. That's it. Cheese Master took that original stuff and added his own interpretation and his own spin into it, or maybe even his own lack of understanding how Nintendo could say this when Zelda is the only confirmed title so far for 2017. And this led to some misreporting. I hate bringing it up because I don't blame Gamnesia here in this case because I'm going to bring up them or Ben Lemero. I don't blame any of the sites that picked up this story. We didn't report it as all-in-former because we had second sources look at the translation and realize it's wrong. That's not what's being said. I don't fault them for it, but they used a headline that was something along the lines of Breath of the Wild will be the only game released on Wii U next year and that's not what was said by the original source. And this is the kind of stuff that happens when someone interprets what is meant by a quote instead of just giving the actual quote. Now obviously on Twitter the actual quote is there but it's in Japanese and it's really hard because we're trusting him to translate it accurately without putting a spin on it and in this case you put a spin on it. That is something that we want to avoid as all-in-former. That's why we don't want to interpret the quotes for you unless we absolutely have to. As in if we have to translate them we will do that but I don't like having to summarize someone else's words. It doesn't really serve us well and it doesn't serve you well. It gives you information that might not be correct and might present a viewpoint of the author instead of what is really being said. So moving on, this sort of reporting is what I want to avoid. False information based upon someone else's interpretation or us presenting information in a way that contains falsehoods. I'd rather directly quote the source, maybe add our own say after the fact and let you guys see the originating information in quotes to dissect them for yourselves. But we can't actually do that in a singular post because it infringes too much upon plagiarism. This is something that I already explained above where you can't quote an entire interview into one section and I already explained why we don't want to just summarize that stuff ourselves. However, what we can do is split up these quotes and interviews into multiple posts as a workaround and while at the end of the day we may have the full interview present on our site, it's not present in its entirety in any one post, leading us to the land of green where if you want it in its entirety you need to either go ahead and check out the 15 different posts or simply head on over to the original source. Actually in this light, it's a net gain for the folks doing the original work too. You're more likely to go view that original source versus going through all our 15 posts. All of this is to your benefit. So you're truly informed in not necessarily getting this information with any sort of spin or with one of our writer's interpretations slightly altering things. Take in 2014. So in 2014, Aji Anomo came out in an interview, I forget who the interview was with and he stated that he never said that that was explicitly linked from referring to Link from the original trailer for Breath of the Wild. Back when it was just called Zelda U. And that quote was taken out of context all over the place. There were headlines saying things like Aji Anomo hints at a female Link, Aji Anomo hints at a gender option, Aji Anomo hints at a different character being playable in the game besides Link, which actually that interpretation isn't too far off from I guess what the actual words were. However, the right headline to use is something similar to what we used where we said that Aji Anomo states that he never said that that was explicitly linked in the Zelda U reveal. That is what he did. That's exactly what he did. That's the headline. And we put the exact quote in there. We didn't just put the quote in there after we did a whole bunch of interpreting and inferring that it means something more than what he said. And that doesn't mean that we didn't eventually come to those conversations because fans were bringing up those conversations. However, the actual originating report did not bring to light any sort of gender stuff. And unfortunately, people who interpreted that stuff in their reporting led to a lot of misinformation flying around. We want to avoid that. If we just give you the original content, you can look at it and dissect it for yourself. And as we know today, what he actually meant by that was that we shouldn't be so tied up in the way that Link himself looks. So having the ponytail, not necessarily wearing the green tunic and having all these changeable clothes and breath of the wild. That's what he was referring to. He's now stated that he probably should have been more careful on how he worded that, but it is what it is now. So we'd rather stick as closely as we can to the facts in the actual reporting and save our opinions for small blurbs either at the end of the news or for one of our many other ways that we get them out, such as our editorials, podcasts, video series, such as this, like the Boss Man, etc. I know this is a longer answer than probably a lot of you guys wanted because you figured it's just clicks, right? It's only clicks. But I always value being completely open and honest with our fans. Transparency. It's huge. It's something really deep inside me here. So sure, we get more clicks, but it's also to your benefit. As for a prior remark that, say, social media has a role in this. Well, thanks to social media, people have learned the headline skim. And it's impossible to highlight all the important stuff in a single headline. And while you can say, here's everything we learned from the 76th Annual Investors Meeting as the headline, it's not as attractive and, well, unfortunately, most people will skip right by it. Versus a headline that says, Nintendo doesn't want to deal with virtual reality right now. Or one of the many other headlines that contain information readers actually care about. So in the era of social media, it's kind of led to where we have to present headlines that contain information that actually interests people while they headline skim. Just saying, here's a summary of the 76th Annual Investors Meeting. Isn't necessarily as attractive for a lot of readers as virtual reality. Or, you know, Breath of the Wild having some new information presented, like how many developers worked on it. Those kind of headlines actually attract more people to view that news and become informed versus saying, here's a summary of everything from the 76th Annual, you know, whatever their report. So it kind of sucks because we're stuck in this conundrum where we do all this, not just to gain more viewers, but because it's more informative for our viewers and more honest to our viewers. But I understand why some people don't like it. Most news organizations do not do this. They do a lot of the stuff I said in here. They summarize everything themselves, which, unfortunately, it is impossible to create a summary that does not have interpretation in it because in order to summarize, you have to interpret the information in a way to put it in your own words. I like to avoid that. I want you guys to have the information basically straight from the source as much as we possibly can give you without infringing upon their right to create those reports and do those interviews. I don't want to get us involved in any legal issues. So there you have it. That's why we do what we do. Love it, hate it. It's worked for us for eight years. I'll continue to do it. Yeah, this is the boss man signing out.