Why Quora is the worst Q & A site on the planet and detrimental to your knowledge base

It was by chance that I found Quora. At first, I found this site to be interesting and noticed that the biggest feature was voting on answers and responding to and commenting on answers. Not to mention the recently added ability to choose your credentials when answering a question. While this can be a benefit in most circumstances, it can be used to mislead the asker as to who is giving the answer.

Not long after signing up and starting to use the site to exchange knowledge, I soon found out that the moderators are not very well qualified (any Joe Shmoe or an unqualified dick head can be promoted/elected to be one).

I found that the site allows anyone who is a provocateur to delete, report and insult you when you try to engage in a civil discussion about it. Now, I am not denying that when a topic is a subject of controversy, some people will get emotional, but I tried to keep a cool head the entire time and tried to reason with the provocateur - big mistake. One even accused me of being an 8 year old sitting in front of his father's computer and failing to understand the reality of the world. Contrary to said accusation, I am old enough to have gained enough life experience to know that you cannot win a debate by insulting people or win an argument by using the strawman fallacy. You win an argument or a debate through reasoning and acknowledging the other point of view. And this is something that my mom always keeps reiterating. Also, I will show you the respect you have earned if you do the same. 

However, what I found to be the problem with others (both on the Internet and real life) is the fact that I am expected to give people the benefit of the doubt while excusing their inability to understand my point of view. Well , enough is enough. If you'd like to hear my point of view, I will be more that happy to share it and let you know upfront that I will not allow myself to be forced into accepting another person's point of view. Plus, when I try to ask sensible questions, I am shut down and blocked.

Quora is not the only culprit in this scenario. Other platforms like Facebook and Twitter are also guilty of the same crime - whether it is legal or not. Let's start with what makes them hypocritical to begin with.

The Be Nice Be Respectful or BNBR Policy is a complete joke and a farce

While every social media site has to have a policy that regulates their users and ensures that the platform is safe and secure for them to use, there are a quite a number of examples where a user (possibly a troll) has violated this policy and Quora does nothing to act on it. However, I have found myself in a situation where I wanted to find out more about why a user would believe a certain way and challenged them on their beliefs, said user ended up reporting me, deleting my comments to their comments, and receiving an email from Quora advising me that I have violated policy. I also keep wondering how on Earth are they still in business? I would have imagined that a mass Exodus would have taken place like it has been reported recently about Californians leaving California and moving to elsewhere in America.

For what it's worth, Quora has a policy, but platforms like theirs tends to enforce it against the wrong kind of people - the opponents who disagree with a certain narrative. Fortunately, we have a term in the legal books called "Selective prosecution". I am also left to wonder how on Earth is there no class action lawsuit against social media giants like these ass holes, or even a record of it being talked about it.

The support for members

Support for members who need it only exists by means of messaging. I tried appealing a couple of times where a comment of mine was found to be in violation of their terms of service or their BNBR policy even. All I received was confirmation that said comment was in violation of policy but no evidence pointing to what about the comment violated the BNBR policy. I responded by challenging the response and I have not heard back since.

Also, they will arbitrarily delete or not approve one or more of your answers that you have posted on certain forums and not respond when you ask them why they declined it.

Furthermore, what happens in some instances is that commenting is disabled for some answers from the get go or in the middle of a conversation with another user. Not sure if this is a glitch or whether members are doing this on purpose to avoid scrutiny, but there is definitely something to raise an eyebrow at.

People asking questions to answers that can easily be found using a google search

I primarily answer questions relating to screenwriting, the film industry and filmmaking. However, questions like: "How do I become a good screenwriter?" or "How do I become a better director?", or "What do I need to make a great film?". While I am pretty sure that the answers that the asker will receive by asking these type of questions will have some good advice, but when it comes to advice from professionals, it is non-existent. All you have to do is take a look at the credentials included of the person who answered the question and you will find that most of the people answering the question have no relevant qualifications to give the answer any credibility.

A lot of these questions can simply be answered by typing these exact questions using major search engines like DuckDuckGo, Google, Yahoo or Bing. I will admit that some of the answers posted on Quora will come with recommendations that a simple Google search will not necessarily include in the search results, but I also can't help it think that the asker is either lazy or trying to ask as many questions as possible to take advantage of the partnership program where they are paid to ask questions on a daily basis. Yes, there is a partnership program where you get paid to ask at least 10 questions on the site daily.

Users copy pasting a question verbatim before beginning their answer

I have found quite a few instances when I asked a question on Quora or when someone else asks a question on Quora, a few of the users have a super annoying habit of copy pasting the question verbatim before they start answering said question. It is mind numbing why they do this.

I asked one of these users why they did this and the response was less intelligent then a thermometer showing that your temperature is normal. The response: "In case the question is lost or is reminding the asker what they have asked. You can clearly see the question displayed before the answer. I have to wonder if they were blind to this fact.

If you have found other problems with Quora, please mention them in the comments below.

Knowledge is either incomplete, biased or sourced from Wikipedia

When looking through the answers that other users have written, some of the answers are either super biased, sourced from Wikipedia or incomplete to the point where further research is required. It would be a waste of time for a user to do research and post those findings on Quora only for some idjit to report the answer and get it removed for reasons ranging from the answer being politically incorrect to being downright offensive.

I have moved away from relying on Wikipedia for information on any topic because any Joe Shmoe can create an account and write whatever he/she wishes (no matter who incomplete or inaccurate) and Wikipedia doesn't do a darn thing about correcting it - even when someone points it out to them.

The last draw

The last draw for me came when a user responded on one of my answers with an opinion. I calmly pointed out that this was an opinion that I had and that I will be respecting their opinion but they will need to return the favor. I also pointed out that they were using forceful tactics to make me agree with them.

The same thing happened as before: I received a message from Quora advising me that a comment had been deleted because it was found in violation of their terms of service.

Remembering what happened the last time this occurred, I immediately deleted not only their comments to my answer, I also deleted my comments corresponding to their comments. I did not even bother to appeal this one, because I knew what the response from Quora will be.

I then emailed an account manager or an account admin requesting that they delete my account on Quora because I felt attacked and not respected while giving the respect the users expected of other people.

I am done with Quora and if anyone reading this is considering signing up for Quora, run. Run as far away as you possibly can until you have found the one Q & A site that does not do what Quora and other social media platforms are doing to some of their genuine user base.

And if you haven't already after you have read this article, raise holy hell against Quora or start a class action lawsuit accusing them of unconscionable conduct.

To conclude:

There are much better websites that will serve the purpose that Quora will and if anyone out there is thinking about starting a competing Q & A site, have a policy where you specify that people will be shown respect if they themselves give it, and have users sign up by invitation only.

Quora is not the site it was marketed to be. It is mostly for those who need their feelings, their belief systems and their political ideologies validated and attract attention towards themselves.

As long as it doesn't end in violence or other sinister acts being commited, we all can respect each other, and acknowledge each other's beliefs and points of view while not forcing the objectors or the opponents of a viewpoint or a belief system to confirm to our ideology.

Why I distrust reviews on YouTube, and why you should too.

When reviewing a product like a piece of technology or a movie for example, one would expect the reviews and the reviewer to be objective in their reviews. However, given the popularity of YouTube and independent websites like Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes (Ewww!) even, you cannot distinguish whose reviews are being genuine and which ones are fake. Unfortunately this is becoming difficult and nearly impossible to tell with the pantheon of reviewers saturating both the Internet and YouTube.

Over the past couple of decades however, these reviewers have gotten so bold that anyone who is anyone is able to review a movie or a piece of technology whether they are qualified or not, have been churning out reviews that are not entirely objective, nor provide clarity on who would be the right target customer based or the right target audience for a movie for example. They defend their poor quality criticisms by calling them constructive criticisms. They argue that they are expressing their opinions. Maybe some of them are and maybe some of them are justifying their poor criticisms with excuses. Zeus only knows the answer to this. And to add insult to injury, nobody seems to be analyzing their feedback or criticisms and challenging them on this by asking relevant questions.

And where are these 'critics' coming from or originating from? Mostly from the Internet and YouTube if you were to ask me. Some of the critics are down right paid trolls and it shows in what they say about a particular product or reviews.

The biggest problem with critics:

The nitpicking - especially in product reviews. How on great Zeus' Olympus can they sit there in their armchair, with that flashy looking headset of theirs (while trying to look cool/stylish), and in front of their computer with that fancy keyboard that they spent more money than necessary for focus on every god forsaken flaw of a product or a movie and claim that you are expressing an opinion or providing constructive feedback? Let me tell you, these so called 'reviewers' or 'critics' aren't doing themselves any favors by nitpicking. They simply need to stare the crap out of themselves in the mirror and ask: "why I am doing this in the first place?" 

The fact that these critics on the Internet need no documentation or anything to show that they are qualified to offer any sort of criticism (constructive or otherwise) should be a cause for great concern.

Examples of poor quality criticisms:

• When it comes to movies and TV shows, every single aspect of the story is over analyzed and shredded to bits and heavily criticized as not being realistic or not believable. This is true when it comes to action movies and fantasy based movies and TV shows. What these idiots fail to see is that movies and TV shows are make belief, they aren't meant to be realistic because the audience wants to 'suspend their disbelief' when they watch the movie or TV show in question. They also fail to understand that when movies are made and stories are written, they are based off of the "What if" scenario and then answering that question in the end of the movie. 
• Here's the scoop: any movie or TV show that is heavily criticized is the best one to watch and anything that is heavily praised is to be avoided at all costs. 
• If you'd like an example, the critics who heavily criticized the film The Tomorrow War deserve a super strong and harsh slap on the face. They criticized anything and everything wrong with it. Are you fluffing joshing me? When I finally got to see the movie, it was a fantastic experience. Very well planned and executed. With J.K Simmons and Chris Pratt as the duo hero team working together to defeat the enemy.
• Smartphone reviews. Okay, I will give a pass to two individuals on this one: MKBHD and Mrwhosetheboss on YouTube. Most reviewers of smartphones however, are a different story: They start off with the specs as always and they compare it to other popular smartphones on the market. Some even argue how Android is better than iOS and make the same old dumb ass recycled arguments about the operating systems that are often refutable. They forget who the target customer base is for each operating system of the smartphone. These are also the type of reviewers who only focus on the hardware features and specifications and base their criticism off of that. They never really touch on the user experience. I have seen a lot of debates (some of them heated) arguing why this smartphone is better than that smartphone and yadiyadi yadda. Not even a mention of who really goes for something like that. Not everyone needs the features boasted about a particular smartphone.
• Camera lenses. When reviewing these lenses, I am pretty sure reviewers not only zoom in on a particular section of a still image or a moving image, they also fault the lens for having these imperfections and expect the rest of us to fork out big money to buy the lenses that they recommend. Since the final image will be viewed in its entirety, why would they bother with the darn details? The average Joe will not be purposely looking at the image for these flaws so what the bloody Lucifer are they doing here? The average Joe will only be interested in the experience of it all. Plus, they're not even mentioning who would use the lenses they are reviewing. There are areas that these critics are focusing on that aren't really relevant in some professional settings:
• De-clicked aperture ring: This is where when you turn the aperture ring to a desired number setting, the ring clicks when moving to the next number until it reaches the desired setting. I can only thing of one scenario where this could cause a problem: If you are recording a moving image and changing the aperture at the same time. However, I am not sure why this is relevant because most of the time, you'd keep the aperture constant and change it before capturing the next image or another image.
• Chromatic adoration or purple fringing: This is one of the most commonly critiqued flaw when reviewing lenses. This is where there is discoloration in parts of the captured image. This happens when the reviewers zoom in on various parts of the image and spot it. Not exactly sure why this is such a big issue for them when they bring it up.
• Comparing lenses from two different manufacturers: Like most product comparison reviews, comparing two different lenses that are similar in focal length and specifications from two different manufacturers has become common, and one again, while comparing images taken by these two competing lenses, the critics focus on the same darn aspects of the lenses. The competing lenses may cost less and yes, the general consensus is to determine whether the drop in price is even worth the cost and investment into the lens, but no mention of who would be the target customer base for them.
• Other tech like cameras and computers. Again, the specs and the hardware features come into play rather than the user experience of it all. They don't even reveal in their review who the equipment being reviewed is for.
• When it comes to cameras, rolling shutter seems to be the popular point of critique when talking about cameras for video. A lot of these reviewers do test hybrid cameras like the Sony A7SIII or a Canon or a Nikon Camera even. Rolling shutter is where when a camera is panned in quick succession, it creates a jelly affect. In movies, the panning is consistently smooth and slow: not as fast as these guys are using for the test. It is not an accurate test.
• When it comes to computers on the other hand, the critics rely on scores provided by a website by Geekbench. They take this number and make a preliminary determination about the performance of a computer. A lot of these critics reviewing computers are either computer enthusiasts or hard core gamers - not the average Joe. They forget that the average Joe is not into gaming or the average Joe is not into fluffing Geekbench scores.
• Some critics will determine that if a computer does not have the latest generation processor, it is a deal breaker. My rebuttal to this would be that if it gets the job done in a reasonable length of time, it is up to the darn job. I would also ask the question: "What it is about a computing device not having the latest generation processor that is making it such a deal breaker? Why do you believe this BS to be true?
• Complaining that elements in a script, finished movie or TV show are unrealistic, not believable or illogical: Seriously? You really want to go down that road?  Let me ask you one question: You spend an entire of your life dealing with reality and now you're telling me that you want more of it? How sad is that? Movies and TV shows that are produced from a written and fully polished screenplay are make believe. They ask the "What if" question. Plus, a lot of the reviews on YouTube complain about elements that are easily refutable. The movies have been made for their entertainment value and not there to satisfy your so called "realistic" expectations. People really want to suspend their disbelief and escape reality for a change.

And it will still continue:

Even if every manufacturer of a product or producer of a movie or TV show were to address all criticisms raised by the so called 'critics', they still won't be happy. They will still find something to criticize about. That is the honest to Zeus truth. They are always on the lookout for anything and everything wrong with a piece of technology or movie or TV production.

And we trust these guys?

The consequence:

The more power we give them, the more we distrust ourselves in making decisions that affect us and our choices in life. Letting someone make some of these decisions for us is letting someone else manage our money when being accused of being incapable of managing it ourselves - when all the while, we are completely capable of managing it ourselves. It undermines our confidence. The same thing is happening when we let critics decide what to buy or tell us what not to buy, they are undermining our confidence in making this decision on our own.

Sure, when large sums of money are involved, you don't want to make the wrong move and lose it all unnecessarily.  We can trust our instincts and factor out any compulsion or temptation that is influencing our decision. We know better that to allow someone to rush us into making a hasty decision like a salesperson urging us to accept the deal he/she is offering right then and there. You especially do not want to do this with investing. Here, you also want to trust your instincts and remove all temptation or impulsiveness from the equation.

But not all critics are created this equally bad:

Some criticism is warranted. Examples include when critics criticized the first two God's not Dead movies, I could see their point. When critics criticized Nicholas Spark's movie The Choice as being predictable, I can absolutely attest to this because I went and watched it and concluded the same. There are instances where critics are right, but for the majority of the cases, they are so wrong on a lot of levels, and this is why I am calling for every person who comes across any of these types of critics to call them out on their BS or at least challenge their analysis of things.

Why I distrust the reviewers:

Time and time again, the reverse was proven true when I conducted the movie experiment some years back. I picked 5 movies that were heavily criticized and 5 that were heavily praised. I found that it was the ones that were heavily criticized were the ones that were really good. It has caused me to analyze the criticisms at hand and determine whether they were constructive or destructive in nature. To be honest, the majority of the criticisms you come across are destructive masquerading as constructive criticism and opinion based. They are not objective, but heavily subjective. This is why you see poor quality movies and TV shows being made and poor quality products being made because no one can win as long as these unqualified critics are running the show.

Critics are always wrong.

When critics told Elvis Presley that he had no talent and that he wasn't going to make it in the music business, we can see how wrong they were and this will never be openly admitted. As for Elvis, look at where he is now. He is the fluffing King of Rock and Roll for crying out loud.

Having said this, there are a few reviewers you can still trust. The key here is objectivity. You need to look for reviewers that are giving their objective view on any piece of tech or movie/TV show. Someone who understands who a particular piece of gear. tech, movie/TV show is aimed at.

So in conclusion, reviewers on YouTube and on the Internet are plentiful and are like the Wild Wild West (not the Will Smith kind). They are super subjective and have nothing of substance to offer except for nitpicking on everything and calling it an objective/constructive criticism or an expression of opinion where no qualification exists. And this is why we shouldn't be taking their criticisms at face value or accepting their criticisms as valid 100% of the time. Asking probing questions to determine how they came to this conclusion about a said product/service, movie or a TV show is key to deciding which critic we can listen to and which ones to ignore right from the get go.

We should be trusting our instincts and not let anyone undermine our confidence in our ability to make these kinds of decisions for ourselves just like we would never let someone manage our money when we are completely capable of doing this ourselves. Sometimes it can be an expensive exercise to try and figure out which product/service or piece of tech worked out for us and which ones didn't. However, if this can build our confidence in ourselves, then I'd say go for it.

We can do this people.

Don't let anyone, and I mean anyone, undermine your confidence and attempt to steal your dreams.

The Fundamental problem with independent computer shops and repairmen

I've spoken to quite a few independent computer shops and found that the owners are extremely bitter and have the propensity to complain a lot about one company: Apple. They criticize Apple with the same old dumb ass arguments that other critics use to discredit or find reasons to use against the company.

I found this to be extremely hypocritical because the accusations made against Apple under the false pretense of "Free speech" and "constructive criticism" is not unique to Apple. Their arguments fall flat because the majority of these accusations should be directed at any company that is guilty of what Apple is being accused of doing: i.e. price gouging, less hardware features, monopoly over its customers, calling Apple's customers "Fanboys", Apple copying another company, or being late to the game, etc, etc. 

When I assess these arguments for merit, I find that they fall flat for a variety of different reasons. A few of which are listed below:

Calling them "Fanboys" or Apple Sheep:

Seriously? I could easily walk up to an avid user of any brand and call them exactly that: Fanboys. This is primarily true of Samsung. if you love Samsung and if you love everything Samsung does, then that is your prerogative.  How are people who use Apple any different? Each tech company is doing this to its customers. They have something that their customers need or want. That is why their customers go to them or are loyal to them. The only difference here is Apple is offering something that the majority of the customers need: It simply works out of the darn box and is truly seamless and user friendly.

For critics of Apple to use this is an excuse to find something wrong with the company. What is stopping an Apple customer from saying the same thing?

Also, it is as simple as replacing the word Apple and inserting the name of any company that goes with the word "Sheep".

Apple copied <insert company name here>:

There is an old saying: 

Good Artists copy. Great Artists steal.

And that is exactly what Apple's competitors are: "Good Artists", and that is key. 

This argument falls flat because it is the exact reverse of what Apple is being accused of doing: Other companies copy Apple to compete with Apple - plain and simple.

Apple puts in the leg work when it comes to R&D and its competitors conveniently take the easy way out to save costs and turn around and encourage their fanbase to complain that Apple copied them.

Critics conveniently ignore this and continue to use this argument every time Apple releases a new product.

Apple is being Greedy:

If that is the best argument you're going with, then you fail again. This is not unique to Apple. There are other companies in the tech and other industries that are also this way. 

Again, why are critics singling out Apple? I know why: Those who complain are ignorant to the bigger picture and refuse to believe that the companies they support are also doing what Apple is being accused of.

The whole Throttle gate fiasco:

If you aren't aware, Throttle gate was when Apple was caught out throttling down its processors in an effort to prolong the longevity of the batteries in its iPhones and iPads. Critics accused Apple of "Planned Obsolescence", while other companies are doing the exact same thing. Apple explained that because of a risk of the devices shutting down when the battery itself has significantly worn out, Apple made the (controversial) decision to throttle down performance so that users can still keep using their device. If this was one of Apple's biggest competitors like Samsung or Microsoft, then they would have looked the other way. It forced Apple to release a software update to allow people to choose whether their devices will be throttled to conserve battery or turn the throttling off and continue to experience shut downs of their device until the customer gets annoyed and upgrades eventually.

Personally, I would rather have a working device that has a slight drop in performance than a device that shuts down unexpectedly while I am doing something midway.

Right to Repair Controversy:

Enter Louis Rossmann. One of the many complainants who conveniently makes money from YouTube videos complaining about Apple - while repairing Apple MacBooks. Seriously Louis? You're going to complain about a company while trying to repair their products for customers? You expect me to believe that you are fighting for the small independent repairman while making allegations of proprietorship and a company requiring consumers to go with genuine parts?

Hmmm. Let's list some examples of companies that are also doing this:

• HP,
• Epson,
• Canon,
• Brother,
• Samsung.

I could go on and on.

Here's the scoop: Some of these companies will tell you that the use of non-genuine parts will void your warranty and damage your whatever equipment you are trying to install the non-genuine part in. And yet, Apple some how is the big evil Goliath of a werewolf.

However, proponents of right to repair really need to step back and ask themselves an important question: Is it acceptable to blame the manufacturer if the consumer has deliberately destroyed their gadget and expects said manufacturer to fix it at their cost?

Also, 

• Will standards be set for repairmen to protect the consumer if any qualified or certified repairman does a botched job of fixing something? 
• Who is responsible when things go wrong with the repairman? 
• Is there a governing body the consumer can approach to refer their complaint to should the repairman refuse to make amends?
• Will there be penalties for wrongdoers?
• Will there be processes set in place to prevent unscrupulous repairmen from running wild and engaging in unconscionable business practices?

Nobody seems to be asking the hard questions when it comes to right to repair. It is simply: every repairman should be afforded the right to repair a gadget and have schematics available to them to do the job or every consumer should have the right to repair their own gadget since they bought it.

I can confidently tell you that this right to repair saga will yield a 10 headed, super thirsty Hydra.

Less Hardware features:

This is what's wrong with the tech community these days. They always seem to judge an electronic item or a piece of equipment by what it has on the outside. As the saying goes: "Don't judge a book by its cover." Unfortunately, a lot of them in the tech community do judge a book by its cover.

Sure, Apple may not have the bells and whistles that the tech community wants or wishes for, but where they shine is on the inside: the software side of things. The real power lies in the internals of all Apple products - more so than what is designed on the outside.

And yet, you find people who still end up complaining about Apple while using their products. I would call this hypocrisy at its finest.

You can have the most spec'd out PC or gadget that money can buy, but remember, it is all irrelevant if the hardware cannot keep up with all the software upgrades and the software changes that software developers introduce to the apps that you use on them.

A bad handyman will always blame his tools.

It costs too much (it's too expensive)

I can understand that this type of argument is made by those who are either price conscious or bargain hunting consumers. These individuals believe they are smart by paying less, but what they do not understand is the fact that this price reduction comes at the expense of product quality, durability and reliability.

Price is only one factor of the equation and definitely not necessarily a deal breaker when you weigh in the benefits alongside the short comings of the product that Apple has to offer.

Plus, the price conscious individual is not the type of consumer base Apple is interested in. They are more for people who value durability, reliability and simplicity.

I cannot begin to list the number of times I have been asked this question on Quora and in variations when it comes to the high price of an Apple product.

If the high price of a product is a deal breaker for you and you complain about it, then you also fail big time.

Everything listed here should never be controversial to begin with!

I don't know what it is, but critics go into automatic complain mode every time the subject of Apple comes up. It's like some of them are even paid to do it.

I now what you're thinking: that I am paid to write this article. Well, newsflash! I am not.

I'll tell you who is trying to get paid to bash Apple: the ones who go all out and sue Apple for the simplest of things and end up embarrassing themselves after the verdict is handed down in Apple's favor. I've seen people sue Apple for things like how the display didn't measure up correctly, or the frame of an iPhone didn't line up properly, or because someone typed the address of an inappropriate website by mistake and were 'traumatised' by it. So, they ended up suing Apple. 

Oh the insane humanity.

If you were to ask me why, I will simply say that their ulterior motive is to make a quick buck, and have this quick buck coming from Apple - now that they are valued at $3 Trillion (at the time of writing this article).

So in conclusion, if you are a computer store owner, your job is to give advise and sell what you have to offer to your customers in your store. Keep your super biased opinions about any tech company to yourself. You can easily turn off customers that way. Stop with the cliché arguments that can easily be refuted.

How not to read a screenplay

There are way too many readers in the film and television business that are mediocre or who are amateurs. It is practically a wild, wild west within the industry and a writer has to struggle to find any quality help for him to make any improvements to his writing. It is a shame that the producers are so heavily invested in these somewhat illiterate guys and gals. This isn't hyperbole. If anything that my experience in the industry has taught me is the fact that readers are constantly looking for problems within a writer's script or are looking for any reason to say no to the writer.

Also, readers do not need any formal qualifications to be hired by a producer or any show runner in the industry.

Readers are constantly looking for problems with a screenplay, but that doesn't mean that the writer should ignore any helpful notes or feedback that comes his way. It simply means that the writer and or the producer hiring the readers should be careful who they hire. It is true that a writer needs thick skin to survive in the industry and improve the quality of his work, but how do you know that the feedback you are getting is helpful or not? This is where I come in and say: "let me segregate the good, the bad and the really ugly ones for you, so you don't have to work twice as hard".

First, let's discuss the problems with the readers of today. This list excludes the professional ones that charge an arm and a leg to critique someone's screenplay and or treatment:

1. Their reading and comprehension skills are a dismal mess.
2.  They lack the understanding of all genres and the elements of a chosen genre.
3.  They apply their own biases or knowledge when critiquing a screenplay.
4. They lack the imagination or the understanding of what makes a screenplay creative.
5.  They do not offer helpful suggestions after pointing out the problems.
6. The condescending attitude of: "I have told the writer to do 'x', and he/she still hasn't done it" and remarks are unacceptable behavior on their part.

Let's start with the first item on the list. It is the first item on the list because it plays a major role into the quality of the film.

Their reading and comprehension skills are a dismal mess:

This has been my experience for the most part. This was confirmed by an experiment that I conducted to verify my findings. When a reader reads your screenplay, one of the things he/she needs to focus on is attention to detail. Meaning that the reader shouldn't miss anything that is important. This is where their reading and comprehension skills come in handy - you know the ones that they've been taught in high school, or community college even. A lot of them tend to miss key bits of information that has already been provided to them. This can be for a couple of different reasons: a) They are too lazy to invest the time needed to pay any attention to the details in the script, or b) they are simply incompetent. I would suggest a combination of both. Whatever material you are reading, the information you need has already been provided to you. You just need to seek it out. It is obvious to me that the schools and or community colleges are doing a poor job of improving these readers' reading and comprehension skills in the first place. Also, they (the readers) need to be putting a bit more effort learning the skills rather than slacking around in class.

They lack the understanding of all genres and the elements of that chosen genre:

Every genre that you have ever come across has elements that make up that genre and make it unique in its own way. The incompetent readers will usually have come from reading screenplays that deal with one genre, but when they receive a screenplay where the genre is different or imaginative, they lack the understanding of the genre they are reading. They need to get themselves familiar with all the genres and or the combination of genres the movies are made in and get with it.

They apply their own biases or knowledge when critiquing a screenplay:

When a reader reads a screenplay and responds with: "this doesn't make any sense", it means that they cannot or do not understand the writer's mind and what is written on the page. This saga of not being able to understand comes from their own biases, knowledge and or what they know about the subject at hand. For example, if you were to create an imaginative world with characters and rules different to ours and what we know to be true and familiar with, they are incapable of shifting their thinking. They apply what they know and use the "doesn't make any sense" excuse as a valid objection to the material. They can't seem to understand that it is a make believe world and the rules are different.

They lack the imagination or the understanding of what makes a screenplay creative:

There is a reason why we want to go watch movies or want to write something: it is imaginative, creative and above all, interesting. With these incompetent losers, they lack the understanding and the imaginative mind and associate this with anything in a make believe world as being realistic. Nothing in a film is realistic. Films are made because they carry the what if scenario. It's about time someone understood that concept.

They do not offer helpful suggestions after pointing out the problems:

I have had this happen on a few different occasions. A reader reads my script, points out the problems, but doesn't not offer any helpful suggestions. It is up to the writer to figure this out. But what if the writer himself doesn't know what the best solution is to fix a problem that has been pointed out? What if said writer has tried everything he/she can possibly think of but is stumped and has come to you the reader for help? Ever think about that, dear reader? It would be helpful to offer some guidance to the writer so he can try someone else's suggestion for a change.

The condescending attitude of: "I have told the writer to do 'x', and he/she still hasn't done it:

I call this condescending and arrogant because it simply goes to show you that they (the readers) have a mindset that the writer has to implement or needs to implement whatever it is they have suggested in the notes that they provide and they expect this. They are disappointed that it doesn't happen and then complain that the writer didn't implement their suggestion(s). To be quite frank, this is totally narcissistic behavior and is both unprofessional and unacceptable.

They forget that this is the writer's story, not theirs, so they should get over it and stop being such a hungry Jack, and throw a hissy fit when a writer doesn't do exactly what the readers have suggested.

So, the obvious solution(s) are self evident:

1. Get better at reading and comprehension. It will do you a world of good in the screenwriting or film business.
2. Take time and understand the genres and the unique elements that make up the genre you are reading the script for. If it is unclear, take a wild guess by referring to the different elements that make up a genre.
3. You really should be objective rather than subjective when you read the screenplay. Doesn't matter what you feel about the topic or theme the movie or the story is trying to convey.
4. Use your imagination and practice using your imagination when you read a screenplay.
5. Offer helpful feedback when pointing out problems. We want solutions. If you are not able to give solutions to a problem in the script, don't even mention the problem - this isn't even an issue of free speech anymore.
6. Don't expect that the writer will automatically implement your suggestion(s) and be disappointed when the writer doesn't do 'as they are told'. You have no business dictating where the story goes - that job goes to the producer and the screenwriter ultimately, and last but not least...
7. Smarten up.

Once it is evident that you are being helpful, the writer can forge ahead and take away what is the most helpful feedback for him/her and greatly improve their work. If need be, learn from the professional readers and emulate what they do best to help the writer with the quality of their work. This is one of the major ways we can improve the quality of the movies in the film business globally.

How to become a good/great screenwriter...

I kept coming across this question quite regularly from supposedly people who wanted to get into the business of screenwriting. I have answered a few of them with differing answers. As the same question kept getting asked of me in a multitude of ways and times, I decided to answer this question in one of two ways:

1. What a good screenwriter does when writing and or practicing the art of screenwriting, and
2. What are the qualities that makes a good/great screenwriter.

What a good screenwriter does when writing and or practicing the art of screenwriting:

A good/great screenwriter:

1. Understands that the essence of writing is rewriting,
2. Accepts constructive criticism and prioritises them according to their usefulness in order to better his/her script or story,
3. Fully understands his/her characters and researches them thoroughly if and when needed,
4. Writes what the audience knows and applies his/her creativity when presenting it to the decision makers (producers and or the financiers of the film or the show runners of a television show),
5. Avoids all clichés, predictable storylines and anything that will cause a reader or producer to reject the screenplay or script.
6. Comes up with quality ideas instead of just coming up with run of the mill, mediocre ideas just for the heck of it.
7. Does not glorify things in his/her script that happen in everyday life.

What are the qualities that makes a good/great screenwriter - the 4 'p's and one A:

1. Practice: A good and or great screenwriter practices their craft so that the writer can get better at it.
2. Passion: A good or great screenwriter is passionate about what he/she does and has a voice. They nurture their inner writer in ways that allow them to stand out from the mediocre crowd, and they have their passion in the right place.
3. Patience: It takes time to see the idea morph from concept to the final draft of the script - i.e. to develop the script from idea to a fully flushed out screenplay that is commercially viable and salable.
4. Problem solving: Readers are always looking for flaws with any screenplay that they read. This is done through the notes that they provide to the writer. For this reason, the writer needs to be skilled at problem solving. The writer needs to find solutions to address and fix the flaws and problems pointed out by the reader and or the producer.
5. Adaptable: A good or great screenwriter is adaptable. They adapt to change and they will change their story accordingly to make it better. This enables them to make their work marketable.

When other non-professional screenwriters or people who aren't screenwriters attempt to answer a question like this, their answers range from how a writer should read scripts and other literary works to how the writer should write stuff he/she knows or is familiar with. What they don't get is that when a writer writes things that he/she already knows, there are other writers who are doing exactly the same thing as this writer already is doing. This causes the writer to be lazy or take the easy way out and have a false belief that what he/she is writing is what people want and expect - which is not true. It may be competitive out there in the film and television business, but this competition isn't fiercely competitive. It also causes the writer to not challenge him/herself to his/her fullest potential.

A good/great writer does not allow him/herself to be narcissistic or self centered because of the fact that the writer needs to constantly be accepting of constructive feedback and adapt to change and challenges him/herself to his/her fullest potential.

My ideal social media platform

Social Media has come a long way since its inception during the early days of the Internet. However, with the exploded competition of social media sites that cater to the differing user needs, thereby competing for a user's business, a lot of them have come to a stage where they would either censor or delete certain users from sharing or voicing their opinions on certain topics, be it controversial or not for no apparent reason for doing so, it is increasing obvious that either a complete overhaul or accountability needs to be on the proverbial table that is truly fair, balanced and or neutral. In their EULAs, the mainstream social media sites tout that they are indeed fair and balanced, but it is evidently clear that it is anything but.

A perfect example to get the conversation going is what happened to me recently on Quora: I came across a question related to the controversial topic of immunization and when I tried to initiate a discussion with the lady I was responding to, she was responding in a way that suggested that I was somehow offending her, when the written words suggested anything but. However, she reported me because I was asking her questions that she (possibly) couldn't answer or didn't have the answers to and then proceeded to delete every single one of my comments to her, even though there was nothing derogatory to speak of.

I then appealed to Quora, hoping that they would see reason, but they didn't. All they could have done is looked at the entire conversation leading up to the comments I made and then decided, but no. They were adamant that there was something in the comments that apparently violated their "be nice, be respectful" policy. I asked for evidence of this so called 'violation' and received no response after that. They kept saying that it did violate their BNBR (Be Nice Be Respectful) policy while offering no justifiable reason for the finding.

After this experience, it made me think about the hypocrisy and special treatment that some people get over the rest of us who think objectively.

This blog is a wish list for if and when some entrepreneur out there decides to design and introduce a completely different and or revamped version of the sad state of the social media platforms these days.

So, here is my wishlist and or requirements for social media platforms:

1. Allow all speech openly and freely, regardless of how offensive it may seem - in accordance with the free speech laws in any country,
2. When looking at reported comments or posts, analyze all comments or posts leading up to said reported comment or post to determine if the user was truly and surely violating any community guidelines set out by the social media site or company,
3. Identify any individuals who are actively approving or stifling the free speech of other users just because they believe that they are right or because they believe their opinion is the only opinion that matters,
4. Discredit or discourage the 'trial by social media' mentality that some users have and encourage them to be not so judgmental (social media ain't high school),
5. Remind users that they will be judged accordingly if they judged anything or anyone unfairly in the first place,
6. Choose advertisers more wisely and who are not politically motivated, and those who do not dictate the type or nature of the content we consume or are influenced by,
7. Allow all viewpoints including those that aren't adopted by mainstream believers in all areas or topics of discussion, 
8. Identify trolls and paid shills and take steps to analyze how these entities behave on said social media platform and take aggressive action against them to curb any ridiculousness that the real users of the social media platform have to deal with,
9. Have a solid verification process that will not allow trolls, paid shills and scammers onto the platform in the first place,
10. No marketing messages or advertising that deploys fear mongering tactics that will take away the content consumer's (of social media) choice to choose the best option for him/her,
11. Hold all moderators working for the company that operates the social media platform accountable for any and all unjustified removal, stifling or censorship of content, user comments and or posts, and
12. Allow all forms of education, no matter how discredited or unorthodox they may be and no matter how many people believe it is discredited or dangerous - because ultimately, the onus is on the user for believing or disbelieving anything he/she comes across and the repercussions that arise from that belief.

The entire premise or consensus of social media is to bring people together, not use it as a weapon of mass division where people's political believes dictates what kind of people they interact with in the end. It is a shame that it is come to a stage where people are being persecuted by social media and not by the legal court system. It is shameful and deplorable to say the least. If we return to just the sharing of ideas and not mocking each other for having them, or for our political believes for that matter, the user base wouldn't be as crazy and all ideas and choices can and would be welcomed.

We need to move away from the 'guilt by association' and or the 'guilty until proven innocent' mentality and encourage the 'innocent until proven guilty' premise or mentality.

Also, no special treatment given to anyone on social media, no matter their status and no matter what their position in the world of social media.

What more could you possibly want?

I have always being taught to look at the other person's point of view no matter how objectionable it may seem. The same goes for putting myself in the shoes of the other person to understand what he/she is going through. I make it a habit to extend this courtesy to fellow humans (or muggles if you prefer to call them that), and I do wish that others will follow suit or are following suit in some way, shape or form.

let me know your thoughts or whether you agree or disagree with anything I have discussed in this article.

Why video CVs and cover letters trump traditional ones

Before I even considered the possibility of me completing my education and earning my degree in the great US of A, I attended a short course back in 2003 that interestingly introduced students to radio and small screen production as well as interactive media using computers and animation and graphics design software.

During the last month of the course, we were tasked with a project that required us to record a video of our referees and include it as part of an interactive CV/Resume package. I thought it was a wonderful idea and I tried to capitalise on the idea and make it into a business, but that failed miserably for reasons that only Zeus knows why. I did ask around and while most told me it wasn't a viable option, a few encouraged me to follow suit, but it ended up in the pooper anyways.

However, as time went by and while I was studying at the New York Film Academy, I started doing a little bit of research whenever I got the chance to do so. I found quite a few videos on YouTube that talked about how to put together a video resume or a video CV. I have also had a look at a few examples and decided to take a crack at one myself. The video CV was to be a maximum of 3 minutes long and I almost succeeded.

Having given a backstory of the idea behind video CVs and resumes, let me tell you why I now believe that they will or ought to replace traditional CVs and resumes and can be a better option for formulating cover letters:


THE APPLICANT(S) CAN USE WHATEVER EQUIPMENT AND TOOLS HE/SHE HAS TO PRODUCE THE VIDEO CV/RESUME OR COVER LETTER AND TAILOR IT TOWARDS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE JOB

Video technology today is a lot more advanced to the point where anyone can simply grab a camera, record themselves and use any available video editing program that will yield professional results. There should be no reason why any job applicant couldn't afford to produce a video CV, resume or cover letter on the cheap. It doesn't have to be a video camera with all the bells and whistles that a professional camera can offer. You can use any DSLR camera with video capabilities or any camcorder that is able to produce the professional grade videos for the purposes of recording the video CVs and cover letters.

THE EMPLOYER GETS TO SEE THE APPLICANT IN PERSON WITHOUT THE APPLICANT NEEDING TO BE THERE

Because the applicant is recording himself or herself selling themselves with their skills and experience, the prospective employer gets to see the applicant's face and how sincere or how serious the applicant is about the position that the applicant is targeting.

THE EMPLOYER CAN SEE HOW TRUTHFUL THE APPLICANT IS BEING IN THE VIDEO CV OR COVER LETTER

Unlike a traditional CV or cover letter, where the applicant can fabricate facts or their credentials, a video CV and cover letter will show the employer how truthful the applicant is being regarding the information that is being provided using the body language cues and the eye contact projected or given out by the applicant.

THE EMPLOYER CAN SEE HOW WELL PRESENTED OR PROFESSIONAL THE APPLICANT IS IN THE VIDEO CV OR COVER LETTER

They say that you always need to dress to impress and dress for success. When the applicant includes a video CV or cover letter, right off the get go the employer can see how well presented or professional the applicant is as supposed to claiming on a traditional CV.resume or cover letter.

THE EMPLOYER IS ABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT HE/SHE IS DEALING WITH A PSYCHOPATH OR A SOCIOPATH IN AN APPLICANT

Based on the demeanor and the body language, the potential employer is able to determine whether or not the applicant in question is a natural born psychopath or a sociopath just by looking at their eyes and of course the body language and the swag the applicant possesses and exudes. Apparently, the psychopaths know exactly how to get the job and how to get the HR department or the hiring manager to hire them into the company. In his book titled: "Working with Monsters", psychologist Dr. John Clarke not only identifies and discusses the character traits of all the different types of psychopaths and the type of psychological wounds that they tend inflict on their victims.

THE DEVELOPERS OF THE APPLICANT TRACKING SYSTEM THAT THE BIG NAME EMPLOYERS USE WILL NEED IMPROVEMENTS AND AN UPGRADE

When I was applying for jobs, I had no idea that the big name employers were using a flawed system known as the ATS or the Applicant Tracking System, which automatically tracks job applications, and also selects the ideal applicants for the job based on the employer's requirements, no matter how reasonable or unreasonable they may be. Given the nature of the video Cvs, resumes and the cover letters, the ATS will need to be upgraded or tweaked to identify facial features and the voice to capture any key selection criteria the employer has specified. The ATS will also need to be smart enough to determine the sincerity and the honesty of the job applicant and whether or not the applicant is in fact a psychopath.

THERE MAY NOT BE AN INTERVIEW PROCESS THAT THE EMPLOYER NEEDS TO GO THROUGH

Because the employer or the hiring manager can see the applicant, the next logical step would be for the employer or hiring manager to do a video chat or a video call if he/she needs to ask any further questions of the applicants before making that final decision to hire the right candidate for the job.

No matter how you look at it, this could be either a revolutionary or an evolutionary step for the recruitment industry and everyone involved in recruitment. It is an only matter of time before this concept catches on and propagates around the world. Until such time approaches, I guess we all would still be contending with the traditional methods of recruitment and all the generic rejection emails and letters, and the generic excuses that the employer gives to applicants that do not make the cut.

EXAMPLES OF VIDEO CVs (YouTube links):

1. Video CV - Animated CV
2. Best Video CV by Mark Leruste
3. How to make an effective CV
4. Professional Video CV - 2017