huh, no shit?
Most of the reviewers of huh, no shit? were non-committal about visiting the site on a regular basis. Lots of kinda-sorta-maybe, almost-but-not-quite comments.
With that in mind, our third straight review where the blog managed a cumulative score in the low-70s isn't nearly as bad as some would seem.
CONTENT - 6.2
“I didn't feel strongly about this blog either way. I liked it, but in kind of the way I like peas. Peas are OK, but you wouldn't build the meal around them. They're just .. peas. Nice and mildly amusing peas, but still peas.”
“This is nothing more than posted pictures with an accompanying, half-assed, brief comment.”
“Somewhat regular posts, can't seem to quantify exactly how I feel about the content. Some of the pics I've seen elsewhere. The writing doesn't jump out at me, grabbing my attention and beating it into comedic submission. I think the URL is fitting though, because my overall first impression is somewhere between mediocre and ‘huh?’”
“I enjoy the random photos and short entries. Shoutbox Karaoke is always worth a look.”
“There's really not a lot of content. Most posts consist of a sentences and a funny picture they found on the internet. I wouldn't exactly categorize this as a humor blog, but I kind of dig its style.”
“There doesn't seem to be much effort here.”
“A little too much ‘aren't I funny because I'm writing silly nonsense instead of actually trying to be funny.’ The posts that actually aim to be funny are pretty funny though. Also, evolution, secular humanism and vegetarianism don't really hit my funny bone.”
“Every now and then it’s clever, fantastic, very funny. Other times ... meh. Overall, not so bad.”
DESIGN - 5.2
“It looked like a standard template, but I can't say much more for my own page.”
“Nothing special here. It's easy enough to read, which is all I really care about anyway.”
“Basic Blogger template. Blah.”
“It looks like they played with a Blogger template just enough to almost fuck it up. Spend $20 on a new template from one of the many talented, cheap designers out there.”
QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR - 5.3
“Blogs without much writing don’t deserve a lot of points here, but what they do write isn’t bad.”
“Honestly, there's not enough writing here for me to even give it a score on it's writing/grammar.”
“The writing is kept to a minimum but what there is of it is humorous and composed correctly.”
“I only came across like one grammar error, but you better not have many errors when your posts are all under three sentences.”
“The best part of this blog is the sprinkling of haikus he/she/they post.”
“The quality of writing is good when they do it, but they don’t do enough to rate it against a narrative blog.”
INTANGIBLES - 7.0
“Stupid name for a blog.”
“They have a link to Jorg3, the piece of shit who hijacked my blog. Other than that, nothing else pisses me off.”
“The only major pet peeve I saw was inside jokes. If you make those kinds of jokes, you have to make it funny even if you don't know the people involved.”
“Um? What the heck is the audio file on the profile supposed to be?”
“The sidebar gets a little clunky with all of the political links, but I’m on the same side of the fence on most of those so I don’t mind.”
FREQUENCY - 10.0
“Authors indygirl and Pablo post every day.”
WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY - 29% Yes
“I liked it, but not enough to add it to my daily reads. It's ... pleasant.”
“I'd check up on it every so often.”
“Way back in 2004 I did stumble upon this blog and read it regularly until I was left with that feeling that one gets after eating Chinese food. I just needed more. And sadly, unlike Chinese food, this blog did not deliver. I was in the mood for moo-shoo and I ended up with the pu pu platter.”
“Already do!”
“No way, Jose.”
“It doesn't grab me enough to blogroll it, but it's not bad.”
“Almost, but not quite.”
OVERALL - 70.1
With that in mind, our third straight review where the blog managed a cumulative score in the low-70s isn't nearly as bad as some would seem.
CONTENT - 6.2
“I didn't feel strongly about this blog either way. I liked it, but in kind of the way I like peas. Peas are OK, but you wouldn't build the meal around them. They're just .. peas. Nice and mildly amusing peas, but still peas.”
“This is nothing more than posted pictures with an accompanying, half-assed, brief comment.”
“Somewhat regular posts, can't seem to quantify exactly how I feel about the content. Some of the pics I've seen elsewhere. The writing doesn't jump out at me, grabbing my attention and beating it into comedic submission. I think the URL is fitting though, because my overall first impression is somewhere between mediocre and ‘huh?’”
“I enjoy the random photos and short entries. Shoutbox Karaoke is always worth a look.”
“There's really not a lot of content. Most posts consist of a sentences and a funny picture they found on the internet. I wouldn't exactly categorize this as a humor blog, but I kind of dig its style.”
“There doesn't seem to be much effort here.”
“A little too much ‘aren't I funny because I'm writing silly nonsense instead of actually trying to be funny.’ The posts that actually aim to be funny are pretty funny though. Also, evolution, secular humanism and vegetarianism don't really hit my funny bone.”
“Every now and then it’s clever, fantastic, very funny. Other times ... meh. Overall, not so bad.”
DESIGN - 5.2
“It looked like a standard template, but I can't say much more for my own page.”
“Nothing special here. It's easy enough to read, which is all I really care about anyway.”
“Basic Blogger template. Blah.”
“It looks like they played with a Blogger template just enough to almost fuck it up. Spend $20 on a new template from one of the many talented, cheap designers out there.”
QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR - 5.3
“Blogs without much writing don’t deserve a lot of points here, but what they do write isn’t bad.”
“Honestly, there's not enough writing here for me to even give it a score on it's writing/grammar.”
“The writing is kept to a minimum but what there is of it is humorous and composed correctly.”
“I only came across like one grammar error, but you better not have many errors when your posts are all under three sentences.”
“The best part of this blog is the sprinkling of haikus he/she/they post.”
“The quality of writing is good when they do it, but they don’t do enough to rate it against a narrative blog.”
INTANGIBLES - 7.0
“Stupid name for a blog.”
“They have a link to Jorg3, the piece of shit who hijacked my blog. Other than that, nothing else pisses me off.”
“The only major pet peeve I saw was inside jokes. If you make those kinds of jokes, you have to make it funny even if you don't know the people involved.”
“Um? What the heck is the audio file on the profile supposed to be?”
“The sidebar gets a little clunky with all of the political links, but I’m on the same side of the fence on most of those so I don’t mind.”
FREQUENCY - 10.0
“Authors indygirl and Pablo post every day.”
WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY - 29% Yes
“I liked it, but not enough to add it to my daily reads. It's ... pleasant.”
“I'd check up on it every so often.”
“Way back in 2004 I did stumble upon this blog and read it regularly until I was left with that feeling that one gets after eating Chinese food. I just needed more. And sadly, unlike Chinese food, this blog did not deliver. I was in the mood for moo-shoo and I ended up with the pu pu platter.”
“Already do!”
“No way, Jose.”
“It doesn't grab me enough to blogroll it, but it's not bad.”
“Almost, but not quite.”
OVERALL - 70.1
posted by BlogLaughs at
Monday, February 26, 2007
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home