Edits
Latest
Twitter boss says edit tweet feature is 'definitely needed'
CEO Jack Dorsey asked Twitter users what improvements they most wanted to see, and as you'd expect, he got an avalanche of replies -- over 5,700 so far. The most requested feature was the ability to edit tweets after you've sent them, rather than having to delete and start again. Dorsey agreed that "a form of edit is def needed," and that the company is "thinking a lot about it." However, he thinks anything beyond quick edits would require a changelog, and some users suggested any edits would worsen trust issues with the site.
Twisted Nether Wiki compiles a nice list of WoW utilities
A few folks over at the Twisted Nether Wiki have done a great thing and compiled a nice full list of all of those little online WoW utilities that we talk about every once in a while. From character improvement tools like Be Imba! to resources like Kaliban's Loot Lists and even humor sites like WoWBash, if it's online, WoW-related, and worth visiting more than once, it's on this list.And of course it's a wiki, so even if it's not on that list, you can add it. But it is cool to have all of those resources in one place -- we mention them, obviously, when there are updates to share, but if you don't bookmark them when you hear about them, they might have fallen off your radar. There are so many great and well-designed tools out there for players to use that something like this, tracking them all, is great to have.
Comparison shows significant edits to Gerstmann's Kane & Lynch review
var digg_url = 'http://digg.com/gaming_news/Comparison_shows_significant_edits_to_Gerstmann_s_Kane_Lynch_review'; The editor's note at the bottom of Jeff Gerstmann's controversial review of Kane & Lynch: Dead Men notes that "this review has been updated to include differences between the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions and a clarification on the game's multiplayer mode." While this is true, a comparison between the original and edited versions of the review shows that the edits went significantly further than that.An archived version of the review found in a Google cache of an EBGames page shows that, while the review's overall determination remained the same, significant changes were made to its tone and focus. Nowhere is this more apparent than the very first paragraph, which was changed whole cloth to remove references calling the game "ugly" and the artificial intelligence "clunky." While the new introduction still says the game "squanders much of its potential and just doesn't come together as well as it probably should have," the new version is unquestionably less harsh than the original.Some edits to the text seem shoehorned in to point out potential positives for the game. Consider a post-edit addition that specifically notes the game "does a good job of moving the action around, and you'll see a variety of different environments ..." and another that suggests, "if you've been waiting patiently for a game to really dive into the whole 'crew-based heist tale' concept, you might be able to look past some of the story flaws."Then again, there are other additions that specifically point out negatives, such as one that says the multiplayer mode "doesn't translate into a great or long-lasting experience," and another that calls the disappointing multiplayer a "bummer." But there are further edits that circumstantially seem designed specifically to placate Eidos, such as one clause that points out "how well this same sort of stuff worked in the developer's previous squad-based game, Freedom Fighters," and another that asks readers to consider "the somewhat unique nature of its story."While the edits are interesting in and of themselves, it should be noted that they are not proof of any wrongdoing on either CNET or Eidos' parts. Many questions remain, such as whether or not Gerstmann himself was involved with the edits, whether Eidos specifically requested any of the edits, and whether or not CNET executives intervened in the editing process. Neither Gerstmann, nor CNET or Eidos representatives were immediately available to respond to requests for comment on this matter, but we will let you know if and when they do (A CNET spokesperson made an oblique reference to the edits in a previous public comment).A full accounting of the differences between the original review and the edited version appears after the break. Read it over and decide for yourself whether the changes were justified and suitably covered by the editor's note that appears at the end.
Fixing "Complete My Album" track info mistakes
If you've recently completed an album in iTunes, you might find that the original track or tracks don't match the rest of the album in iTunes listing. The Track number and Album name may be off as I've circled here. Apple just posted a support doc showing you how to fix these mismatches by editing your track information. Select the track, open the Info window (File -> Get Info) and then update the Track Number, Album and (possibly) Genre fields by hand. Yes, it's a clunky way to make everything match but it allows you to restore the shiny, shiny perfection of your iTunes library.
