Where the Hell was I?

Charlie Hatton’s Where the Hell was I? made it into our Top-50, but mixed reviews kept it from going too far up the charts.

CONTENT – 6.3
"Solid, entertaining writing."

"Interesting, just not that funny."

"Straight forward."

"Rather satisfying read."

"On the surface, this looks like a really good blog. It’s tough to beat a comedic writer writing a blog for free, right? Thing is, it’s just not all that funny. Maybe I’m missing something, but you’d think his ‘best posts’ would be his best posts. I read all of them and didn’t laugh once. If this guy makes a living being funny, something is seriously wrong with this world."

DESIGN – 6.2
"Straight forward."

"Nothing too bad, but it’s kind of ugly. I guess it’s just a matter of style, but I’m not crazy about it."

"Easy to navigate blog."

"The yellow highlights and quote boxes just don’t fit."

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 8.1
"He’s a good writer."

"I like the quality of his writing, especially the food posts. He really sucks you in with his ability to turn a phrase."

"The quality of his writing is much more impressive than the content."

INTANGIBLES – 5.5
"Ads everywhere, donation box, wish list, merchandise for sale, long posts, and a side panel slightly longer than my dick."

"I couldn't get the blog to load."

"Too much begging."

"He looks like a young Paul Giamatti."

FREQUENCY – 10.0
"Charlie posts nearly every day."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 54% Yes
"Sure."

"Perhaps!"

"Contemplating putting it in my bookmarks."

"Hell, no."

"I really ripped this blog, but I’m going to subscribe to the feed anyway. I just feel this blog should be funnier."

OVERALL – 75.8

WFMU’s Beware of the Blog

WFMU’s Beware of the Blog is a clearinghouse for all things entertaining.

Your mileage may vary, but you’re bound to find something that interests you if you look hard enough.

CONTENT – 7.2
“Funny stuff, but you really have to dig around.”

“I did enjoy the post about the Solid Gold dancers. I loved Andy Gibb on that show.”

“I’ll admit, I don’t have the patience to check out everything they post, but some of it is very interesting.”

“The Jean Shepherd reference was pretty funny. It's a little too techy for my taste, but I did get a chuckle or two out of it.”

“It kind of reminds me of Fark. There is a lot of good stuff but it’s kind of scatter-shot.”

DESIGN – 5.8
“Ever heard of ‘less is more?’”

“Way too much going on here.”

“Not a fan of white and yellow text on black.”

“I don’t know what else you can do with that much stuff, but someone ought to give it a try.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 8.2
“Every post features solid work from professional writers.”

“The funny stuff usually isn’t the writing, but the writing is very good.”

“Real writers who actually know grammar rules. A rarity among blogs.”

INTANGIBLES – 7.0
“The only thing that bothers me is the information overload.”

“Click-throughs are just a little annoying. My short attention span can't handle the long posts.”

“No ads. None of the usual pet peeves.”

FREQUENCY – 10.0
“WFMU makes several posts each day.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 48% Yes
“I do!”

“No.”

“I check in every now and then, but I can’t handle it everyday.”

“I doubt it.”

OVERALL – 80.7

Crazy Tracy

Crazy Tracy has been around for more than four years. You don’t have to read too many entries to realize this blog has been one crazy ride.

However, you might have to read a few more entries to find the humor.

CONTENT - 6.8
"I understand this blog used to be really funny, but it’s just not like that anymore. I love this blog. I genuinely appreciate the honesty. It’s just not a really humorous blog."

"‘Life as she's living it.’ Compelling read!"

"Was this a humor blog? It seemed much more personal."

"It’s just, ‘eh.’ It didn’t draw me in."

DESIGN - 8.8
"The design is original and matches the theme of the blog very well. Fantastic design!"

"I like the design."

"Custom, easy to navigate."

"Nice, custom design."

"The text didn’t line up with the box my first few visits, but it looks good tonight."

WRITING - 8.1
"Very personal. Intimate. Thanks for sharing."

"Good use of language, spelling and punctuation. Writing style is as if it were a conversation I'm eavesdropping in on."

"Just OK."

INTANGIBLES - 8.3
"Liberals and lesbians rock!"

"Not too sure how I feel about wish lists. Glad to see there were no ads."

"Not a whole lot to bitch about here. I’m not crazy about the wish lists, but she’s got some nice extra features."

"Some of the posts are a little long."

FREQUENCY - 3.0
"Tracy has averaged a little more than one post a week this past year."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY - 50% Yes
"Possibly."

"Yep."

"Probably not."

"Yes, I just bookmarked it."

"Nope."

OVERALL - 76.7

Pork Tornado

Pork Tornado managed a relatively high spot on our Top-50 list. However, I get the feeling it would have been much higher if Dusty Scott posted more often.

CONTENT – 8.1
"Solid 9. Good posts. Great humor and insights. Would be a 10, if the guy would post regularly."

"The content reminds me of the ‘angry white man’ rant. It's amusing, but I can only take so much. I get this at home!"

"The guy listed Girls Gone Wild 7 as his favorite movie. That’s funny. I don’t care who you are. That’s funny."

"The posts are a bit long, but still kept my attention for the most part."

"Hilarious! The worst album covers post had me crying I was laughing so hard."

DESIGN – 6.6
"The only things I didn't like about the design were that there were no dates on the entries and the archives were a little odd. But, those are pretty minor."

"The design looks good, it just doesn’t work so well. The archives suck."

"I like the design. I don’t like ads."

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 8.1
"The writing is very good. I just wish he would resume posting."

"The posts are a little long, but the stories are well-done."

INTANGIBLES – 5.4
"Too many ads, long posts."

"The left side panel is confusing. The worst album covers post (which is hilarious) looks like an ad. The link to his work profile looks like an ad. The other two ads are actually ads for his own merchandise."

"I think he looks very similar to Vince Vaughn ... in a good way."

"The guy reminds me of Pee Wee Herman’s nemesis in Pee Wee’s Big Adventure. You know, the guy who stole the bike?"

"He’s a really good artist. He should display his art more prominently on this site."

FREQUENCY – 0.0
"Dusty Scott hasn’t made an original post in a while."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 57% Yes
"Sure."

"I used to read him regularly then he stopped posting for a few months, no warning, no nothing. I actually thought he abandoned his blog."

"Nope."

"Yeah. I just hope he starts posting regularly again."

OVERALL – 82.5

Oblivio

Mixed reviews haven’t plagued us in a while, but Oblivio brings us back to a familiar "love it or hate it" theme ... at least as far as content.

CONTENT – 6.1
"I don’t know if I’d call this guy funny, but I like him. He’s a good writer. Right now, I’m thinking he’s more clever or witty than funny. We’ll see."

"My eyes glazed over when I started reading this. I don't think it would be fair for me to rate this blog, as I'm not into technical jargon or technical humor. It just didn't grab me."

"I was really surprised at his picture when I looked at the about page. He is much younger than I had imagined. He’s a wise man for his age."

"This blog didn't seem very funny to me. A little odd, maybe, but it didn't even evoke a small chuckle."

"This isn’t really a humor blog, but it’s still well-done. It’s a good personal blog."

DESIGN – 8.3
"The design seemed pretty slick and fairly easy to navigate."

"Very clean."

"I liked the design at his business site better, but this one’s still good. I’m not real crazy about the single color. A little accent color would go a long way on this page."

"Very well-done, simple design."

"The guy does this for a living. It’s good."

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 7.0
"Some posts are stream-of-conscious. Some are not. Should I write like this some more? Do you think anyone would notice? I better stop."

"He seemed to write OK but I was so bored by his posts that I didn't finish one."

"I like his casual writing style."

"This read like one of those 'nothingness people columns' you see in newspapers. Kind of like USA Today's Craig Wilson. I liked it."

INTANGIBLES – 8.1
"I love the thing on the left that gives you a random post from his favorites. That’s so cool."

"There are large gaps in his posting history."

"He’s got a couple 'hire me' links, but it’s not like he’s got flashing Google ads or anything like that. He’s got an about page, favorite posts, and other extra features. Not much to complain about here."

FREQUENCY – 2.0
"Oblivio has averaged about two posts a week if you go all the way back to the beginning. Recently, its been more like once a month. That being said, we’ll split the difference and give it two points."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 39% Yes
"I’ll try to add him to my feed reader, but he doesn’t post enough to check all the time myself. His site is perfect for a feed reader."

"Never again will I read this blog. BOR-ING!"

"Yes, if he updates more regularly."

"Yuck. No."

"Yes, very good."

"Not a chance."

OVERALL - 69.3

little.red.boat

Anna Pickard’s little.red.boat is one of the most popular British blogs in history. It has been honored with several Bloggies nominations and victories over the past five years.

Not surprisingly, our reviewers felt the same way.

CONTENT - 8.3
"For me, little.red.boat is a genuine peek inside a life I would normally never know. I’m American and I really don’t care about anything going on in England. Somehow, Anna made me care about something across the pond. She’s a very good writer, and I appreciate the life she shares with us."

"I enjoyed the swear word of the day."

"It’s just OK. Nothing all that funny."

"Anna is fucking hilarious!"

"Aside from a few too long posts and random acts of bad grammar, I have to say that I enjoyed this blog."

"I hide behind the anonymity of my blog, so I always admire someone who puts themselves out there for all the world to see."

DESIGN - 6.8
"Very clean and easy to read."

"The font was a little too small."

"Nothing special. The colors are annoying."

"The original graphic gets big points from me, but the frames are a little distracting. This design is still much better than most. Good job."

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR - 8.2
"The quality of writing is very good."

"The story behind calling this blog little.red.boat is simply wonderful. Read that and you’ll understand why I think this blog is so good. The writing is impeccable."

"I don’t like poetry, but the other posts are very good."

"The writing is very conversational. I get lost with some of the British colloquialisms, but that’s part of this blog’s charm."

INTANGIBLES - 7.3
"One day, I'll figure out how people justify the donation buttons."

"No ads, but she does have a wish list and a donate button. I’m fine with that, but I know it pisses some people off."

"Anna mentioned my blog once, so I’m biased. It’s still a really good blog, no?"

"Some of the posts are just too damn long. I have to be in the right mood to read a long post and I’m usually not in that kind of mood."

"I wish she offered a complete version of her posts for feed readers. I love her blog, but I hate extra clicks."

FREQUENCY - 10
"Anna has averaged better than five posts a week the past two years. [God, I love those monthly archive numbers.]"

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY - 62% Yes
"Sure."

"I'd pop in sometimes."

"I already do."

"Nope. Not my kind of blog."

"I used to read it, but the posts are just too long."

OVERALL - 90.5

Touch My Belly

Gideon Boomer has been convincing strangers to touch his belly since 1999.

Remarkably, Touch My Belly has remained humorous all these years despite a simple, yet seemingly repetitive process. Our reviewers loved it.

CONTENT – 7.9
“I'm torn on this. I love the concept for the project, but the repetition is kind of boring. How many times will somebody touching his belly be funny? I think we've passed the limit. He does occasionally write something amusing along with the latest picture which does keep things fresh, so I'm bumping him up to an 8 from a 6.”

"’One trick pony’ concept blog. Surprisingly he's had it for years, and I'm always surprised he gets complete strangers to touch his belly.”

“Consistently good.”

“It's not just the photos, but the captions that made me laugh out loud. How can you not laugh at Disco Stu? I'm surprised this guy doesn't have hundreds of comments on each post.”

“This is a great idea! And all of the pictures are unique and made completely by the blog's author. How awesome is that! He even has a funny caption in addition a witty write-up for every picture. Freakin' hilarious.”

“The way he looks away for most pictures is just priceless. I have no idea why I like this site so much.”

“My favorite picture that I saw on the front page was the one with ‘Disco Stu.’ I can't believe he even ran into someone dressed like that, let alone got him to touch his belly and hold a cigarette at the same time.”

“A couple of the photos made me hot. Can I say that?”

DESIGN – 5.8
“A little boring, but I don't care. The pictures are easy to see and nothing is cluttering up the page or the posts. It looks a little too much like a default Blogger template, but I don't care because the content's so funny.”

“Average, uninspired.”

“Hideous Blogger template, but gets the job done I guess. At least you can read it.”

“Of all the Blogger templates, I hate this one the most.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 7.1
“There's so little writing that it's hard to tell. What's there looks fine, but I have to knock off points because he could certainly give more story with each entry.”

“Not much writing, this is a photo driven blog.”

“He's very good at writing short captions to the pictures that are pretty damn funny. His write-ups that he does for how he got some of those pictures are funny in their own right.”

“The writing is relatively funny. Much better than most photo sites, but it’s still a photo site.”

INTANGIBLES – 8.5
“The page is too long, which makes it a tough load with all those photos. I wish there was more background given as to how he came up with the idea.”

“The guy is a talented illustrator, and anybody who visits should follow the link to Me Illustration Blog to check it out.”

“I don't know exactly what it is, but the uniqueness behind this blog and the quality of writing really make me like it.”

FREQUENCY – 3.0
“Gideon averages 1-2 posts a week, but the numbers are skewed because he often posts multiple photos.”

“This is going to sound weird, but the lack of frequent posts is probably good for this blog. If he posted more often, I’d get sick of it. I know you can’t give him more points for posting less, but it totally works for this blog.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 78% Yes
“I already do.”

“Nope.”

“I already do. It’s the perfect blog for a feed reader. Just when I forget about this blog, Gideon posts a picture and it makes me laugh."

“I've seen it around, though won't put it on my sidepanel. It's good for a quick giggle, if that, but nothing life affirming or laugh out loud amusing about it. It's kind of like Post Secret, wherein you know what to expect when you click to it, however it lacks Post Secret's schmaltziness and sense of community.”

“Sure.”

“Yes, I just added it to my Bloglines feed reader.”

OVERALL – 85.3

Saddam’s Cyber Palace

Saddam’s Cyber Palace is a satirical political humor site. Even though this site’s politics are opposite of some of the other sites we’ve reviewed, the results were pretty much the same.

CONTENT – 4.7
“The concept could have been funny, if he had actually written funny journal entries every few days or so. But posting other people's cartoons and only writing your own posts every few weeks is pretty lame.”

“I don't get it. This blog is supposed to be written by Saddam Hussein? If that's the case, then why run cartoons lampooning Islam which Hussein would never do? It's a unique idea for a blog, but it should be consistent in voice. That being said, most of the content isn't original, and I didn't find much of it funny.”

“A very good idea that just wasn’t done very well.”

“I did enjoy the post about the virgins (aka nuns).”

“This number would be higher if more than half the posts weren't rehashed political cartoons.”

“I usually hate sites that try to be funny by focusing on politics. It’s really, really difficult to get it right. This one doesn’t do it either, but it’s still better than most of the other sites we’ve reviewed.”

DESIGN – 3.3
“A little too much black.”

“The font in the posts is a little small and difficult to read. The black background on the whole page is also distracting with light text. This is usually personal preference, but that's what I'm getting paid to review. The score would be higher if the posts themselves had a different background color to make them more individualized.”

“Awful. Yellow, orange, cream, and turquoise type?! It's a difficult-to-read mess. No attempt was made at all to reflect any Saddam Hussein ‘flavor.’ Completely blown opportunity to pick-up on design elements from Saddam's actual palaces.”

“This designs sucks.”

“What an abortion! I would have the designer killed.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 5.7
“I'm hitting the middle here, because I can't tell what is original and what is copied. Pretty inconsistent.”

“He's supposed to be writing as Saddam Hussein but he crosses back and forth so you can't really tell who he's writing as sometimes.”

“Not much writing. What little there is isn’t too bad, but nothing special.”

INTANGIBLES – 4.0
“It won't load. I'm getting a big black screen, that's it.”

“So many things bother me here, but the stupid poll about Pamela Anderson and Kid Rock takes the cake. Why? What has that got to do with Hussein?”

“Middle of the road ... can't think of anything that pops out at me.”

“Lots of ads and ad-ons. The real person behind this satirical site is presumably against the war – which is great – but the side panel is just too cluttered.”

FREQUENCY – 1.0
“Saddam used to post more often, but his current incarceration has slowed his posting habits.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 14% Yes
“Maybe.”

“Yes, if he updated it more regularly.”

“No, I regret having seen it once.”

“No, he needs to post more often.”

OVERALL – 51.3

Bloggin' Outloud

At this point in time, I’m not quite sure which site listed Bloggin’ Outloud as one of the funniest sites on the Internet.

Needless to say, our reviews not only disagree. Some of them seem quite pleased this blogger decided to stop blogging earlier this month.

CONTENT – 4.3
“More proof that I just don't get conservative humor. To each his own.”

“Meh. I guess it's okay if you're into this kind of psuedo-news aggregator thing. I kept looking for the funny, but didn't find anything to laugh at.”

“I have to give points for effort, but I just didn't find much funny on this blog.”

“It's a bit distracting, but amusing and interesting nonetheless. Interesting click throughs, and MP3s etc.”

“Homophobic rants are not funny. I hope there's a special place in hell for people who genuinely promote hate in Jesus' name."

“Some posts are a little funny, but not that interesting.”

“There's no real rhyme or reason to this blog, and you can tell from the posts. The blog isn't really 'bad' per se, but not enough there to keep me coming back or reading all the way through the posts.”

DESIGN – 3.9
“A complete mess. There's so much going on in those three columns that it's difficult to know where to focus your attention.”

“Wow. Chaos central. The clock thing scared me when it went off. I thought something was wrong with my computer. I don't quite understand the double comment options. It was really tough for me to focus on the content with all the crap going on in the design.”

“Very busy with two sidebars, and that doesn't make it any easier to read. Pasting the Haloscan trackbacks directly into blog posts may have seemed like a good idea at first, but doing that just makes it look like the formatting on the blog got messed up somewhere.”

“It’s a long download for me, and I’m on a T-1 line. I can’t imagine the dial-up folks. Clunky, slow, and relatively ugly. The design stinks.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 5.1
“Not that the writing had bad grammar, but it just didn't flow. I found myself skipping to the end of posts or going on to the next one because the one I was reading couldn't keep my interest.”

“Strictly middle-of-the-road here. Nothing terrible. Nothing impressive.”

“Grammar, punctuation and content appear to be in order.”

“The writing is average, at best.”

INTANGIBLES – 2.7
“There is just so much of everything that it hurts to look at it. If they made even a small effort to organize the blog, get rid of some of the crap cluttering it up, and learn to use extended entries instead of scrollbars everywhere, it wouldn't be nearly so annoying.”

“There are a lot of things to complain about here, but consider yourself lucky if you’re not on this site at the top of the hour. The little graphic is an alarm clock, but the sound is like a gong going off once for every hour like a grandfather clock. This alone pushes the intangibles for this site to a big, fat zero. I’ve never experienced anything more annoying at any site.”

“He makes a big deal about saying his site is ‘ad free.’ Too bad it has so many other linking, blinking logos. Yuck!”

FREQUENCY – 1.0
“There was a time when this blog was more frequent, but that drifted away toward the end.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 7% Yes
“No.”

“Probably not.”

“No. I’m glad this blog closed up shop.”

OVERALL – 47.2

April Winchell

Some our reviewers are fans of April Winchell. Others didn’t know anything about her.

The reviews seemed to run the gamut, but April managed better than average scores in every category.

“April is completely whimsical and real. I love that she honors her parents and the kiddie empire they had. She manages to stay grounded, funny and not the typical victimized ‘child of a star.’ She's a celeb in her own right and her Weblog reflects that.”

CONTENT – 7.1
“An interesting blog that I'll probably bookmark, but I don't find it particularly funny. Apparently she's a famous radio personality because she's always referencing her ‘show’ but there's no ‘about me’ link so I can know for sure who she is or what she does.”

“Cool pop culture stuff. Not really all that funny, but I’ll add it to my feeds.”

“April Winchell is one of my favorites. I love her.”

“I didn’t know anything about April until I got the link. I loved her dad, so I was pretty kind in my review. It’s a nice blog.”

DESIGN – 6.4
“Kind of boring and difficult to read after a while with that bright blue-purple background. Nothing terribly offensive, but nothing terrific either.”

“The layout isn't too bad, but the purple font on that light blue background is not easy to read.”

“Simple and clean.”

“Too purple.”

“The design isn’t all that bad, but I’m not crazy about the purple.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 7.6
“She occasionally drops a ‘t’ when she is typing, which is what keeps her so real and down to earth. We all make screw-ups while typing our blogs. Her writing is funny, conversational and with an amusing narrative. I really like it.”

“I really like her writing, and think she has a talent for entries that are quick well-written reads.”

“Her grammar isn’t that great. I noticed a handful of errors without really looking for them. Her writing is enjoyable, nonetheless.”

INTANGIBLES – 7.2
“When will people stop the panhandling? I also couldn't figure out how to find the archives, so I had to take off points for that. I don't get it. Did she just start blogging or what?”

“Fantastic collection of audio clips.”

“Anybody that has a ‘CLICK HERE TO DONATE’ button in their header automatically loses points.”

“Why is a Hollywood celeb hitting us up for donations? Shouldn't it be the other way around?”

FREQUENCY – 10.0
“April Winchell posts at least once a day.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 54% Yes
“I already do!”

“No.”

“I don't know about ‘regularly’ but I think I will be visiting again, yes.”

“I have.”

“Just bookmarked her.”

“Yes! Not bad at all! I will be back.”

OVERALL – 80.7