Headscratchers / Cracked

  • Why the frequent reruns lately? Photoshop contests get them more usually, but sometimes articles from two years ago get back on the RSS feed, causing hundreds (thousands?) of readers to check the site and find an article they already read. That's just lame.
    • They have a lot of articles on the site. Odds are good that there's a bunch that some people haven't read yet.
      • The reruns are usually when there's an expected lack of columnist contribution (usually on weekends) so the reruns can also be considered fillers as well as presenting old articles to newer readers.
  • Here's an odd little thing I noticed... there's an easy way to tell when you're seeing an old article: if it has more than two pages, its pre-2010 for sure. Not that the opposite is always true, but now even big lists(with, say, 8 or more items) are split in, at most, two pages. Any reason behind that, I wonder?
    • Probably because if there's three pages or more readers may not feel they have the energy to read that long on one article.
      • Well that can't be. This recent article is three pages long and it's fairly popular.
    • More likely because internet connections are getting faster, so the increased page length does not slow things down as much. Cracked articles tend to have lots of pictures.
    • It could be as simple as the ratio of bandwidth/article vs. impressions/cent.
  • Where does Cracked get the idea that they've defeated MAD by becoming a moderately successful website and an In-Name-Only version of their former selves after being forced out of the magazine business? It'd be like if Nintendo forced Sega out of the video game business so it opened up a successful restaurant chain, while continuing to mock Nintendo in its commercials.
    • Because MAD is an easy to pick on target as a dinosaur.
    • Because Cracked successfully adapted to a new media environment and began to flourish, while MAD didn't and began to fade away. Cracked did win, in that sense.
      • Except that they really aren't competing with MAD in any way anymore, nor were they really serious competition before.
  • Why do a lot of articles....in particular....ones describing a bad or insane situation, always have the occasional description of a more fortunate/less insane outcome...only to go, "Just kidding!" then state the outcome was even more unfortunate/insane? It's not so bad when the article describes something weird or ludicrous but it's a punch in the gut when it involves a real-world injustice. It's an annoying running gag and a number of authors do it.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Headscratchers/Cracked