Pink Is The New Blog

Celebrity hearsay, gossip, rumor and fact are given a pink slant at Pink Is The New Blog.

“I would come back and read this blog on a regular basis. I've seen a lot of gossip blogs, but Pink is one of the best. The writing is funny, and the stories take some digging up I'm sure. Funny stuff.”

“Even though some of the posts are funny, this is still more about celebrity gossip than making fun of celebrities. I like The Superficial better, but this one is still OK.”

CONTENT – 6.0
“ It's the National Enquirer! It's online! And it's pink! Oh, wait ... my bad.”

“I'm not big into celebrity blogs.”

“I'm a sucker for these celebrity rags.”

“Not too bad.”

DESIGN – 5.5
“It's pretty consistent. Nice photos. Added a point for pink captions - nice touch.”

“I was too distracted by the sparkles and the hot pink was far too harsh on my eyes.”

“What part of ‘it's too pink’ should I emphasize?”

“It's a little on the busy side.”

“The design itself isn’t all that bad for this kind of blog, but the pink captions on the photos look horrible. I do like the star when you click out, though. That’s pretty cool.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 6.7
“Most of the writing is pretty straight-forward stuff. Not too much to complain about.”

“No grammatical errors that I could see. Then again, not a lot of written text either.”

“The fluctuating pink font took away from my ability to fully comprehend the thoughts of the writer.”

INTANGIBLES – 5.7
“Way too many ads on the right.”

“Too busy for me to stay focused.”

“How much crap can one blog have?”

FREQUENCY – 10
“Several posts every day.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 49% Yes
“Sure, why not?”

“Hell, yes!”

“At gunpoint, perhaps. Reading things like this make me wish Al Gore had never invented the Internet.”

“No way, no how.”

“Highly unlikely, unless of course I am in a full body cast and lobotomized.”

OVERALL – 71.0
“The design is distracting, but those wacky celebrities are always doing something.”

Fafblog

Fafblog had two strikes against it before our reviewers got a hold of it.

First, there haven’t been any new posts at Fafblog since April 4, 2006.

Secondly, the last political satire blog reviewed here didn’t score so well.

"I liked the content of this site better than Jesus General, but the design is just flatout ugly."

CONTENT - 5.1
"Sadly, it's politics. On the bright side, it's well written. I laughed a little."

"I love the pic of the week. That's hysterical. However, the rest of the content I found to be irritating."

"Content vacillates too much. Too serious to too silly."

"Senseless rambling."

DESIGN - 3.3
"As soon as the page loaded, I felt like I was transported back to the 70s on a bad acid trip. Whoa. Not for those who get frequent aneurysms. It's pretty, but I dunno. It makes me long for a Jimi Hendrix tune and a joint."

"Liked the color green and the neat pictures. Disliked the layout where an average post is about two and a half inches wide and therefore ten pages long."

"I hate the colors. Way too busy."

"That is the most obnoxious green I've ever seen, and I like green!"

"I'm not a fan of their color choices, nor the actual layout. It's too busy and makes my brain hurt."

"Too green, not all text visible on screen."

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR - 6.1
"From what I saw before my eyes started to bleed, everyone seems to have passed English Comp 2. That's good enough for me."

"Very decent."

"I found several spelling and grammatical errors."

"Okay, so they can sort of write, but what really got on my nerves was the fact that they would say ‘an’ instead of ‘and.’ Did his fingers just give up on that word? Can he not finish typing the entire word out? Annoying."

INTANGIBLES - 5.3
"This blog hits so many pet peeves, I can't even list them all. This blog is a pet peeve. Ugly color scheme, a bazillion and a half links along the sides, incoherent rambling."

"It's bad enough when my children ask me for money, much less strangers."

"The long posts and the odd color were obvious negatives."

FREQUENCY - 0.0
"The posts were pretty infrequent before the hiatus."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG ON A REGULAR BASIS - 0% Yes
"No fucking way. Oh my God, I hate it so much it caused me to cuss in my review!"

"Unlikely. I've seen this site before and wasn't compelled to put it in my bookmarks. I know where to find it if I want to read it, and I still do not seek it out."

OVERALL - 53.4
"I just don't get it. This blog makes no sense to me whatsoever. I had to force myself to spend enough time there to make an informed judgment about the ratings I was going to give. This blog is supposed to be funny? My sense of humor must be all wrong."

"Not a bad blog. Just not my cup of tea."

"I had to take points off for the lack of updates and the fact that I was just confused by most of it."

Mimi Smartypants

As one of our reviewers explained, "Mimi Smartypants is a smart, funny, mommy blog."

Of course, as always, not everyone saw it that way.

"An average blog. Not exceptionally good, not exceptionally bad, probably an interesting read for the author's friends and family."

CONTENT - 6.1
"While I enjoyed the content, some of the posts could be broken up into smaller ones. I do appreciate the sarcasm weaved throughout the blog."

"Didn't grab my attention."

"I can relate on a couple of things, like spending too much time on message boards, having kids, etc. That, in fact was what kept me from hitting that back button."

"Lot's of content, some entertaining."

"Normal everyday topics I can easily identify with."

DESIGN - 6.0
"Uncluttered and easy to read, but I don't like the background color."

"Too blue, and not a pleasant hue of blue either."

"I am a nice person, but come on! The author should be able to design a better site if she spends at least one hour actually working on the site's design."

"I'm all for simple, but boring is boring. Plus, I read right into a totally separate post without even realizing it. At least let me know where the posts start and end."

"Very clean. And I like penguins. It took me a while to figure out how to get from one post to the next. Maybe I'm navigation-challenged."

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR - 7.9
"Well-written and amusing without trying too hard. I liked that."

"Excessive use of parenthesis, but the writing is unique with variation."

"Slightly rambling but not intolerably so."

INTANGIBLES - 7.2
"Yay! No ads!"

"Some of the posts were on the long side, which if you're into reading mommy blogs isn't a bad thing. It was well written and didn't have any of the annoying adds/links that many of the mommy blogs I've stumbled across seem to have."

"Oh, God. I hate long posts."

"The posts are long and run-on (if that may be said of a post). However, I've written longer posts, so in the spirit of ‘nobody's perfect’ I'm not giving it a lower score."

"I feel like there should be more. Some favorites, maybe? A little more detail on the author? Something? Also, the light blue is like icy fire to my eyes. It burns!"

"The long posts just drain every bit of likeability I have for this blog. Too bad."

FREQUENCY - 2.0
"She usually posts about once a week."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY - 42% Yes
"Heck no. Life is short."

"Sure, why not?"

"Yes, I love this blog."

"I tried reading this blog over a year ago when I saw an interview where Heather Armstrong of Dooce said she liked this blog. To me, it’s a poor man’s Dooce. Just not my thing."

OVERALL - 68.5
"It's an average blog; nothing here really is excellent or stands out. Very ho-hum. Nothing special. (Yawn). Although it's not a bad blog either."

"All in all I think this is a great blog. The design is clean and not distracting, navigating isn't a problem once you figure it out, and the writing is humorous. However, I feel like there's something lacking, I just can't put my finger on what it is."

"Mimi is funny, well-versed and a little neurotic, but I mean that in a nice way. I like the writing because it is sincere and she doesn't seem too concerned with trying to please anyone. She's naturally funny and you can tell she writes for her own sake, so the read feels authentic. I think a little variation in the types and lengths of the posts would make this blog a little more unique and interesting though."

Cute Overload

Cute Overload certainly made most of our reviewers say … awww.

"Cute Overload is guaranteed to make you smile, say ‘awww,’ or throw-up, depending on how you feel about cuteness."

"Awww, this is so fucking cute I hope I don’t kill myself!"

"I have never seen a more appropriately named blog."

CONTENT – 5.7
"I am not a big fan of cute."

"I adore this blog and have had it bookmarked for quite a while. It's a fun relief from all the snarkiness I usually read (i.e. gossip blogs)."

"Too saccharine sweet."

"I really thought this was going to be a tough assignment. I don't do ‘cute’ very well. However, after some serious open mindedness on my behalf, I spent a good 20 minutes there and even let out a few ‘awwws’ while visiting. I'm not a big puppy/kitty person, but there were a lot of cute pictures there. I give it a 7 for content because it really delivers the ‘aw’ factor."

"I like this one better than Stuff On My Cat, but that’s like saying I’d rather get hit in the face with shovel instead of a baseball bat."

DESIGN – 6.4
"Spice up your template!"

"The layout is pretty cluttered, but for some reason, it works here. The bright, spring colors go well with the pictures. The sidebars are looooooong, but again, the site is so heavily loaded with pictures you tend to not notice the clutter."

"Pastels on white? Unattractive and hard to read."

"I'm not crazy about the color scheme and the chaos in the side bars takes away from the content in the middle."

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 5.2
"What writing?"

"Meg writes pretty well. She captions most of the photos and honestly, some of the things she says are cuter than the pictures themselves. She made me laugh out loud with some of her commentary."

"The captions leave a lot to be desired."

"The grammar stinks, really. However, I'd say it's done on purpose to emphasize the ‘cutesy’ theme. Therefore, I don't have much of a problem with it, but if I have to grade simply on the writing/grammar with no excuses for poor quality, then it needs a lowered grade."

INTANGIBLES – 7.4
"I gave it a nine, only because it has a few too many ads in the sidebar."

"I have to give this a lower number because there are a lot of ads, a tip jar, and too much other crap in the side bars."

"The only thing I am really annoyed with on this page is the huge row of ads off to the right."

"Took forever to load. The blog gets an extra point for a helpful link to the Dog Whisperer web site."

"The content in the sidebars is all over the place. There's something else that bothers me too, but I just can't put my finger on it."

"Too many ads and junk in the side bars. Also, I understand that the whole point of this blog is cuteness, but the moment I opened the page, I threw up in my mouth a little from all the cuteness. It's a little bit overboard."

FREQUENCY – 10
"Lots of cuteness every day."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 27% Yes
"No. That overbearing amount of cuteness depresses me."

"Yes, cute blog."

"I don't think I would, but if I were ever looking to get out of a depression this place would be the first place I would stop."

"Probably not, but I love the concept."

"I'd recommend it for a fun, quick dose of cute!"

"Only if I am permanently on drugs."

OVERALL – 66.2
"Although I'm not one for too much cheesiness, this site is at the very least very unique. Sure it's mushy and sappy, but we all need a little sappiness once in awhile."

"I personally don't care much for this blog. On the other hand, it's a great family blog and it's sure to get some giggles and ‘awwws’ from younger viewers."

"If you don't like puppies and kitties and all things cute, you won't like this blog. It delivers what it promises and you can't knock it for that. The simplicity behind the idea of collecting cutsie animal pictures still gets me. Why didn't I think of that? Duh."

"The cuteness theme is taken to the extreme. However, once I got past the initial nausea from that, I found the pictures to actually be cute, and the captions to be entertaining. This blog is certainly not for everyone, though. I'm a little embarrassed to admit I enjoyed it."

Dooce

The queen of all humor bloggers, Heather B. Armstrong, has taken her rightful place atop our ratings as Dooce managed an average score of 94.3.

Dooce also set new high marks for content, quality of writing, and intangibles.

"Some might call this a mommy blog, but it's more than that. It's more like a window into Heather's life. She’s made some interesting turns ever since she lost her job due to her blog. She definitely made lemonade out of those lemons!"

"I had heard about Dooce before but had never taken time to check out her blog. There isn't much I don't like about this one. The design is clean, the ads are few, Dooce writes well, and her topics are realistic and humorous without her ‘trying’ to be funny."

CONTENT - 8.4
"I've been following Dooce for about two years now and I never get tired of reading what she has to write. She's one of the smartest (if not THE smartest) bloggers out there and I love her. Plain and simple."

"Good reading. Nice and easy. The occasional insights into the Mormon life are highly entertaining."

"This blog discusses everyday things in an entertaining way. I love it!"

"I hate all mommy blogs except Dooce. Her monthly newsletters to her daughter Leta are priceless. I don’t care about her fucking dog Chuck, but that’s the price I have to pay to read this marvelous writer every day."

DESIGN - 8.2
"Okay, so she had to up the ads on her website and people were giving her shit because they're so distracting, but I really don't mind them that much. Everything else is really nice and organized. Her banners are always great, and the fact that those ads are helping put food on her table for her family is just fine with me. I don't mind it at all."

"Pretty and clean, but the archives can be tricky. There's so much content to sort through which is good, but a challenge to sift through."

"I don’t like the three-column format, but I guess it’s necessary to maximize ad potential."

"Design is a little boring, but does make reading posts easy. Nothing much to distract."

"The only positive thing I can say is that the site is well designed. I only took points off for the lame ads on either side of the content."

"The site is too blah."

"Extremely clean! I love it! I was thinking how pretty the top title bar is with the name in script in the background and then I noticed that it said ‘This website sux sweaty goat balls’ and I think I actually snorted when I laughed."

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR - 9.2
"Always brilliant. She's funny, witty, and I love the way she writes. She never fails with her sarcasm and I'm always quoting things that she says throughout the day."

"Whether or not it's perfect, her ideas are clear and her writing flows to keep the ideas fresh."

"It's funny, it's easy to read, its written in a simple, chatty, entertaining way. I love it!"

INTANGIBLES - 8.1
"Perfect."

"I don't understand the internet begging. Why should I give you money for something you can do for free?"

"Some pop ups and ads are a little irritable. Plus, I hate the limited commenting. I guess her popularity requires it, but it still pisses me off."

"I don’t mind the ads because I know Heather does this for a living. There’s not a one of us who wouldn’t give up our real jobs to blog full-time if we could. I think the people who gripe about Heather’s ads are just jealous."

FREQUENCY - 10
"Heather posts at least once a day, sometimes more, even when she’s out of town."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY - 77% Yes
"I already do."

"I used to read it every day, and my interest waned only marginally after she omitted comments from her readers."

"No... yawn."

"I read this blog because it's very quirky and witty. The writing is excellent, and the topics are varying. One of the posts had over 400 comments, so it seems this blog has a huge following."

OVERALL - 84.3
With all the other new records here at BlogLaughs, Dooce is the first blog to get a perfect score from one of our reviewers. (In fact, she got three perfect scores.)

"Have I mentioned I love this blog? I had seen links to this blog on other blogs I've read, but I never took the time to check it out. I was missing out, that's for sure. This blog is great! It's clean visually, it's got light sarcasm, I can really identify with the things she talks about. For me, I really think this blog is going to be hard to top. Impossible, in fact, since I gave it all 10's. It certainly sets the bar for others. I really love it!"

"I've tried to get on board the Dooce train because so many people seem to love it. I figured there must be something to it. I like some of the posts, but overall here's my ‘Randy Jackson moment.’ It's just ‘a'right’ for me."

"I am ashamed to say I enjoy her blog, even though it's overrated as heck."

"Heather is one of my favorite bloggers. I don't care that she is enormously popular and doesn't need the readers. She doesn't need them because she's the fucking master. Her writing is insightful, funny, smart and courageous; and she deserves every bit of credit she receives.

"Heather is one of the few bloggers that can make you blow soda through your nose and tear up all in the same paragraph. Her stories are beautifully multi-dimensional and I not-so-secretly worship her in a very not-stalker-like fashion. Seriously, she's the shit."

Jesus General

Jesus General is a perfect example that political satire is not for everyone.

Many of our reviewers appreciated particular aspects of this blog – especially the quality of writing – but the overall concept just didn’t connect with everyone.

“I’m sure a lot of people will find this blog hilarious, but it’s just not my thing. I prefer my humor sarcastic not satirical.”

CONTENT – 6.0
“I have to admit, I wasn't enjoying it. And, a lot of it, I wasn't getting. I am a pretty political person, but some of the humor was lost on me. Maybe it wasn't the politics, but rather the politics with the religious flavor. What do I know? I'm a Jew. All I know is I am the chosen people and so is Jesus. Beyond that, I haven't a clue. Apparently, he must be clever and smart because DAMN he's won a lot of awards. My heart will not be one of them though.”

“Great sense of humor and justice, yet not politically correct. Well done.”

“I can handle a little political humor, but this is too much for me.”

“Too political. Not my thing. I realize everyone has a right to their opinion and a blog is for the purpose of expressing that opinion; however, I am extremely uninterested in politics and I'm really quickly annoyed by people with a brash one-sided stand on things. Reading this blog, I picture the author as a 50-something man with a puffed-out chest talking loudly about his biased political views.”

“Too political for my taste.”

“I enjoy the satire, but the longish posts annoy me sometimes.”

“There is nothing I like about this blog.”

“While I thought it was witty and well written, I just don'tcare for political blogs. Just not my thing.”

DESIGN – 5.3
“The design is simple enough. It made the 30 minutes I spent there somewhat more tolerable.”

“Straightforward layout, amusing things on side panel.”

“The ads in the side bar confuse and annoy me.”

“Boring and too much stuff to look at. Can a blog be both of those things?”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 6.7
“The writing was articulate, grammar was excellent, and such nice punctuation. The English teacher in me had a mild orgasm. I give it a 9. Would have been a 10, but there was a spelling error in the sidebar that really bothered me. Yes, I know it is insignificant, but the ad is important so special care should have been taken to make sure the spelling was just so.”

“Copious posts, good spelling, and punctuation as I could see. However, verbose, and had to read too much to get to the punchy parts.”

“Once I put aside my hang-up about the political content, I found that the writing itself is actually somewhat humorous. I couldn't make myself spend a lot of time doing any in-depth reading, but in skimming through the posts, the grammar and spelling do not appear to be an issue.”

INTANGIBLES – 4.5
“Loooooooooooooong ass posts. Tendency to prattle on and on about lord only knows what in some of those posts. Some seem to have a ‘private joke’ kind of feel to it. Excessively long blog roll. However, some of the sidebar reading is funny and more than makes up for the blog roll. Honestly? I spent more time visiting the sidebar links than reading the blog.”

“Half of the time spent reading I couldn't tell if it was honest opinion or satire.”

“The ads are much too predominant, and the ads that come up with the comment boxes are annoying at best, some even taking up the entirety of the comment box. How is someone supposed to either read comments or post their own when this happens?”

“Any site with ads automatically loses at least one point in my book. One less point for the donation box.”

“What's with the annoying ads in the comments window?”

“This blog hits several of my pet peeves. One-sided politics, too many ads, too many links - in the sidebar and in the posts themselves.
My favorite part of the blog is at the top where it scrolls through the blogname in several different languages.”

“The characterization of General Jesus seems pretty consistent.”

FREQUENCY – 10
“He posts every day. Sometimes twice a day.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 15% Yes
“Yup. You betcha.”

“Absolutely not. I didn't even want to read it now.”

“Never again.”

OVERALL – 66.9

Untitledlife

Like the tagline says, untitledlife is an “uncensored anonymous blog covering everything from poop etiquette, motherhood and childhood scars to life in corporate America.”

“Sassy and engaging.”

“I thought this was a great blog. It has all the stuff I love – humor, laugh-out-loud moments, and personal stories (some kind of sad because you're pretty sure they're true). Loved it and have already bookmarked it.”

CONTENT – 7.5
“I like this blog. It's freaking hilarious. I prefer reads where I can relate to the stories and laugh while clapping my hands together, nodding my head up and down and thinking, ‘yep, I know exactly what you're talking about.’ Good stuff.”

“I like the topics because they seem to be things that could actually happen to me, like the dog eating a tampon. My dog eats crayons.”

“I would describe this blog as very average.”

“I don't think I can respect anyone who likes Ryan Adams or Wilco. Plus, who wants to read posts that start off talking about cleaning out closets?”

DESIGN – 6.8
“Everything seems simply enough. It's not too busy and I like the clickables.”

“Busy and distracting. Strikes me as too corporate-looking.”

“Good blog, well written. Liked the news links on the right.”

“The layout isn't bad, but it's a bit scattered and linky. In this respect I think sectioned web backgrounds help to clean up the look of a site a lot.”

“The design is kind of boring. It needs some color to differentiate between the three columns.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 8.3
“Sometimes she spells some words incorrectly and it looks intentional. That's one of my pet peeves. I can understand a mistake here and there but not purposely misspelling words. Otherwise she seems to know how to spell and put together really funny sentences.”

“Enjoyable writing style.”

“I'm not sure if it is the subject matter or the writing style, but I had a hard time staying interested. A few posts stand out and prove to be a little funny, such as the one about finding the old mixed tape dedicated to asshole men, but many of the posts drone on and lack structure.”

INTANGIBLES – 6.6
“The post lengths were fine and there wasn't anything really annoying about it other than the intentional misspelled words. Other than that I give it two thumbs up.”

“Long posts and ads strike again.”

“I'm not gonna ding her for ads. The content of the blog speaks for itself. I got lost in her archives.”

“The ads and links along the sides were unattractive. Not sure why they bothered me so much on this one … can't put my finger on the reason.”

“I guess what bothers me most is that I couldn't find anything truly unique about it. The style, the topics, the wording - I feel like I've read this one many times before.”

FREQUENCY - 6.0
“She posts about three times a week. I think that’s the least you can post and still have a positive number.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 61% Yes
“I would definitely read this blog regularly. Hell, I just might work my way through her archives while I'm sitting here at work today.”

“Most definitely.

“Perhaps. On the fence about adding it to my bookmarks.”

“Maybe once a week.”

“I'll come back to give this one another try just in case I missed something, but I don't think I'll read it regularly.”

OVERALL – 82.5
“I needed the laugh today and the tampon story gave me that. ‘Bless You.’”

“I really enjoyed reading this blog, from the honest approach offered by anonymity, to the humor, the rants, and the observations of daily life. It fits in well with other blogs I enjoy reading. I've added it to my blogroll.”

Words For My Enjoyment

Words For My Enjoyment garnered the highest ratings we’ve seen for web design and quality of writing. But the words Paul Davidson uses for his enjoyment don’t necessarily have the same effect on everyone.

"Finally, a blog without ads, with a nice, clean design ... but the content doesn't do anything for me."

CONTENT - 6.1
"He’s a decent enough writer, but I just really don’t care about anything he says. I’ve tried to read this blog several times, but I click away about half-way through. This blog just does nothing for me."

"Awesome. I love this. Not only is it a bunch of rambling stories on things that I would totally think about, but he's creative in the way that he describes it. Nice read for a smile and the occasional laugh out loud moment."

"The subjects are not very compelling."

"Just not that interesting to me."

"A whole lot of nothing ... but it looks cool."

DESIGN - 8.9
"I’d love to steal this design."

"Smooth browsing."

"Very clean look."

"Viewer friendly, could've used a graphic."

"I wish I was this good at manipulating the Internet. It's nice, clean, and the Scrabble idea with certain letters is cute. I like it."

"It's brilliant. I wish I could do something like this."

"The layout is nice, clean and easy to navigate. I prefer a favorites section on blogs like this, just because there's so much content. It's nice to allow your readers to easily peruse through some of your highlights. We all have our off days."

"Can I give this design an 11?"

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR - 8.9
"The grammar and writing style is excellent (either that or I'm too illiterate to know any better) and entertaining. I like Paul Davidson's humor style: subtle, insightful and witty. Few people can elaborate on a stand-off in the medicine aisle and make it entertaining."

"Very well written, if I take out the fact that I don’t care about the things he talks about."

"He writes very well, the grammar is nice and it makes it easier for my tired brain to digest everything. He writes the way that I think."

"He’s a very good writer."

INTANGIBLES - 5.6
"Why doesn’t he post the entire post? At least the current post. That extra click pisses me off to no end."

"I don't like having to click to finish reading the story. Other than that, I didn't feel that there was a lot of linking. No distracting ads - YAY for that! The author is cute, too."

"Is this blog just to promote his book? I wasn't sure."

"Looooooooooooooong posts! Yuck!"

FREQUENCY - 10
"He writes every day, and I get the feeling he doesn’t care if we like it or not."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY - 35% Yes
"Oh, God, no."

"Debated it; Perhaps".

"Yep. I've already added it to my Kinja list."

OVERALL - 63.0
"I don't like long posts. The blog felt too corporate, or clean, or something. It didn't have that homemade, grassroots feeling that blogs should have. Plus, who writes seven paragraphs about a ham croissant? I'd rather watch America's Next Top Model than read that post. How did this guy get a book deal?"

"The site is tailored for readers; not suitable for the ADD-inflicted blog-surfer looking for a quick, two-minute humor-craving or silly picture search. Personally this is my favorite kind of blog: something you can sit and read for a while and get to know the author. It makes me happy to see bloggers like this published author blogging."

The Dilbert Blog

Most of our reviewers would probably agree that Scott Adams is a talented guy.

However, that talent doesn’t always resonate with everyone when if comes to The Dilbert Blog.

"I went to this blog thinking it would be funny. It wasn't. I can say that it seemed like the grammar was correct and the overall design seemed OK. The overall feel of the posts were condescending. I actually enjoy the Dilbert cartoon from time to time. Maybe Scott Adams should stick to what he does best."

"It's a huge mixed bag of all sorts of topics, but very well written and witty. Very funny yet intelligent. I think it's one of the best blogs I've ever come across."

CONTENT - 5.7
"He's a professional and creative."

"I'm shocked. Seriously. I never liked Dilbert and I never had any interest in reading this blog. But this guy is pretty fucking funny. What have I been missing?"

"Literate, smart prose on a wide variety of subjects that range from politics, to creating one of the country's most popular comic strips, and everything in-between. Often a humorous read, the content is actually worth your valuable time."

"I don't care for political blogs. Even though this is classified as a humorous blog, it was way too political for my tastes."

"I guess it could be funny. Maybe amusing. It's not my cup of tea."

"I don’t care for Dilbert, but I really don’t care about this guy’s political ramblings. Wasn’t this supposed to be funny?"

DESIGN - 6.0
"Simple, functional, easy to read. Nothing special, but not offensive either. The writing is what shines here, and the design allows that to happen. I'd give in an 8 for the functionality alone if it weren't for the fact that I was greeted by a huge, annoying pop- up ad slapping me in the face when I opened the site. And the coding must be busted for Apple Safari users, because the frame around the ad drops the entire length of the page. Doesn't Adams make millions for whoring his Dilbert crap? Why mess up this brilliant attempt to express himself outside of his cartoon strip with something that makes me want to immediately close the page? Ultimately the design gets a mere 3 for being so stupid with the gigantic pop-up."

"The design is clean and the color scheme is fine. But that strangely placed banner at the top of the screen shifts everything down and leaves a ton of empty space up there. At first I thought maybe it was only a problem in Firefox, but I checked IE and it appears the same way there. Same goes for that ad in the right sidebar. It just seems out of place all alone over there. So strange."

"Boring. And the baby blue that peeved people in an earlier review!"

"Sort of plain. Don't like the Monster ad on top."

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR - 8.8
"As anybody who has read his non-Dilbert works (like "God's Debris") can tell you, Scott Adams is a very talented writer. When not restricted to the tiny panels of a newspaper comic, he is allowed to roam free and express himself in a very effective manner. You might not always agree with what Adams has to say, but you can certainly appreciate the way he says it. A perfect 10."

"The content is well-written in a conversational style. Me likey."

"The writing is good. The grammar is fine. Nothing to pick apart here."

"He’s a decent writer, but I still don’t care about this blog."

INTANGIBLES - 7.1
"The content is funny, but there are pop-ups, oddly placed banner ads, and all that empty space above the header and in the sidebar."

"I hate to harp on the pop-up again, but WTF? Bloggers in far, far worse financial shape than Scott Adams manage to run blogs with no ads at all ... yet he's got a banner ad, sidebar ads, and that stupid pop-up. I'd give him a 2 here just because it all pisses me off so much, but the fact that he offers a full-content web feed makes me bump it up to an 8."

"Long posts and pop-up ads!"

FREQUENCY - 10
"He probably shouldn’t write this much. Maybe he’d come up with better stuff."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY - 27% Yes
"If I remember, yes. I know where to find it if I want to read it. I read the comic strip somewhat regularly in the newspaper."

"Only via web feed. There is no way in hell I'm going to click off that stupid Interclick add every time I visit."

"No. I would never read this blog again. Not because it isn't any good. Again, it's just not my thing."

OVERALL - 68.6
"It's brilliant. The posts are short enough so that you aren't sitting there reading a novel, but long enough to explain certain points. I like it."

"I tend to be a Dilbert fan but I did not find this blog to be very Dilbert-y. Or funny, really. Hmmm."

-- 2006 Bloggies Finalists --

Our first five reviews featured the five finalists for "Most Humorous Weblog" in the 2006 Weblog Awards, better known as The Bloggies.

Our reviewers agreed with the masses, giving Bloggies winner Overheard in New York a higher rating (91.7) than the other finalists.

The Superficial came very close in our scoring system with a 91.5, followed by You Can't Make it Up, Fark, and Stuff on my Cat.

Humor content makes up 70 percent of our scoring system, so it's no surprise these blogs fell in line based on their content ratings on a scale of 1-10.

The other noticable thing these blogs have in common is posting frequency. Posting every day -- or in some cases several times each day -- helps give these bloggers a massive, loyal following.

The next 17 blogs featured here on BlogLaughs are the remaining 22 semifinalists from the 2006 Bloggies. I'm certain several of these upcoming blogs will challenge the ratings of these five finalists. (Thanks again to Nikolai Nolan for providing me with this list.)

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all of our reviewers. They have done a tremendous job looking at these blogs objectively, rating them in different categories, and making comments.

If you are interested in becoming a reviewer for BlogLaughs, please send an e-mail to bloglaughs@hotmail.com. We have more then 50 reviewers right now, but I'd like to have 100 on the list to make sure we have a better sample size.

All individual reviews are confidential, but we are happy to put a reciprocal link for our reviewers on our sidebar if they are interested.

Thank you all for supporting BlogLaughs. Our site will get better once we get more reviews, start some arguments, and get a new design.

Thanks again ...

The Superficial

The main goal of The Superficial is “to make fun of as many people as possible.”

What's not to love about that?

According to most of our reviewers, The Superficial is “timely, witty,” and “just plain fun.”

“The Superficial is such a fitting name. It's a blog that doesn't take itself too seriously. I normally couldn't give a rat's ass about what is happening in the lives of celebrities. But presented in a sarcastic and cynical way, I found it quite enjoyable.”

CONTENT – 8.2
“I'm not terribly interested in celebrity gossip, but even so, the scathing posts are hilarious.”

“Making fun of celebrities is pretty entertaining, usually. Wow! Tom Cruise is a horrible dancer.”

“I love this blog. Always have. It's ridiculous. I give it an 8 for saying what the whole world wants to but simply doesn't.”

DESIGN – 8.0
“I think they’ve done a really good job of having a splashy design that fits the content without going too far.”

“Modern, custom.”

“The header and background are perfect and the columns are displayed in such a way that the ads don't become obtrusive.”

“I like all the links for each of the little blurbs. Who doesn't enjoy the absurdities that are celebrities? Like they say, truth is stranger than fiction and sometimes more entertaining.”

“Not particularly interesting. I don’t like the mauve color.”

”Not crazy about the layout. Too cluttered with ads, but a 6 nevertheless.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 8.1
“ Writing several clever, sarcastic posts every day is difficult.”

“The Katie Holmes bit made me laugh out loud. Literally.”

“There was a misspelling in a recent post title, but other than that I didn't notice many mistakes.”

“Smart and usually grammatically correct.”

INTANGIBLES – 6.6
“Takes too long to load.”

“Too many ads in the side bar and some of them are trying to pass themselves off as blog posts.”

“The ads detract from the overall appearance of the blog, but at least they seem to be more subtle.”

“Too many ads on the main page.”

“I'm not sure why, but this blog took a long time to load on my dialup connection at home. I had to give up and view it using the wireless connection at work.”

FREQUENCY - 10
“Frequent updating. Then again, celebrities always provide plenty of new material.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 77% Yes
“I already do.”

“I immediately put it in my bookmarks

“Surprisingly - yes.”

“Possibly. Not daily, but would check in once a week or so.”

“I would enjoy reading it on a regular basis, but I probably won't, simply because I can see it taking up far too much of my time. I got sucked in and spent a good 30-45 minutes on one post and its comments alone. I don't have time in my life for this much enjoyment!”

“I wouldn't read this blog regularly since all this gossip stuff is everywhere. For those really into celebrity news, they will love the stories and the writing. Overall, a really great blog.”

OVERALL – 91.5
This is the first blog we’ve rated that didn’t really have any ‘haters.’ The Superficial scored high in every category except for intangibles, mainly for the number of ads, pictures, and multimedia.

“I think the blog is well-organized, well-presented. Each entry gives a picture and a paragraph or two, and that is generally enough information to leave me feeling satisfied whether or not I decide to 'jump' to see more. The format is nice, easy to use, and follow. There's not so many links that annoy me like other blogs.”

You Can’t Make It Up

At first glance, you may or may not like You Can’t Make It Up.

However, according to our reviewers, the more you look, the more you like.

"I’m ashamed I haven’t really explored this site since the 2006 Bloggie Award nominations. Stupid me didn’t look at her favorite posts until this week. Michelle Collins has written some great, great stuff but you really have to dig in the archives and make it one of your regular reads to give it an honest chance. This is a fantastic blog."

"The current posts didn't do much for me. I looked back into some of the archived favorite posts and enjoyed some of them more."

"I looked at some of the ‘favorite’ posts. The Harry Potter countdown was great."

CONTENT - 7.6
"Very random. Humorous but not generally laugh-out-loud funny, except for a couple places."

"I don't get it. I assume this site is supposed to be funny, but from what I've read it's just relatively straightforward personal stories. Not particularly funny or unique."

"Not every post is a home run, but I don’t think Michelle gives a shit. I kind of like that."

DESIGN - 6.4
"The graphic at the top of the page is a little weird, but it’s a pretty decent design. Nothing horrible."

"Pretty basic; pet peeve about ads on blogs."

"I don't like ads. Plus pick one font and stick with it in the side bar. Multiple fonts hurt my eyes."

"Design was good. Unique without distracting from the posts."

"The design is okay. The header graphic is original, and it blends into the sidebar, providing a clean look. But the front page is a mile long. Other than the header, it seems like a typical blogger template."

"Not particularly interesting but not distracting either."

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR - 8.1
"Open, honest, clever, witty, and wonderful."

"Tendency to ramble. However, I could follow it because that's pretty much how my mind works."

INTANGIBLES - 7.3
"The animal pictures freak me out sometimes. Some of the posts are a little long."

"It made me ill viewing it."

"It would be nice if comments were allowed."

"The ads detract."

"Uber-long link list in the sidebar. Too many posts on the main page, causing longer screen load time and awkward scrolling."

"Lots of linking, ads, and long, rambling posts. The extra pictures interspersed I find funny and annoying at the same time."

FREQUENCY - 10
"She posts quite often. Sometimes twice a day."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY - 71% Yes
"Until something funnier takes its place, I might check it out every few days."

"Regularly, no. Frequently, yes."

"Definitely not."

"Absolutely yes."

"I think so. This is better than most of the stuff my ‘blogger friends’ write every day. Sadly, because Michelle doesn’t accept comments, she and I will probably never be friends. ... Dude, I’m freaking myself out with that comment."

OVERALL - 86.3
"I was a little put off by the first post I saw '50 Animals Driving.' I'm an animal lover, but scrolling through 50 pictures got old fast. Glad I gave it a chance and kept going because I loved her other stuff!"

"I would visit Ms. Collins on a regular basis. Her blog is witty, downright hillarious, and so unique. She is such a great writer, and you can tell she's one of the blogging veterans (which is anybody blogging before 2005)."

Stuff On My Cat

For every person who raved about Stuff On My Cat's "cute concept," another simply gave it low scores and refused to say much more than, "I hate this site."

"I love this site! If you're a person who hates cats, you probably won't see a shred of humor in this site; but if you're a cat lover like I am, if you've ever owned a cat, you have probably stacked stuff on your sleeping cat before, and can well appreciate the hilarity that ensues when dressing your cat in doll clothes or stuffing him into a box. Oh, yeah. Love this one. Spent much of my workday laughing at silly cat pictures. Makes me want to own a cat again."

"This blog occasionally makes me laugh, but it always makes me smile. The blog is fun and relaxing for a cat lover like me."

"Clean design and relatively few ads, but the content is repetitive. I know a lot of people love this site and check it daily, but I just don't see the humor value."

"This site creeps me out."

CONTENT - 5.4
"Sometimes this is the only thing that makes me laugh all day."

"Funny cat pictures, who could ask for anything more? Rated only a 9 because I feel there's slight room for improvement - some weren't as funny."

"None of this shit is funny."

"These are hilarious! The pictures are great and there aren't that many adverts. Like Overheard In New York it's great for a quick laugh."

"I find this particular page and its content to be extremely boring. While it is responsible for a light chuckle here and there, it is not something I would go back to read on a daily basis."

"Simple, silly concept but for what it is, it works."

DESIGN - 6.7
"On this blog, the pictures say it all. The captions could be wittier, but I rarely read them. Likewise, the design could be better, but is anyone really looking at it, anyway?"

"The design isn't brilliant but it doesn't need to be -- the cats speak for themselves."

"Simple and effective, but takes time to load."

"Simple enough, but the ad on the top of the page is kind of distracting."

"Boring. There is too much stuff on all of the pages and a person on dial-up would have a death of a time trying to load it. Sidebar is very cluttered as well."

"No real standout design to speak of. Not even a cat!"

WRITING QUALITY/GRAMMAR - 3.3
"There wasn't much in the way of writing."

"I guess there aren't any grammar mistakes in what little this blogger does write. It's hard to make a mistake when you only write one sentence. It's calling card is lots of pictures."

"What quality of writing? There are a few silly narrations. Sure, grammar pretty well intact, but big deal! There are only four word minimum captions. What's to screw up?"

"I slave over my blog to come up with something to write and these people post pictures of fucking cats? Big zero!!!"

INTANGIBLES - 8.4
"I would remove a point for clutter, lack of originality, boring narratives, Google ads and a PayPal donation button."

"I hate this blog, but there's nothing blog-wise that irritates me. I don't mind the ads."

FREQUENCY - 10
"From what I gather, they post quite frequently."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY - 40% Yes
"YES! Bookmarked it! Sent the link to friends!"

"No, I'd stop by every once in a while."

"I would never, ever read this blog on a daily basis. I didn't even want to read it now!"

"Definitely good for a gimmick laugh but long-term might be hard without adding more features to keep readers interested."

OVERALL - 66.1
"It seems like a good site to look at when you need a quick laugh to bring you out of a quasi-funk."

"Simple, entertaining and lots of pictures. I like to check this site out every few weeks for cute things. The layout is clean and easy to navigate. Not really in-depth to capture a reader on a daily basis, but a fun site to surf and share with people nonetheless."

"Extremely unique and quirky site here. I'm not a cat person myself there are a ton of funny pictures here. This is not a blog you can read, but a blog you view. And the stuff to see cracked me up. There's an endless crap you can do to a cat."

"Cute pictures, not laugh-out-loud funny but kind of 'I can send this link to my 11-year-old niece' funny."

"Have I mentioned how much I hate this site?"

Fark

It's safe to say, many of our reviewers have contrasting opinions of Fark.

On one hand, some "enjoy the short witticisms."

"This is the granddaddy of humor blogs," said one reviewer. "Literally millions of readers each day. It's also a notorious hangout for bloggers looking for something to write about when they can't think of original material."

On the other hand, some "didn't understand what this site was all about. Is it comedy? Is it a search engine? Is it advertising? Is it all of the above?"

"I don't care how many people visit this site," said another reviewer. "I don't care how funny some of the linked-stories are. Fark will never be as good as a blog where someone actually writes something funny. I wouldn't even consider this a blog."

CONTENT - 6.4
"I have been a longtime reader of Fark. I would always give Fark's content a 10."

"Very useful and entertaining site when you want to read news about something other than rape and robbery. The forums are great too, with lots of contributors on all topics. My favorites are the Photoshop contests - there's some fantastic work there, but they're also hilarious."

"Good content although I'm not always sure to trust the descriptors of the links."

DESIGN - 5.4
"I thought the appearance was rather industrial but did find it to be fairly neatly organized, with the icons down the left side to be helpful in identifying what kind of blurb was being linked to. The brief summaries were slightly helpful. However, I didn't come up with anything I found to be especially funny. I guess it's just not my type of humor."

"Layout is hard to figure out. Some of the Photoshop art is cheesy."

"Too busy. Eye catching for all the wrong reasons."

"I hate this site, but I kind of like the ease of this design."

"Clean design. Relatively few ads."

"The only thing that seems to lack is the layout, which can be a little confusing if you're new to the site. There's a lot more to offer than just links, but that's easy to miss upon first glance."

"I like the design, though sometimes, it can be a bit busy."

"Organized but corporate-looking."

"This site is too hard to navigate. Not my kind of blog."

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR - 4.5
"Fark is not really written by any one person, it is a contributory site, with all readers getting their stories 'greenlighted' if you are a member of the Fark community. Therefore, the content varies, but for the most part, it is fresh and intelligent. Links go to both the newstory and bulletin board commentary."

"The quality of writing is moot, I think, because the stories are not written by the people who run Fark, but rather, the news outlets themselves. The quality of the comments in the bulletin board runs from extraordinarily creative and funny to the insipid and idiotic."

"The serious newspeak language about silly subjects adds a surreal touch. Plus this is from news organizations, so the writing/grammar has to be much better than random conversations by regular people."

"I gave this category a zero because there's no way these people should get as many points as someone who struggles to come up with a post every day. Anyone can post links."

INTANGIBLES - 7.0
"The only pet peeve that I once had with Fark has been done away with. They used to have very risque pictures on it in their banners and would have the 'boobie' links that would be quite graphic. Now those are reserved for members only."

"Extra clicks, definitely. Too much fluff also. Stick to basics, might be some good content there, if I could get to it. I don't like the ads."

"In general, I don't like this kind of website, where nothing is really displayed and you must click out to find everything (although a site like Ebaum's World would be an exception). If I hadn't been asked to review this, I wouldn't have spent more than a second or two viewing it."

"I didn't think many of the sites it linked to were funny, although if a person were to look around long enough, I'm sure they'd find something interesting."

FREQUENCY - 10
"Frequent updates, hard to run out of material. It's like a clearinghouse of the world's news of the weird."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY - 25% Yes
"I do read Fark daily, for at least the past 3 years."

"No, not without a map."

"Hell no, too much shit going on. Too much to open. Too much to surf. It's like reading he fucking yellow pages!"

"I probably wouldn't read this blog regularly."

OVERALL - 70.8
Fark isn't necessarily a "love it or hate it" blog, but the ratings were all over the place. One person would give the blog high marks for content, then knock it down for design or quality of writing. The next would knock the content but like the simplicity of design.

"This is one of the old-line blogs out there. It is a very comprehensive source of offbeat news, but the pure amount can be overwhelming. When you go to the site, you feel like a kid with ADD, as your eyes go everywhere."

Overheard in New York

Only in New York could the overheard conversations of locals, tourists, drunks, and homeless people provide so much entertainment. Almost every BlogLaughs reviewer used the word "original" or spoke glowingly about the "great concept" behind Overheard in New York.

"I love Overheard in New York," said one reviewer. "It is part of my everyday reads. Each one of the stories make me extremely homesick."

"I think the idea behind this blog is good," said another. "There is great potential for some really funny stuff. Surely in New York if you listen long enough you will hear something hilarious eventually! I didn't find very many of the posts here to be laugh-out-loud funny, but many of them were worth a chuckle at least. I would continue to check back with this blog because you never know when something really hilarious might be said!"

"Very original, very unique," said another reviewer. "I've never seen a blog like it before. Although there is not much creative and original writing, the funny things people overhear in New York City is just absolutely priceless. It's also an interactive site, as readers are encouraged to submit funny stuff they hear in New York."

CONTENT - 8.3
With 70 percent of the final score based on content, Overheard in New York has set the bar relatively high with an average score of 8.3 on a scale of 1-10.

"I had a few good moments where I laughed out loud," said one reviewer. "I enjoyed the short entries since I have a short attention span."

"Some [posts] are funny, some aren't," contended one reviewer. "Some are missed on folks like me who don't live in New Yawk."

Another said, "The content is hit and miss, and many are too short to sustain more than a chuckle."

Still, the lowest content rating from our reviewers was a five among a sea of eights, nines and tens.

DESIGN - 5.9
One reviewer said, "The color scheme I didn't like much, but maybe I'm the only one who finds baby blue annoying."

Ahhhhhh, contraire.

"For a blog that is primarily text-oriented, choosing to go with a color scheme of white on light blue is nothing less than user-hostile," said one reviewer. "The header is a bit bothersome because this is a New York blog and hardly any of the rotating photos say 'New York' to me. Not terrible, but it could use some improvement for readability and identity."

"Overheard recently changed their format," explained one long-time reader. "I'm not too crazy about the new one (too much blue ... everywhere). The blog has gotten very cluttered in the past few months and I don't like the new 'topical headings' that divide each little vignette into categories. Yuck."

"The design detracts from the content," said another. "It's a little busy and the color scheme isn't very friendly on the eyes."

"Too fucking blue! I could get past that, maybe, but it's not even a pretty blue. The sidebars are a little busy but at least nothing is blinking at me."

"Except for the blue-ass template, nothing else really irks me."

All and all, this comment pretty much sums it up. "I wasn't fond of the web design but the content was great."

WRITING QUALITY/GRAMMAR - 7.3
The quality of writing, grammar and punctuation at Overheard in New York is a mixed bag. Some gave it lower scores. Some chose not to score this category. Most chose to give a relatively high grade because, as one reader put it, "It is what it is and seems to capture the intent of the subject. It's difficult to put much criticism on its faults."

"Grammar shouldn't be a big deal as many folks contribute to this," explained another. "If the final text were edited, I think you would lose a bit of personality of the contributors."

"Since these are direct quotes from strangers," said another, "I think the authors do well in making them realistic. Of course they're not going to be grammatically correct all the time or well-written."

"I think the grammar mistakes are a large part of this blog's charm," explained a reviewer. "Most of us don't speak proper English. This blog shouldn't be edited that way either."

INTANGIBLES - 6.9
"Loses a few points for being a bit overtly commercial and a push to read the book version," said one reviewer. "Ad content is prominent, but mercifully restricted to a single sidebar rather than spread out everywhere, which is a pleasant surprise."

Another said, "Lots of ads in the sidebars. Posts are not open for comments."

FREQUENCY - 10
This category is not voted upon by our reviewers. The BlogLaughs moderator will assign this score.

"They update with astonishing frequency and I cannot possibly keep up with them unless I'm willing to sacrifice other aspects of my life such as my job, my husband, meals, and pee breaks. Also, I cannot read them at work without laughing out loud and causing my office mates to think I'm insane."

Another said, "There are several entries each day so the content is always fresh, which I like."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY - 84% Yes
"I do read this blog regularly," said one reviewer, "since 2003 in fact. It is the one blog that has survived on 'my favorites' for that long."

Another said, "I already read this blog. It's the voyeur in me that loves this blog! Wouldn't define it as 'funny,' but interesting to say the least."

"I would probably read this blog once a week," contends another. "It's just not funny enough for me to read daily or every other day."

"The idea is unique and appealing in it's simplicity," explained a reviewer. "It's fun to read through once, but overall it lacks depth and fails to draw the reader in to establish itself as a regular read. It would have a more powerful affect if some of the quotes were funnier and a bit more involved. The ads also overpower the content a bit."

OVERALL - 91.7
Unlike some of the reviews to follow this week, almost all of our reviewers gave Overheard in New York favorable ratings. Reviews for this site featured lots of high numbers in every category except design.

Overheard in New York's overall score of 91.7 sets a respectable mark for others to aspire.

"For what it sets out to do," explains one reviewer, "Overheard in New York does it very simplistically and very well."