Am I the only one who thinks Cracked.com still has some good articles?

I've been reading Cracked for quite a while and - though it definitely has articles that are stupid, or totally incorrect, or just plain boring - it hasn't entered some kind of mystical dark age of comedy where nothing is ever funny. Quite the contrary, I find some of the things they write about to be very entertaining or at the very least informative.

It may be said that Cracked's new articles aren't as good as its old ones, and there might be some truth to that, but when I look at the comments section of the new articles I inevitably come across a flood of people who absolutely hate the article, everything said in it, and the author. Many times, these people's complaints are actually about something completely besides the point of something the author said and instead something they perceived as a slight against them.

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is how people always see the bad in an article (or the perceived bad) - always looking at the detail the author exaggerated to make funny or just messed up - instead of looking at what the author did get right or *gasp* what the author's intentions were.

I use Cracked occasionally as a comedy website but mostly as a way to keep connected with what people are thinking - what the popular games are and such - which is something I can't always do. Well, from what I can see, people react to well meaning criticisms and observations with blind hate at the author and the site itself.

What are your thoughts on this?