Roger Ebert STILL Giving Reviews?

Years after, they're still using his name to distort and mislead... How can he rate a movie he's never seen?


This world is one big fraud..

It's not Ebert doing the review but one of the critics on Roger Ebert's website. The website has different critics who do reviews, but the website where the reviews are coming out of is still Rogerebert.com

Yeah, they need to have that media source labeled as RogerEbert.com.

It doesn't say that.. It mentions his name. The average person would say "Oh, if Roger gave it a high score, it must be good".


Why not use the reviewer's name? It's evil marketing... It upsets me so much that more people don't call this out, instead of going along with these cynical money games.

What site is the screenshot from? I can tell it's cut off on the bottom edge, so maybe there was more information there?

It looks like the info box you see on Google search results.

Ah, so it is. I just looked at Google and nope, nothing else of relevance below the screen shot.

I agree with Matt, it's cheesy.

That would be misleading on my part, and I have no interest in anything except the truth, despite my schizoid personality and my incompatibility with the world.


Here - https://www.google.com/search?client...+in+this+World

I doubt the average person knows Roger Ebert and if they do, chances are they know he has passed.

I think this is the review you're looking for,
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/i...d-anymore-2017

Yes I see it mentions his name instead of the website, which is misleading.

I didn't know you took the screen shot. I thought it was an image you find on the internet and was bringing it to our attention. That's why I was saying some of the font is cut off, because it would be important for me to see the entire thing before I called it cheesy.

Well I seen it and yes it's cheesy and misleading and wrong and should be changed by Google or whoever is responsible. That's probably another good reason not to use Google.

It is the #1 used search engine, and now #2 is YouTube (bumping out fakebook)... So a movie like that is going to be lifted up while others won't get any attention. Accessibility is everything now since most people use the internet, as opposed to in the past where someone might read the newspaper and get a paragraph of information from a local critic.

OK? but I don't get why you're saying this to me? Or are you saying this in general terms?

Oh, just general, to everyone, and because I know you'll get a notification (and because you thought it was cheesy). Also, because you mentioned something like "A reason not to use google", while its not only the #1 search engine, but its usually automatic.. For example, I just typed out that movie, and that was the automatic result.



This is just one of many examples of inaccuracies. I actually posted the same message on a handful of boards, and everyone defended it. In fact, on many sites (say Yahoo comments), I'll paste one comment, and then use another username, this time with a beautiful blond woman and the disparity is very noticeable. I don't know why I feel its my job to try and correct the falsehoods of the world, but I do. No kidding, I spent so much time uploading real Jimmy Hoffa stuff after thousands reference that new movie as fact.

It's a grave offence for sure.

Tell us more about that....in what way is there a disparity when you have a beautiful blonde woman avatar? I think it's very interesting in how people respond to the same information based on one's avatar appearance.

On Yahoo, there is an up or down vote, and they are tallied separately. Appearance and name seems to mean a lot in regards to influence. Also, I could have the same political point of view, but depending on the audience, I could attack one argument/group by aligning myself with Trump (or Clinton for that matter). Sometimes, I'll throw religion, nationalism, cliches, etc to dig in further.

I do many, many things like this. Another thing I do is test out the conformity. For example, let's say I had 20 usernames. I would type out one message, and then use all those usernames to give it an UP vote, and then monitor those coming after me, and they are reflective - many a few dissent... I do the opposite; same exact message, but then down-vote the hell out of it, and see others following suit.


You might remember one of my first posts on here, when I would call random people to ask their favorite movie, and I would change the methodology. When I said I was with a University, I got further along almost every time... I remember you were one of a few who thought it was cool

I do think other people's reactions, based on different perceptions, is fascinating stuff. So tell me what combination of presenting yourself (avatar, user name, style of writing, back story, etc) gets the most positive responses?....And what combinations get the more negative responses?

A white, young, beautiful woman with a bland name seems to do the best. There was a story when Trump and Pompeo no longer said the Israeli settlements were illegal. Using an Arabic surname is going to get many thumbs down, but also bad comments usually in reference to the (fake) identity. 10 minutes later, I made a comment coming from the other side, saying something like, "We need to spend that money HERE in the USA".. Even though I made the same argument, it brought about different results, and most people tend to follow. On other sites, if you have enough replies, your post is bumped up to the top under "Top Comments". Many times, I try to think of the target audience. There was one about immigration, and so you know a Hispanic surname won't do well, but with that same username, I got much better results when I came from the "left", arguing that it kept wages low for "hard-working Americans". Even substituting words like "help" instead of "welfare" makes a difference.



It's also interesting to see how other forums reply to things I post, such as this one. Some sites like to be contrarian, or to "take the piss" out of a comment... I've also noticed shadow-banning on YouTube during LiveStreams and regular comments after the broadcast, where the comment appears to show up, but on my other laptop, it doesn't. I tested my two other YouTube names, and it came up, but I think that was probably the channel itself.


I uploaded a couple of Jimmy Hoffa interviews, and I don't know why one went semi-viral (100,000 within a few days), while a much better one is barely getting any traction, despite it being more candid, subject line of him talking about getting whacked. I think its because the first one was video, and the second one was only audio.