Snarkywood
One of the first reviews for Snarkywood mentioned the premise of “snark as comedy.”
Apparently, not everyone finds snarky comments funny … and that sentiment lead to relatively mixed reviews for Snarkywood.
CONTENT – 7.0
“The concept of this blog does nothing for me. I have a strange feeling I would feel differently if the comments were actually funny. I went through every post and just barely chuckled. The more I define the word ‘snark’ in my own head, the more I realize it just does nothing for me.”
“I like the structure of this blog; photos of celebrities with short catty captions/comments. It's simple, yet entertaining.”
“This blog is hilarious! I love this sort of humor, it's right up my alley! I wish I could write for this blog, that's how great I think it is!”
“What the hell is this? Because it certainly isn't a blog. It's just a bunch of people making unfunny comments about celebrity photos. Maybe I'm just not in the mood, but I don't get it. But I give them points for effort, since they obviously waste a lot of time on this.”
"Hysterical entries. The snark on Hasselhoff is a must-read. Their penchant for hyperbole and grasp of metaphors makes reading this particular blog very engaging (On Whitney Houston: ‘She’s like a princess cut diamond with 76 facets of Crazy.’ [sic])”
“While this is not an original concept (I've seen it in a few magazines before) the execution is brilliant. These are all funny people.”
“I'm not a real fan of Hollywood gossip but this was funny. Good sense of humor and the collaboration makes it interesting.”
DESIGN – 6.9
“The design is simple with a nice use of photos. I don’t like the green or the font used for the tagline but the sidebar was clean and well done.”
“Needs a more custom masthead or layout, but other than that, it's near perfect.”
“Simple, uncluttered, clean, what's not to love?”
“Decent banner, but everything else is pretty dull. I expected a little more from an independent site.”
“The design is pretty clean and very green.”
“Ads. Yuck. Nice header though.”
QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 6.9
“Great compatibility between the writers. Good use of grammar, lexicon and punctuation.”
“The writing is witty and clever. Are those the same things? Oh, and damn funny too!”
“The writing is OK. Nothing special.”
“What I saw was pretty coherent.”
“Conversational. The use of slang is entertaining.”
INTANGIBLES – 6.3
“The only drawbacks are the ads and that they don't post often enough.”
“Google Ads are a scam. Are they actually making money with this?”
“They don't post every day. However, their posts are quali-TAY!”
“It was annoying to have to go to another page to find the archives.”
“The ads were not intrusive, but they were still there. The posts were a little long for me, especially since most of it wasn’t funny. The organization of the archives sucks.”
FREQUENCY – 1.0
“From what we can gather, the gang at Snarkywood averages a little better than one post a month.”
WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 48% Yes
“They post so infrequently, I might add it to my Bloglines if they have a full feed. If not, no chance.”
“No. It’s not my kind of blog. It’s not clever or smart enough for me.”
“Yes! Hilarious stuff. I've already bookmarked it.”
“No, I read dlisted already.”
“I'd be foolish not to read this regularly. Into my bookmarks it goes!”
“No, I wouldn't read this regularly. Not my taste.”
“A thousand times yes. I just added it to my blogroll. Where has this blog been all my life?”
“No, not a fan of gossip pages.”
OVERALL – 74.4
Apparently, not everyone finds snarky comments funny … and that sentiment lead to relatively mixed reviews for Snarkywood.
CONTENT – 7.0
“The concept of this blog does nothing for me. I have a strange feeling I would feel differently if the comments were actually funny. I went through every post and just barely chuckled. The more I define the word ‘snark’ in my own head, the more I realize it just does nothing for me.”
“I like the structure of this blog; photos of celebrities with short catty captions/comments. It's simple, yet entertaining.”
“This blog is hilarious! I love this sort of humor, it's right up my alley! I wish I could write for this blog, that's how great I think it is!”
“What the hell is this? Because it certainly isn't a blog. It's just a bunch of people making unfunny comments about celebrity photos. Maybe I'm just not in the mood, but I don't get it. But I give them points for effort, since they obviously waste a lot of time on this.”
"Hysterical entries. The snark on Hasselhoff is a must-read. Their penchant for hyperbole and grasp of metaphors makes reading this particular blog very engaging (On Whitney Houston: ‘She’s like a princess cut diamond with 76 facets of Crazy.’ [sic])”
“While this is not an original concept (I've seen it in a few magazines before) the execution is brilliant. These are all funny people.”
“I'm not a real fan of Hollywood gossip but this was funny. Good sense of humor and the collaboration makes it interesting.”
DESIGN – 6.9
“The design is simple with a nice use of photos. I don’t like the green or the font used for the tagline but the sidebar was clean and well done.”
“Needs a more custom masthead or layout, but other than that, it's near perfect.”
“Simple, uncluttered, clean, what's not to love?”
“Decent banner, but everything else is pretty dull. I expected a little more from an independent site.”
“The design is pretty clean and very green.”
“Ads. Yuck. Nice header though.”
QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 6.9
“Great compatibility between the writers. Good use of grammar, lexicon and punctuation.”
“The writing is witty and clever. Are those the same things? Oh, and damn funny too!”
“The writing is OK. Nothing special.”
“What I saw was pretty coherent.”
“Conversational. The use of slang is entertaining.”
INTANGIBLES – 6.3
“The only drawbacks are the ads and that they don't post often enough.”
“Google Ads are a scam. Are they actually making money with this?”
“They don't post every day. However, their posts are quali-TAY!”
“It was annoying to have to go to another page to find the archives.”
“The ads were not intrusive, but they were still there. The posts were a little long for me, especially since most of it wasn’t funny. The organization of the archives sucks.”
FREQUENCY – 1.0
“From what we can gather, the gang at Snarkywood averages a little better than one post a month.”
WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 48% Yes
“They post so infrequently, I might add it to my Bloglines if they have a full feed. If not, no chance.”
“No. It’s not my kind of blog. It’s not clever or smart enough for me.”
“Yes! Hilarious stuff. I've already bookmarked it.”
“No, I read dlisted already.”
“I'd be foolish not to read this regularly. Into my bookmarks it goes!”
“No, I wouldn't read this regularly. Not my taste.”
“A thousand times yes. I just added it to my blogroll. Where has this blog been all my life?”
“No, not a fan of gossip pages.”
OVERALL – 74.4
posted by BlogLaughs at
Tuesday, December 05, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home