Bloggin’ Bizatch

Bloggin’ Bizatch definitely has some fans among our reviewers, but the lack of capitalization seemed to bother some more than others.

“Writing without capitalization doesn’t make someone special. In fact, it screams, ‘I’m a pathetic loser who yearns to be unique but is failing miserably.’ The quality of Bloggin' Bizatch is lost because of a gimmick.”

CONTENT – 5.5
“Asking me to review Bloggin' Bizatch is like asking me to review my twin. She is funny. She is delightful. She is a complete goddess. Again, the mirror image of myself. I simply cannot do this fairly. I love her content, love her, and love myself.”

“I like that she writes a variety of subjects, I just don’t find any of it funny.”

“Uninspired ramblings.”

“Decent posts, but not necessarily humorous or witty.”

“Not bad, but kinda boring at times. So she took a dump, so what?”

DESIGN – 6.9
“In general, the design is pretty decent. I hate the main graphic, but I guess it says something about the author.”

“Simple template and guarded use of color. The graphic at the top of the screen is a little large and cluttered to be used as a logo.”

“Masthead is nice.”

“Plain black on white. Perfect.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 4.7
“All lowercase is just as annoying as all caps.”

“BB is a lyrical genius. She puts the angry out there while preserving her sexy. I am a big fan. You will not get me to say differently. She is a daily read for me.”

“I guess the quality of writing is OK, but it’s difficult to get through.”

“I marked her down for never using a capital at the beginning of any sentence or title. I can forgive a few misspellings here and there, but this style of zero capital letters is just annoying to me.”

“Liked the writing style!”

INTANGIBLES – 4.1
“The title ‘Bloggin’ Bizatch’ is really lame. The lack of capitalization makes it extremely difficult to read. The sidebars seem crowded, even though there's technically nothing wrong with them. How's that for an 'intangible?'”

“Capitalization and punctuation obviously are optional to her. And though it's her blog, last time I checked, she wasn't e.e. cummings. As far as I'm concerned, he's the only one who could get away without capitalization or punctuation.”

“I've decided that I don't like it when bloggers don't have a profile about themselves on their blogs. I'm just nosy like that.”

“I would give her my virginity, if I hadn't misplaced it so long ago. Then again, she doesn't respond to her comments as often as I'd like. Hell, she barely responds to them at all. This is where she and I part ways and I am the good twin.”

FREQUENCY – 4.0
“Bloggin’ Bizatch posts about twice a week.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 17% Yes
“Probably won't.”

“This chick is funny! I'm bookmarking her right now!”

“Her personality is that of a drama mama and an attention whore. Though I don't wish her any ill-will, I'd prefer not read her blog.”

“Already do.”

“Nah.”

OVERALL – 60.1
The capitalization issue highlighted lower scores for quality of writing and intangibles, but ultimately those two categories only count for 10 percent of the final score.

“Decent blog, but not noteworthy or funny enough to keep me coming back over and over again.”

Today In Alternate History

There’s no easy way to do this. Today In Alternate History garnered the lowest score our reviewers have given.

"This guy is obviously very intelligent, but he’s not smart enough to make this blog entertaining. I’m very certain he’s not writing for me, but the average visitor shouldn’t feel like they just walked in on a plumber’s convention."

"Confusing design, too many ads, and posts that aren't very clear cut make for a very difficult-to-read blog."

CONTENT - 3.9
"Great concept, but his writing needs to kick up the funny."

"I find history boring. Sorry."

"Interesting, very original!"

"Meh, I didn't find it humorous at all."

"I gave DUmmie FUnnies a 1, so I guess this is a 2. This makes my brain hurt."

"To someone who is interested in history, I can see how this would be a fascinating blog. However, I hate history. I couldn't make myself read this blog."

DESIGN - 3.8
"The design is bad, but the Looking Back cartoons are very good. Too bad they are surrounded by an ugly template that’s been augmented with some of the most distracting ads and graphics I’ve ever seen. Less is more, not the other way around."

"Horrible Blogger template."

"Way too many ads, upon ads, upon ads, upon ..."

"I like the green color. However, the side bar was actually not next to the blog, but at the bottom of everything. Weird. Maybe its my computer. I also thought there was a heck of a lot of ads and buttons all over the place."

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR - 6.7
"He writes well, I just found the content boring."

"All the ads and the bad design make it tough to want to read very far back in the archive."

"He’s a good writer. Too bad the subject sucks."

"Some of the posts are way too long."

"I actually have no idea how the writing is because I couldn't stand reading any of it, but the picture on the profile looks like this is a well-educated person, so I'm willing to assume the writing is good."

"I hope to God his book was a self-publish job."

INTANGIBLES - 2.2
"This blog is all about the intangibles. Its ugly, greedy, and downright distracting. Hit delete and start again."

"Does the author really have to end his every post with the same bunch of links and ads and requests for cash? Especially when these same links are already on the sidebar."

"Taking off for the screwed up sidebar and for having lots of buttons and ads, even though I already deducted for that in web design."

"Protocols of the Zion Elders, Part I is not an especially great name for a book. Even if the book is a literary masterpiece completely devoid of racism, 99 percent of people will not buy it just because of the title ... and the remaining 1 percent will buy it for all the wrong reasons."

"Not too much to make me want to stick around."

"A liberal Texan? Does he raise unicorns too?"

FREQUENCY - 10
"Like it or not, Robbie Taylor posts everyday."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY - 2% Yes
"Nope."

"I would never read this blog again!"

"History is not my cup of tea, so I probably won't; but I might recommend it to my friends."

"No. I didn't even read it the first time."

"I hate this blog with a passion."

"Maybe."

"Can I take what’s behind Door No. 2?"

OVERALL - 48.9
"It reminds me of ‘In the year 2000' or The Onion, but not as funny. I like the idea of ‘alternative history,’ but this site just doesn't do it for me. Maybe I just don't know enough about real history."

"It’s mandatory for newbies to read the FAQ and dig into the archives. That’s the only way to understand this blog."

Ken and Ariel

Ken and Ariel inched their way to the top of our poll, lingering just long to enjoy a satisfying review.

Or, a score of 92.

Or, something like that.

“Is there anything better in this life than sex and humor? Ken and Ariel specialize in both. I love this site!”

CONTENT – 8.4
“Anything sex-oriented is always a plus, but its even better when the content is also funny and witty.”

“Not my cup of tea personally, but I can see how it should appeal to most of the population.”

“Too much sexual talk, which is a big turnoff for me. I personally feel like grownups should be able to find something else to talk about. Then again, maybe the blog is written by a horny 17-year-old.”

“Getting the male and female point of view on sex-related subjects is extremely interesting. Toss in the funny shit and this site is awesome.”

DESIGN – 8.0
“The design is clean and well-done. The photos are fantastic. They’ll make a blind man think about seeing again. Mmmmmm.”

“Simple, but could be better. I always like a design to be uncluttered, but there's nothing about the design that would make me identify it as Ken and Ariel's.”

“Very professional. I liked the ‘about the authors’ and FAQ pages.”

“The font is a little small.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMAR – 8.5
“The writing is clever and honest. It’s not a writer’s blog like Waiter Rant; it’s the next level down. That’s not a knock. The writing is still much better than most.”

“Funny and witty. Ariel really has a way of making a sex post funny first, and arousing second.”

“Great stuff.”

INTANGIBLES – 9.0
“No ads, no bullshit, no problems whatsoever. A perfect 10.”

“No complaints in the intangibles category.”

“No ads, begging, or self-promoting an upcoming book.”

“Yes”

“Us sex addicts could use a bit more consistency with posts, but overall its very shafty ... I mean crafty.”

FREQUENCY – 7.0
“Ken and Ariel average three to four posts a week.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 69%
“Absolutely. It’s one of the best blogs on the Internet.”

“I'd pop in every now and then, but not every day. I have regular reads that I like better.”

“I’ve been reading this one for a long time.”

“Naw, I'll pass.”

“Yes, especially if they posted more often.”

OVERALL – 92.0
When the lowest-scoring category is based on whether our reviewers would read Ken and Ariel regularly, you know the scores are good.

“I’m a pervert. I love this blog. What else can I say?”

Rockchild

Fans of Rockchild were quick to point out that this blog might not be for everyone. With an average score of 65.8, it appears there weren't enough regular readers among our reviewers.

“Some people may not get this blog, and that's understandable, but those of us who do will probably become devoted readers.”

CONTENT – 5.8
“The blogger doesn't post on a regular basis and when he does, they are really long.”

“I just don't get this blog. Is the blogger really in high school or is it just a character they created? It didn't make me laugh at all.”

“Doesn't really write about any topics that are funny in themselves, but I do think the blog is hilarious! I laughed out loud quite often reading this blog, even though I know in my heart of hearts that its really, really stupid and lame.”

“I just couldn’t stay interested long enough to really devour the archives. I’m giving it a 5, but I should really give it something less.”

DESIGN – 6.5
“Clean but boring. I like it but its nothing fabulous. Just nothing real complaint-worthy.”

“Very neat and uncluttered. I like his ‘drawings of friends.’”

“It's not too bad, but it's nothing to write home about.”

“The design is OK. Not great, but not bad.”

“The ‘drawings of friends’ are very good. I’d like to see that kind of artwork worked into the design. Find someone who can design your site around your artistic talents and you will really have something.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 4.4
“The quality of writing is not very good. I think some of it is on purpose, but I just don’t get it. Sorry.”

“Rockchild is a good writer, I wish there was more variety in his posts.”

“This is a hard one because the person posting misspells some words on purpose.”

“I wasn't sure if the mistakes were intentional or not. Either way, it was really annoying.”

“This is a toss up. The style of writing the guy uses is actually pretty damn funny, but in parts of his posts it can really annoying when he's describing something that you need to read in plain language.”

“I don't know what it is about his style of writing, but its pretty damn funny to me.”

“The spelling and grammar are really bad. ‘Quality’ is not a word I'd use here. It's like reading something my 5-year-old might have written. But I think that's partly why it was so funny!”

INTANGIBLES – 8.3
“Everything I like dislike about this blog is very tangible.”

“How come his blogroll is gone? I was on it. [cries]”

“Other than the really bad writing/grammar/spelling, I don’t find a whole lot of pet peeves here. Since writing is rated in another category, I can't really take off points for that here.”

“The sidebar is not the greatest, but nothing too annoying.”

FREQUENCY – 4.0
“Frequency stinks but we [reviewers] don't rate that, right?”

“Rockchild averages about one or two posts a week. We’ll score it as twice a week since they added BlogLaughs to their blogroll.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 36% Yes
“No way.”

“Already do.”

“No. It was kind of cute, but not really my thing.”

“Yes, I'm embarrassed to admit that I would.”

“Uh, no.”

“Yes, as long as I could get used to his writing.”

“I can’t imagine reading this blog regularly.”

OVERALL – 65.8
“I've been reading Rockchild for a long time now, but I can understand how he's not for everybody. It's a lot of the same thing and it does get boring at times. However, I am willing to forgive and forget all minor drawbacks for inventing the term ‘beaver face,’ which is being extensively used by myself and my family members!”

The Sneeze

A lot of our reviewers liked it The Sneeze, but describing why they liked or disliked is another story.

"I’m not sure which part is zine and which part is blog, but The Sneeze is awfully damn good."

CONTENT – 7.5
"I can’t for the life of me figure out a way to describe this, but I like The Sneeze. It’s always different. It’s out there. It’s very good."

"A variety of topics that kept me highly entertained. This blog had me laughing out loud, in the office, which can be quite embarrassing."

"Regular, amusing posts."

"I enjoyed the randomness. The posts about Van Gough and his kid's artwork were entertaining. The cabbage post was hilarious."

DESIGN – 7.6
"Original, uncluttered, easy to navigate."

"I like the orange and grey (or is it gray)." [Both are acceptable.]

"The design is better than average. I can’t describe it."

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 7.3
"This blog is always so different, I’ve never really thought about how good the writing is. It’s funny. I guess the writing is OK."

"Good grammar, amusing topics."

"Good writing."

INTANGIBLES – 5.6
"No comments allowed is always a bummer. The ads aren't too bad, but I still don't like them."

"I wish the author would go a little easier on the ads."

"There used to always be something that freaked out my computer when I went there. I don’t know if it was an ad or what, but it doesn’t seem as bad as it used to. I’m going to give it a lower score in this category just because something unexplainably intangible about this site isn’t that great. It has ads and a few other things that are easy to point out, but I just can’t describe it."

FREQUENCY – 5.0
"Steven averages about 2-3 posts a week. He hasn’t posted as much lately, but we’ll give him the benefit of the doubt."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 60% Yes
"Yes"

"No"

"I do. It's on my side panel."

"I’ve been reading The Sneeze for about a year."

OVERALL – 81.3
The scores were kind of all over the place, but it’s nice that most of our reviewers agreed on their lack of ability to describe The Sneeze. That’s got to mean something.

"I like this blog, but it’s a fucking mystery to me. I guess I need to dig in the archives."

Banana Blograma

One of our reviewers called Banana Blograma, “a poor man’s The Onion.”

“That’s not a dig, that’s a complement. It’s just difficult for one funny guy to compare with the most hilarious parody newspaper in the world. This guy should work for The Onion.”

One of our other reviewers gave it the worst individual review we’ve had. See if you can pick out which comments were made by that reviewer.

CONTENT – 7.1
“The variety of posts is great. I never expect what I get when I come here. Very funny.”

“Not my thing. I was bored.”

“It's like The Onion only more insane.”

“I damn near lost my lunch that in successive fashion, there were posts involving the already-tedious term ‘Brangelina’ and posts with photos of Bob Uecker, Carrot Top, and Howie Mandel. Suddenly, I have that funny, (not funny ha-ha, but funny peculiar) bitter, pre-puke taste in my mouth. Someone fetch me a bucket.”

DESIGN – 6.4
“Basic Blogger template that’s been manipulated to make it even more ugly. Woo hoo!”

“The quality of the PhotoShop work is not always great. Still funny.”

“It's your basic Blogspot layout. The side bar is a little chaotic, but it doesn't make my eyes hurt too much.”

“The Blogger template is actually not bad, but the site is cluttered with random items.”

“Basic Blogger template. Eh, but tolerable.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 6.5
“The ideas behind almost every one of these pieces are brilliant. I usually just get the basic joke, laugh, and then move along. For some reason the writing doesn’t grab me. It’s better than average, but not great.”

“Funny stuff. No complaints here.”

“Not bad in general. He needs to stop trying to talk Ebonics though. It's not working. He tries too hard.”

“This makes me wonder if the author of that blog truly thinks that Milli Vanilli or William Hung were talented. I'm not amused.”

INTANGIBLES – 6.4
“Ads are bad.”

“I don't like blogrolls that are a mile long, they convey no useful information to me. I expect a blogroll to be a list of sites the author recommends for my reading, not a random listing of everyone in the blogosphere. Too many annoying ads and buttons.”

“What’s this guy’s name? Cowbell Gene? Jamwall? Banana Gene? That kind of stuff is confusing. I don’t like the ads either.”

“Trite. Played out. I loathe blogs with advertisements.”

FREQUENCY – 5.0
“Gene posts about two or three times a week.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 56% Yes
“Yes. It’s fucking hilarious.”

“No.”

“Already do.”

“Yes. Anyone who uses the cowbell jamming Will Ferrell as a profile image on their blog definitely needs to be read daily.”

“Do I have to spell it out?” [No.]

OVERALL – 77.5
The scores for content were better than the other categories, but a couple of really low individual scores dropped everything. The reviewer who gave Banana Blograma our new low individual score said, “Even if the author was mentally impaired, I'd still have a secret distaste for this blog.”

Luckily for Gene, not everyone feels that way.

“I love this blog. Banana Blograma skewers everyone and everything! More cowbell!”

BifSniff Funny Cartoons

BifSniff Funny Cartoons, our latest Best of Blogs humor finalist, had a more difficult time with our reviewers than Dead Guy, The Cartoon ... even though some will always compare the two.

"It’s OK, but not as good as Dead Guy."

"It’s another once-a-week cartoon. How good can it be?"

CONTENT - 6.6
"Half of the cartoons are kind of funny. That’s a perfect 5 from me."

"Amusing."

"I'm a sucker for puns and silly jokes."

"This is funny!!!"

DESIGN - 7.0
"The design is OK, but a little confusing the first time you visit."

"The quality of the cartoons is top-notch."

"Bright, direct."

"I find it interesting that more space is given over to the sidebar than to the main content of the site."

"It would be nice to see more cartoons on the front page as opposed to having to click through to the archives."

"A tad cluttered."

WRITING - 6.6
"The writing is fairly clever."

"It’s a weekly cartoon. I can’t give this blog the same score I would give to someone who writes a regular blog."

"Very good writing."

INTANGIBLES - 6.6
"This blog seems to have a minor ad infestation."

"The fact that you can copy a few lines of code and put their weekly cartoon on your own site is the most positive intangible I’ve seen at any blog. Throw in all the different ways to subscribe to feeds and they’ve got me hooked."

"Getting three blogs in one is nice, but the ads and confusing nature of this blog bother me."

"I had some trouble looking at cartoons from previous months. It gave me a ‘page not found error’ message. I did enjoy looking at the ‘musings’ part of the blog. It would be nice if those were updated a little more frequently."

FREQUENCY - 2.0
"BifSniff features a new cartoon every Friday."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY - 46% Yes
"I gave it a shot a few months ago, but I haven’t been back since."

"Eh ... dunno."

"Sure."

"No."

OVERALL - 71.9
BifSniff Funny Cartoons managed average scores in every category except frequency. Luckily, frequency only counts for 5 percent of the score.

"It’s a good blog. I just wish they posted more frequently."

Davezilla

Davezilla is a four-time Bloggies finalist in the humor category. That’s quite an accomplishment for several reasons, but it basically means Davezilla has been a very good blog for a very long time.

With an average, cumulative score of 82.6, our reviewers here at BlogLaughs certainly agree.

"Davezilla is mainly a photo blog, but the photos are hilarious. The reader comments are great too. It’s a very good blog."

CONTENT - 7.1
"I like the combo of photos and actual writing."

"Timely, regular posts."

"The photos are always great."

"I don’t know where he comes up with this stuff. It’s an entertaining visit every day."

DESIGN - 8.3
"This is a relatively new design. I like it better than the old one, better than most of the other blogs I visit."

"Basic, double column layout with custom header. I don't think the header is fitting for the blog. It’s not as dynamic as the posts."

"Seemed pretty clean and neat, but not corporate."

"Great design."

WRITING - 6.8
"Good, solid writing, but the photos are fab!"

"Dave doesn’t write as much as some bloggers, but it’s a lot better than the cutesy photo sites."

"He writes a little, but it’s mainly a photo site."

INTANGIBLES - 8.6
"I didn't see much to annoy me."

"Proves that you don't need to panhandle to have a good blog."

"The least annoying site I’ve seen in a long time."

FREQUENCY - 10
"Davezilla features a new post every day."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY - 60% Yes
"Sure. Adding it to my list."

"Probably not."

"Yes."

"I’ve been reading Davezilla for quite some time. I’ll continue reading it every day until he stops."

OVERALL - 82.6
Davezilla managed good scores across the board. The lower scores for writing probably have more to being a "photo site" on more days rather than the actual quality of writing.

"Davezilla is very good every day. I can’t say more about it than that."

Love Me or Blow Me, Either Way

Like a lot of blogs, Love Me or Blow Me, Either Way isn’t for everyone.

While some of our reviewers were "offended" or "didn’t get it," others believe "Blog Ho is a comic genius."

"I’ll admit, some days I’m just not in the mood to read this kind of stuff, but most of the time Blog Ho is laugh-out-loud funny. I am simply amazed he’s able to churn out a post like this almost every day."

CONTENT - 7.3
"Blog Ho is a funny motherfucker."

"Fun, entertaining, always sarcastic."

"I get a little offended sometimes by the sarcastic comments about Mexicans or homosexuals, but I understand that everyone is fair game. He makes fun of everything. Nothing is out of bounds and that, in itself, is funny."

"Blog Ho is the King of Snark."

"Blog Ho reminds me of Maddox. I wish there were more bloggers like these two."

DESIGN - 6.0
"Basic Blogger template."

"It’s a boring, Blogger template but I don’t care. It doesn’t have to be pretty."

"Pretty basic Blogspot layout."

"His drawings are pretty funny."

"Too white."

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR - 7.6
"Regular, timely, snarky posts."

"Blog Ho provides the finest literary work on bodily functions around."

"I like how he writes about people coming down ‘the AIDS’ or ‘the cancer.’ In the real world, that’s not very funny. Here, it is."

INTANGIBLES - 8.0
"He sells t-shirts, but that’s OK. He doesn’t have any ads. It’s all very simple."

"Something was off on the Blogspot layout. Silly things like that can annoy me."

"His blogroll is longer than my dick, but I’m still going to check them all out."

FREQUENCY - 8.0
"Blog Ho averages about 4 posts a week."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY - 60% Yes
"Already do."

"No, just didn't appeal to me."

"I used to."

"Maybe."

"Doesn’t everyone read Blog Ho already?"

"No way."

OVERALL - 81.9
"Blog Ho is a sick, twisted young man ... and that’s a good thing."

The Hot Librarian

The Hot Librarian has a loyal readership who will probably hunt us all down and kill us, but the average cumulative score was pretty average.

"All and all, it’s a pretty decent blog. She doesn’t post a whole lot right now, but it’s relatively entertaining. I think most people will appreciate this blog more if they read it on a regular basis or dig into the archives to catch up."

CONTENT – 6.1
"It’s like a long, rambling letter from a friend. Some days, that’s fine. Other days, you’d rather poke your eyes out with a spoon."

"Pretty funny writing. It's refreshing to read posts that aren't weighed down by some weekly ‘theme’ but are just the witty and irreverent writings of some female that's not afraid to talk about boobs and wieners."

"I like the story about Axe Man."

DESIGN – 7.0
"Too taupey."

"The side bar is a little cluttered at the bottom, but it's not too bad."

"A little plain."

"It's a Blogger template, and that automatically gives it some major knocks. The design doesn't really draw the eye to the posts or to anywhere for that matter. The posts are easy to read and the page isn't very crowded or overused so that's why the score isn't lower."

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 7.3
"I can see where some might find the rambling, improper English endearing, but it does nothing for me."

"Writing is witty and has the feel of 'flow-of-consciousness,’ which actually works for the author. Grammar is fine, although she does take some liberties to break up her sentences and posts."

INTANGIBLES – 6.6
"The posts are too long. Also, you know those little buttons that link to helpful sites like Blog Explosion, sites that allegedly help you generate a lot of random traffic to your blog? When I see more than 10 of those little buttons on a person's sidebar that really irks me. I took points off for that."

"I love that it didn't have ads!"

"Posts are too long."

FREQUENCY - 4.0
"The Hot Librarian has been posting about once a week lately, but it used to be more. We'll give her the benefit of the doubt."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 37% Yes
"No. I hate librarians."

"Maybe."

"No, thanks."

"Sure."

"Probably not. It seems like too much of a man-hater blog."

OVERALL – 68.9
"This blog made me laugh out loud and wonder what the author was really like."

The Best Page In The Universe

I get the feeling most of our reviewers believe this really could be The Best Page In The Universe, if Maddox posted on a regular basis.

Of course, since Maddox is the “King of Not Posting,” it brought out some passionate responses from our reviewers ... not all of them as positive as this one.

“The first time someone told me about this site I read a couple of entries and then I was addicted. Over the course of a couple of weeks, I read every single post in the archive. Genius.”

CONTENT – 7.4
“When Maddox actually bothers to write something, it's a solid 10. But all he's currently writing is promotional crap for his new book which knocks the score down a bit.”

“Maddox is the originator. There are hundreds of imitators, but none come close to the depravity that is The Best Page in the Universe.”

“Sometimes right on target, sometimes over the top, Maddox is always entertaining. He cracks me up. Then again, I'm not the brightest star in the sky either.”

“Amusing entries, loved the ‘How to Spot a Pedophile' bit.”

“The topics themselves are nothing exciting, so I had to take off for that. But I’ve got to admit; I think he's funny. So, points back for that.”

“The site needs to be updated a lot more often.”

“Some of the posts are very good; some are Internet classics. I cannot count the number of times I've been forwarded ‘Crappy Children's Art' by my co-workers. But, on the whole, I can't say I'm fascinated. A lot of times he's just being obnoxious for no reason.”

"I really should give this a 9 or 10, but it's just not fair to all the other people who post regularly. He's lucky to get a 8 from me."

DESIGN – 5.9
“The design itself is horrifying, and should probably get a 2. But I think that the crappy layout and graphics are intentional irony and wholly appropriate for the image Maddox is attempting to reinforce. He's so manly he doesn't need fancy design!”

“The ‘design’ hurt my eyes and gave me a headache. Harsh yellow on black? What genius thought that was a good idea?”

“I'm giving this a 10, even though there is almost no ‘web design.’ But that's what's so great about this site, it's all content.”

“While there were no ads or begging, I didn't enjoy the design much. It didn't seem like a blog as much as a Web site with random articles that don't get updated very often.”

“You can't get more simply than 100 yellow links on black. It's basic and boring but at least it's clean.”

“I truly hate navigating around this site. I am also not a big fan of Che.”

“I’m don’t like the extra clicks, but I think the Che Guevara/pirate-looking graphic is very distinctive. That graphic is Maddox. Nice branding.”

“Too black. I will give him a little credit for not having a zillion ads and not having sidebars! All that clicky crap is neatly arranged at the top and way down at the bottom so you're not subjected to it unless you're looking for it.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 7.3
“He may not write much any more, but Maddox is all quality all the time, and funny as hell. He loses a quality point because there's only so much self-promotional whoring I can take, no matter how well-written.”

“I give it a 7, only because of grammar. Several of my daily reads (blogs) are much better than this.”

“The entries are astonishingly funny and the grammar is spot-on.”

“I have to take a little off for spelling errors and grammar.”

“Don't even get me started. The quality of writing? Great. The grammar, not so much.”

INTANGIBLES – 5.1
“No advertising or pop-ups or annoying crap, but the black background and massive font is a headache to read. The lack of a Web feed is a serious flaw for any blog.”

“I don't want to hit on the subject line and read it.”

“The posts were too long. There was no where to post comments and you had to click through to read the posts. Is the title of the blog ironic or arrogant? Both maybe? Although, I don't like Cameron Diaz either. So, he's got something there.”

“He sells way too much stuff. In fact my children made me buy his book.”

“I have to take off points for the fact that you have to click to read the posts. I really really hate that. Not a lot of peeves here.”

“Extra clicks suck ass. Therefore, Maddox sucks ass!”

FREQUENCY – 1.0
“Maddox almost never posts. The single point is based solely on reputation.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 30% Yes
“Sure, if Maddox bothered to post entries regularly.”

“No. Hated it.”

“Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. He doesn't update very frequently so it gets old pretty quick.”

“Yes, I think I would. Unfortunately, he doesn't post regularly.”

“No. Put up a complete fucking Web feed and I’ll think about it. He’s not worth checking on every day like some little kid or a fucking invalid! Do something for someone else, Maddox! If you're not going to post on a regular basis, put up a goddamn feed!”

OVERALL – 74.5
“You'd think that releasing a new book would cause Maddox to update his site with fresh material to entice people into wanting to buy his stuff. Instead, all anybody gets is stale (yet still amusing) entries and information about his book tour. Sad. Maddox used to be one of the blogging greats.”

“At first look, I did not want to like this blog. My initial reaction was that it would be terrible, and dark. But to my surprise, I found him to have a very dry and sarcastic sense of humor, which hit all the right notes for me. 'Idaho Blows' had me actually laughing out loud. He reminds me a little of my brother at times, which isn't necessarily good. I do have to admit that after a while the smartypants 'fuck you all' attitude of this blog would get really old.”

Dave Barry’s Blog

Dave Barry’s Blog is one the funniest blogs on the Internet, according to Yahoo!

Thing is, if you’re expecting Dave Barry’s Blog to be similar to his weekly syndicated columns, you will be clearly disappointed.

”Dave Barry’s Blog is nothing but a compilation of links to other sites. It’s kind of like Fark but not as in-depth.”

“Dave Barry probably has nothing to do with this site. It’s probably updated by his cousin Larry or some flunky assistant. This might as well be ‘Joe Blow’s List of Crappy Links.’ It has nothing to do with Dave Barry.”

CONTENT – 4.5
“Totally random, which usually doesn't bother me much. This time it did. I'm taking off lots of points because it’s not even anything he wrote, its all stuff submitted by other people and he doesn't comment on it or anything! Where is his effort in this blog? Secondly, I didn't happen across anything that was even funny. I did not laugh even once reading through this blog.”

“He doesn't really write much original content. It's mostly just links to other stories/sites sent in by his readers ala Fark.”

“I used to read his newspaper columns, at least he sort of wrote those. This blog appears to be nothing but links to other articles.”

“Ugh, no, I don't want to navigate back and forth. Give me something besides the links, Dave.”

“What content? It's tons and tons of links. It's not the Dave Barry I know and loved from my local newspaper back in New York or Miami. Tons of links to crap.”

DESIGN – 5.9
“Corporate blah! I liked the simple design of his old Blogspot site better.”

“For something corporate it's not too annoying. There were no ads and you can comment.”

“Professional, unique.”

“Too cluttered.”

“It's clean I guess but almost to the point of being antiseptic. I find it extremely boring and unattractive.”

“Ad overload. Ad nauseum.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 3.7
“He doesn’t write anything. He gets no points from me.”

“Good writing, entertaining entries.”

“He doesn't write much original content. Less effort equals less points.”

"Biggest disappointment of any blog I've ever visited."

“With an average of five words per post, you can't go wrong.”

"What writing? Am I missing something here? Mr. Barry did not write! Saying, ‘Here, click this link to go read something that was forwarded to me’ does not count as blog writing. Sorry. I'm giving a couple points here because the people who did write the items did a fairly good job of it.”
“He barely writes anything, but what he does write is written like a pro.”

INTANGIBLES – 4.7
“Ads and links with little information. I hate this site.”

“I could only take a point off. I never thought I'd do it for the posts being too short. There could be one or two more sentences per post. Even Fark puts in a little more effort.”

“This blog hits several pet peeves. I want to go to the blog and read it, not click to get to each post. It gave me pop-up ads. My anti-virus program went berserk because the Web site was trying to get my husband's social security number (what the heck?). Plus, there's stupid ads ... classmates.com? Puhleeze.”

“Too many links and ads. Extremely short posts that link me somewhere else.”

FREQUENCY – 10.0
“There are several posts at Dave Barry’s Blog every day.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 18% Yes
“Hell no!”

“I used to, I might again.”

“Nope. If I'm looking for a frequently updated page with funny links, I'll go to Fark.com.”

“Ocassionally.”

“Only if my life depended on it. I really, really didn't like it.”

“No. Give me the newspaper Dave Barry.”

OVERALL – 55.5
When a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist barely avoids getting our lowest score for writing, you know something is wrong.

Our reviewers differed on how they scored Dave Barry’s Blog, but the comments were almost unanimous.

“I am a huge fan of Dave Barry, but this is too much.”

“I used to read Dave Barry in syndication in my newspaper many moons ago and I remember thinking he was a funny guy, so I was anxious to view his blog and see what he had in store for me. I was so disappointed! Sorry, Mr. Barry, but your blog is not funny. It annoyed the crap out of me. I won't be coming back.”

Fat Eye For The Skinny Guy

"Not posting" is all the rage and Fat Eye For The Skinny Guy is doing his best to become a master.

Fat Dude has only posted a few times since the Best of Blogs contest. Needless to say, this subject played a major role with many of our reviewers scores and comments.

"Really quite good fun. What a shame he appears to have stopped blogging. The content has a unique angle (rare these days) and this guy is really quite entertaining. Lots of his posts have subject matter I have never seen before."

"It does look like he's bored of his blog. The majority of posts in January were surrounding his inability to view his own blog which got a bit tiring after a while."

CONTENT – 5.7
"The content was decent before he stopped posting, but not great."

"Life in New York, celebs, Jersey girls ... a variety of subjects, all very funny."

"The topics themselves are not really anything funny, but the way he presents them and the things he says cracks me up."

"I'm fascinated by the blogs that write about nothing but write it in such a way that I'm inclined to read it ... and actually laugh at what they wrote! Yay for that!"

"I find him kind of offensive and really have nothing positive to say. I don't like him. I don't find him funny. I don't think writing stories about being held hostage is amusing and I think he is a little too adolescent for my big girl discerning taste."

DESIGN – 7.1
"At first glance the design is really good – great colors, neat fonts, easy to read. The architecture of the site is appalling though and that does spoil it a bit, but the overall look and feel is great. Its easy on the eye, not overly cluttered and really quite clean."

"Nothing horrible, but nothing really unique either."

"Nice green background, good graphics. I liked the ever-changing profile/profile pic."

"I'm not real thrilled with the army green color itself, but overall the colors mesh nicely. The cartoon guy at the top, with the remote in the armchair and his hand in his pants, reminds me of my husband ... except with a shirt on."

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 7.6
"I kind of like his style of writing. It’s just difficult to get a good read because there’s just not much going on."

"He writes really well - excellent spelling and grammar."

"The posts are pretty funny and the grammar seems fine."

"I wasn’t impressed with either aspect. Several typos but he did mention he was writing without being able to see what he wrote? So maybe I should cut him a little slack. I think the things he said were funny, but they weren’t necessarily written well."

"Going back into his archives is really hard – his site navigation really sucks – but after persevering his content used to be really well written, funny and thought provoking."

INTANGIBLES – 6.1
"Huge pet peeves here. The architecture of the site is hideous. The calendar makes it impossible to view pre-June, the archives can only be accessed via the drop down with no idea of when they were created. I loathe categorization being the only way you can access previous content – blogging should always included dated archives."

"He needs to manage his comments against spam. Either delete the spam or don’t allow anonymous comments. Wading through his impossible to find archives was quite annoying because many of his comments were spam. I eventually stopped reading the comments. He doesn’t acknowledge the comments anyway."

"Infrequent posting is my No. 1 pet peeve."

"The sidebars were confusing to me. I like the quirkiness of them being rather cryptic but at the same time, it annoyed me because I didn't know what the heck he was talking about."

FREQUENCY - 0.0
"According to the poll on his site, 22 percent of Fat Dude’s readers ‘hearts are empty’ and ‘no longer know what laughter is.’ Of course, the lack of posting means ‘jack shit’ to twice an many."

"He's only written six posts all year - the content is way stale by now."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY - 25% Yes
"If he updated yes. I would stop checking after a while though – many blogs out there, why keep visiting one that's not updated."

"Not anymore. He seems to have abandoned his blog or gotten too busy with his gig at Cinematical.com."

"Yes, if the guy started posting again."

"I wouldn't read it regularly because the most recent update is dated sometime in March!"

"Yes! Funny stuff."

"I would if he posted on it!"

"I might, but what's the point since he doesn't seem to post regularly."

OVERALL - 62.8
Aside from a handful of extremely low scores, most of our reviewers gave Fat Eye For The Skinny Guy relatively high marks across the board. The lack of posts hurt the overall perception of this blog for most reviewers.

"I loved Fat Dude, then he got married. I do not have a problem with that, per se, but when it happened he stopped posting on his blog. He will live in my heart forever, I suppose."

"I didn’t think this blog deserved to be a finalist for the BoBs because he had basically already quit blogging. He doesn’t post, so why should we care?"