i opened this article because the tags and title [Sneaking Through a Back Lawn to Document a Creepy Broken Down Caretaker's house and Centuries Old Cemetery--(Don't miss the surreal pictures at the end)], suggested something creepy and surreal. neither of those two things are evident. nor did he/she take much effort to document the caretakers house nor really the cemetery. how can you "document" without a bare minimum of facts? the article did not deliver. I do not actually often comment on such. that i do so now speaks for itself.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I think the very act of not voting in itself is enough. I think it is a subjective matter and depends on your expectation of document. Some may expect a plethora of detail... Others, pictures and text that describe the emotions that a person experiences.
Did you mean Tectonic? :O)
meesterboom i did not mean to start some trolling war here. i offered my comments as a reflection to the author because I was disappointed in the quality of the work when drawn in by the title. personally i would have searched out more information. creepy is subjective. quality itself is subjective. i agree on this. peace out.
Peace it is!