BlogLaughs

Closing Up Shop

2007-05-01T07:49:00.000-07:00

I've been putting this off for several weeks, but I think it's time to face the facts. This site is not coming back.

Our goal of helping people find the funniest blogs on the Net was quite an ambitious undertaking. In some respects, I believe this blog was a success. On the other hand, it never quite lived up to the original idea I had in my head.

The problem is two-fold and it falls entirely on my shoulders. I do not have the time required to do this site properly. I do not have the web-design ability to make my ideas become reality. I had some wonderful designers offer their services for free, but most of the things I wanted were supposedly impossible.

Rob Kroese and I share a similar goal of helping readers find the funniest blogs on the Internet. His site, Humor-Blogs dot com, features an on-going project similar to ours. I can't recommend his site enough.

I want to thank all of you who have volunteered your time as reviewers. Our reviewers are directly responsible for any success we have had. I'm just sorry I wasn't able to live up to my responsibilities.

Thanks again to all of our readers and reviewers. Please visit Humor-Blogs dot com.

All-American Girl’s Roadtrip

2007-03-05T10:02:00.000-08:00

All-American Girl’s Roadtrip ended up with a pretty good review.

It made our Top-50. A few nice comments here and there. But the people who didn’t quite like it will surely send Road Chick to our Proverbial “grain of salt.”

CONTENT – 6.4
“It didn't strike me as a humor blog, more like a personal blog with anecdotes about the blogger's life. It wasn't bad. It just wasn't all that funny to me.”

“The content is pretty good, but the third-person writing is distracting.”

“How is any of this stuff funny? Parts of it are cute, but cute isn't funny.”

“There's not much for me to say except that this is a really nice blog -- fun, interesting, well written. “

“Uninteresting.”

“Sorry, but this content didn't hold my attention at all. I was terribly bored reading it. If this is a humor blog, I obviously don't get it.”

“The reviewer thinks the whole third-person shtick runs thin about halfway through the third post.”

“A little too self-involved. Only the 'pee/pea' post made me smile.”

“Nice blog. I liked it.”

DESIGN – 6.9
“Modified grey/green Blogger template. Gets the job done, but it sure as hell doesn't grab my attention.”

“Nice, clean design. Love the banner.”

“Basic blogger, but fairly clean.”

“Pretty cool, I guess.”

“Ho hum, but it's easy to read.”

“Nothing special, but nice color and easy to navigate.”

“Blogger template with a cool, custom logo. She uses a graphic with every post too. Nice.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 7.2
“I like the easy-to-read, conversational writing style.”

“Her writing just it not to my taste, but she writes well enough. But enough of the third person, please!”

“Didn't see any errors.”

“I didn't see any problem with the writing besides the fact that it bored me to tears.”

“I kind of enjoy the third person voice.”

“The third-person writing is a gimmick. I get it. I imagine she keeps doing it to carry on the theme. I would probably enjoy the blog more if it was written in first-person, but it’s her damn blog. If it means that much to her, I’d suggest she keep it. If not, ditch it like a bad habit.”

INTANGIBLES – 8.0
“No ads, nothing distracting. Good job.”

“My only complaint is that some of the posts are a bit long.”

“This blog has a lot of potential. Make it funny!”

“I did not like how she writes in the 3rd person. I thought only Dennis Rodman talked like that.”

“I really wanted to like the blog more, because some of my peeps love it, but I just couldn't make the commitment.”

“Length, style and frequency varies a lot. What is this blog about?”

FREQUENCY – 7.0
“Road Chick averages about three to four posts a week.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 48% Yes
“Probably not.”

“Yes.”

“No way.”

“Yes. Love it!”

“I wouldn't read it every day. Seems like it's more for the MySpace crowd.”

“No.”

“Sure.”

“No, but I wish her well.”

OVERALL – 73.5

huh, no shit?

2007-02-26T07:13:00.000-08:00

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

Say No To Crack

2007-02-19T19:54:00.000-08:00

For the second straight week the blog we reviewed received mixed results and almost made it into our current Top-50 list.

Say No To Crack has several fans among our reviewers, but the detractors and the marginally amused kept this blog from scoring too high.

CONTENT – 5.9
"I think the content is great! It's always something interesting and it's never raunchy."

"Some of the material seems recycled or unoriginal. I've seen it done elsewhere."

"While I could see how it could be amusing to some I just don't find it funny."

"Always has something somewhat interesting to catch my eye."

"I am prejudiced against blogs that use photos, news stories and other links as their main content. I'll probably rate this one much lower than those who have no such bias."

"This blog is definitely above average. The blogger is doing a quality job running her site."

"I like this blog. At first, I wasn't sure about the concept. Having people to submit jokes and pictures seems like a little bit of a cop out. As I read more though, it grew on me."

"Very informative."

"This blog is primarily a dumping ground for content that was created elsewhere. Granted, some of this pilfered content is funny, but it's not at all original as it relates to Say No To Crack. There are very few actual ‘original’ pieces of content. I didn't find these original entries amusing enough to consider this blog a humor blog."

"It must be a lot of work to gather the funny links, pictures, videos etc. and post them on a regular basis. I found most of the content mildly funny. I did find some really good links through this site."

"I can see where some of these posts are cute but that’s about it. I like my funny a little more raunchy. I like it nasty. I like it to cross the line. None of this crosses the line. It’s G-rated fun for everyone. If that’s your bag, this is the place."

DESIGN – 6.8
"The design is better than a standard Blogger template but it’s nothing special."

"The design is very bland and boring, but it gets the job done. At least the sidebar isn't cluttered with ads."

"Very neat and professional. I liked it!"

"Minimalist, yet somewhat lacking oomph! However, it does not detract from the content."

"Just a basic template with weak graphics. Definitely nothing to celebrate."

"Clean and simple. My two of my three favorite qualities in a blog design."

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 6.4
"Posting a picture someone sent you doesn’t compare to all the hundreds of people who slave over their blogs with quality, original works."

"A misplaced comma here and there."

"She knows her way around a sentence. I'd like to see more of what she thinks of the videos and items she slaps up on her blog."

"There isn't much of it, but it's good."

"Basing this on the original content, the grammar isn't great and the spelling errors I found suggest that those who maintain Say No To Crack have no proofreading policy in place."

"There's really not a whole lot of writing (it's mostly funny photos, etc.) but what I do see there is well written."

"There isn't enough writing to give me a definitive sample."

"This is kind of hard to fuck up, because the author writes so little anyway. This is more of a news/odd information blog."

"This little bit of writing doesn’t deserve a lot of points."

INTANGIBLES – 7.5
"Any blog with an about page gets big points from me. I’m neutral about the reader box and the sidebar doesn’t have anything else to be annoyed about. Lots of ways to subscribe to feeds and support the blog. Good job."

"I hate being asked to submit content (jokes, pics, links) to a content-less blog. Who's doing the work, the blogger or me? Maybe my review shouldn't be used since I'm predisposed to hating the entire concept of this blog."

"I really like this blog and I visit it often."

"I hate those ‘members viewing’ boxes. Why would I give a shit who else is reading your blog at the same moment as I am?"

"The blog author's name is Anita Bath. Get it? Anita Bath. That's pretty much all you need to know about the kind of humor here. Lame? Funny?"

"I intensely dislike humor blogs that are light on original content and can't even muster witty commentary on the pilfered content they present. I believe sites like Boing Boing have this genre of Web site covered well enough that Say No To Crack has little reason to exist in it's current form."

"No complaints, a very nice, non-obnoxious blog. I took a couple of points off because most of the content isn't all that funny, which kind of defeats the purpose of this blog. But the idea itself is great."

FREQUENCY – 10.0
"Anita posts every day."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 44% Yes
"I'd read this blog a couple more times and then be bored. It's not the bloggers fault. About 99 percent of blogs make me sleepy. I just expect to be fed ice cream through the computer screen."

"If I had more time, I would check in regularly in the hopes of finding more good links. But I don't, so I won't."

"Probably not ... only because nothing stood out."

"Other than how clean the design was, and how short and to the point most of the posts were, I just like a little more excitement than there was to offer on this blog."

"I already do."

"Doubtful. It just didn't grab me by the small hairs and scream, ‘I will not be ignored!’"

"Maybe twice a week."

"No. I can't think of any reason that I should."

"No. I have my own blog to come up with content for."

OVERALL – 71.1

Does This Mean I'm A Grown-Up?

2007-02-12T05:21:00.000-08:00

The scores for Does This Mean I'm a Grown-Up? were all over the place, but it still almost made our current Top-50 list.

The first comment from our reviewers probably says more about our mixed review than any other.

CONTENT - 6.5
"It's not a 'funny' blog, but it is well-written and honest. The content is very good but it probably wasn't the best blog to review for humor content."

"I didn't find this blog to be incredibly funny, but it's still a good personal blog. Some 'mommy blog' type of posts are sneaked in here and there, but it's not an everyday thing, thank God."

"Wow. There's just so much ... nothing. It was like reading about the stuff that I should be doing, like laundry or cleaning out the car."

"Normally not my cup of tea, but her prose is imaginative and compelling. Plus she's actually very very funny."

"While the content seems to be fairly well written, I have a hard time relating to mommy blogs."

"While I didn't find the content to be 'laugh-a-minute,' it was strong and interesting enough that I kept reading and was rewarded with a funny bit here and there. Her accounts of daily life are wry and stealthily witty."

"Not bad ... nothing really stood out for me, though."

"Amusing 'slice of life' meets 'mommy blogger.'"

"It was a struggle for me to read through all the posts on the first page. I dug into the archives to give her the benefit of the doubt and to try and find something funny. I wasn't successful."

"Genuinely funny and makes the mundane interesting."

"Nothing really groundbreaking here. Lots of so-so posts about kids, motherhood, and other boring crap. She tries to make it entertaining, but it falls flat with me."

"Everyday topics I can identify with."

"Even the 'popular posts' didn't catch my attention really. And I tried. I really, really tried."

"It's standard parent blogging fare. I didn't discover much original thought."

"I didn't dip into the archives, however what was on the front page was reasonably interesting. At least enough so that I read it all, top to bottom, and didn't start squirming. Even though I found the posts interesting enough, possibly as I'm a parent of a teen and a pre-teen as well, there were only a couple that made me smile and one that made me laugh. Again, if I went into the archives that might change."

DESIGN - 7.7
"The theme is fantastic. It's very attractive and well done. The red-stripe-fade in the middle of the page looks cool, but it also detracts my eyes when I'm trying to read. Everything else is perfect."

"Love the design. It's orgasmic."

"I like the design, although the big ol' picture at the top of the screen might be a bit much."

"The design doesn't match the content. I was expecting a sultrier, sexier read based on the graphics."

"When I first clicked in I thought, 'Oooo!' Quite nice. Dark, but not overwhelming, and really a well balanced design. I'm jealous."

"It's pretty, I'll give it that. Bonus points for no flashing things."

"Unique."

"All the roses aren't my thing, but I won't let that stop me from giving her a nice score. Even though roses don't do it for me, she did a damn good job."

"The layout is good and easy to navigate but I really don't like the theme. It reminds me of a
Nagel poster form the 80s."

"Not a bad looking blog. The header image is attractive but I disliked the dark background, it made reading the posts a bit of a chore."

"Dark color scheme but appealing -- not dark in a gothic, mysterious way."

"Very nice design, but the banner was a little large. I'm also not a big fan of light-colored text on dark backgrounds."

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR - 7.2
"The writing is very good and I don't see any spelling or grammar errors."

"Well-written, nothing horribly wrong."

"Her writing style was easy to follow, almost a conversational feel. As for grammar, it all seemed well assembled, but I'm probably not the best judge."

"Not quite what your English teacher from high school might want, but certainly not bad. Her writing style is personal and engaging and the few mistakes I found weren't enough to turn me away."

"Vivid prose without getting sickly cute. She knows when to rein it in."

"Well-written 'life as she sees it,' yet nothing laugh-out-loud hysterical. Still, well-written, nonetheless."

"She has a working knowledge of grammar and punctuation."

"The quality of writing is impeccable but it is still difficult for me to get over the content. It's a well-written blog, just not my thing. Hopefully, she'll understand that without calling me a fatty."

INTANGIBLES - 7.2
"She needs to take off the use of the ALL CAPS and bold in the content. Too much of it detracts the reader from the message/story. I also thought the bold words contained links to old posts or Web sites."

"The only things I could find wrong were that the archive list shrank as you went back in time and there were a few weird characters in some of the posts."

"Sidebar is very clean and mostly ad-free. Posts are a good length. She doesn't post very often though."

"She seems so darn nice that I feel bad about not liking her writing more. I'm sure that says something about me."

"Nice organized sidebar. YAY for the lack of annoying ads!"

"The color scheme annoyed me."

"The bold words suck, and she gets a little long-winded sometimes, but there's not much else to bitch about."

"I just get a good feeling from this site. No ads is certainly a plus."

"Her posting frequency is quite low and, as I already mentioned, I found that the dark background made it hard for me to read the posts. Other than that, I enjoyed the posts that I read at her site."

FREQUENCY - 1.0
"No posts this month. Only six last month. None for the previous two months. Lives are busy but this category only counts for 5 percent of the score."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG ON A REGULAR BASIS - 41% Yes
"There's nothing I don't like about it, but it doesn't really grab me either. Maybe because I'm not a 'mommy' myself. I'd read it in passing though."

"Yeah."

"No, there just wasn't anything there to grab my attention."

"Probably not."

"Yes. It's a good read, even though its not really a humor blog."

"No. She doesn't post often enough, and the writing doesn't compel me to keep checking in for the sporadic updates."

"Maybe two times a week."

"Probably not. While it was nice to visit, I'm not compelled to go back on a regular basis."

"Sure."

"Perhaps, although if she drops off again like she did in November and December I would likely drift away."

"I'm planning on adding it to my sidebar, yes."

"I wouldn't read this blog regularly. It just isn't my type of humor."

"No. However, to be honest, there are plenty of well-written books, autobiographies, and blogs out there that some folks latch onto and some do not. This particular blog did not inspire me to put it in my bookmarks despite it being a 'nice blog.'"

OVERALL - 71.2

raymitheminx

2007-02-05T09:38:00.000-08:00

If you’re new to BlogLaughs, please don’t think all of our reviews are negative.

On the other hand, almost all of our reviewers took their claws out when it came to raymitheminx.

Canada’s best and most humourous blog managed one of our lowest scores.

CONTENT – 3.7
“She updates a lot and I love that her cat makes an appearance in a lot of her pictures.”

“What exactly is the content? Raymi is all over the place. She is more photoblog than humor blog. Her content is boring, insipid rantings and ravings from an extremely immature mind. Who wants to read her IM messages? She is not funny and the humor she attempts to provide now and then is forced. Plus, 499 pictures of Raymi is not exactly what I call content. Delving into her archives, she places a lot of topless pics on her blog. I suppose she needed to draw an audience. Her writing wasn't going to do it, that's for sure. Things such as "some crazy bitch is posing as me on myspace!!!!!!! go tell her off please." are so horribly immature.”

“Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but aside from pictures and web design, and how she looks young and hip and slightly edgy, I'm not sure if she has anything compelling to say.”

“I didn't find this blogger to be entertaining as much as I found her to remind me of my 23 year old, overly-entitled, whiney cousin. In my head, as I read this blogger's words, my cousin's voice was in my head reading it as a narrator.”

“Maybe I am just too old to appreciate this blog? I don't know. I have tried to understand the appeal, I really have. I just don't get it.”

“Anytime I come across one of these famous ‘award-winning’ blogs, I try to approach them with the assumption that, in some way, they're worthy of an award. Sometimes, I am rewarded for thinking such things. In the case of raymitheminx, though, all I can say is 'Holy Christ, WTF?' If this is Canada's Top Blogger, perhaps the US needs to annex and subsequently destroy the whole country. I dug through her archives, trying to find some hint as to why raymitheminx would be, in any way, a 'top humor blog' and ended up sorely disappointed. It seems to me that the site gets hits strictly because Raymi is willing to take her top off now and then, not because of her writing. Her posts are excruciatingly hard to read and 80 percent of the time they contain absolutely pointless drivel. Personally, I'm not willing to sift through mounds of worthless crap just to get to a shaky picture of some Canadian chick's flat chest.”

“There were a couple of funny gems in the writing, but my scoring is weighing heavily on the nice pictures.”

“Merely mentioning that you saw a movie does not a review make.”

“I don't think her blog is relatable for folks over 29. As it is, she's pushing that unenthusiastic, hostility point that most immature Emo kids pass at what? 19?”

DESIGN – 3.9
“I'm not a big fan of large images tiled as a background or wickedly long sidebars, but I realize she's trying to do her own thing here and I'm cool with that.”

“Hold on, I'm still waiting for my eyes to quit rolling back in their sockets in loathing.”

“Like her content, her Web page is all over the place. Going to her page was like a bad acid trip. Her sidebar is cluttered with so much garbage! Ads, thinks that blink. Ridiculous pics. More pics of herself. More ads. It's probably the worst Web site design I have ever seen. Her header, like the rest of her blog, smacks of her self-love trip. Oh, and lest we forget, the Pepto Bismol pink with the magenta writing shoved all the way over to the left in one long tedious column. Yeah. That's appealing.”

“I like the background, and the colors work well with this girl's personality. The only thing I hope she changes is how the text is aligned. Widen that shit up!”

“I hate everything about it. It makes my head hurt. I think my eyes are bleeding.”

“The sidebar is a mess. Since there are no labels for the sections of her blog, I thought the blogroll was some nutso inside joke or weird ass advertisement.”

"Despite the relatively attractive (assumedly original) artwork which adorns the background of the page (and the header), the page design as a whole is pretty basic and the page can be annoying to navigate. While I'm of the opinion that the sidebar exists more for the blog owner to get around to places than for the blog reader to do so, I still found myself annoyed by the jumble of absolute crap in the sidebar on raymitheminx.”

“I think she changes thing up quite a bit, but it’s God-awful ugly and not very functional.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 2.6
“It's horribly written … if you can even call it writing.”

“One rarely sees such a callous disregard for punctuation and capitalization.”

“It's a bit rambling at times. However, I'm also a fan of blogs that carry a conversational tone, which contributed to my score.”

“This being my first Bloglaughs review, I didn't want to come across as 'too harsh' but this chick seriously comes off as an idiot. She uses absolutely no punctuation and misspells (intentionally, perhaps) way too many words for my liking. I also reiterate my comment on her content -- her writings are mostly pointless.”

“Her prose is nothing to write home about.”

“The lack of capitalization and punctuation makes for a slightly annoying read.”

“What does this chick have against commas? The random all caps words are more annoying than effective in keeping the reader interested. e.e. cummings called and wants his capital letters back.”

“Her writing is alright, but she makes little sense. Her grammar consists of a lot of made up words, abbreviations and a complete disregard for punctuation. It reads like a child or a very angst ridden teenager wrote it. A teenager that dropped out of junior high, I might add. Sample? ‘the highlight of the nite was giving the finger to this girl's throw-away camera behind her and her two poseur friends fil was all WHO ARE YOU FLIPPING OFF i said dude they won't know until they develop the film i'm a coward like that.’ Yes. Let's hear it for the run on sentences!”

“The only person I knew who could get away with the ‘no capitalization’ thing was e.e. cummings, and well, this blogger is no e.e. cummings.”

“This blog would be much better if she just posted pictures and didn’t write at all.”

INTANGIBLES – 1.2
“For some reason, I had a really tough time trying to access the archives.”

“She has millions of fans I'm sure, so my negative comments won't make a difference.”

“I found it amusing that this blogger would mention on their 'about me' blog her suspicions on how she won best diarist because Dooce didn't mention it on her blog. I feel I have somehow tainted Heather Armstrong by even referencing this blogger and Dooce in the same sentence.”

“I don't understand why people read this. This is the blog equivalent of projectile vomiting.”

“I liked the pictures, but it took some time for them all to load. I'd suggest narrowing the scope of the main page and using the archives feature to your advantage. All the GIF's in the sidebar didn't help things either.”

“Normally, I’m all for posting pictures of one’s crotch. This time, I don’t think so.”

“I've heard of her before … back when her loyal followers were stumping for votes for the ‘Best Diarist’ award she ended up winning. I didn't understand it than and I don't understand it now. Maybe it's all the pictures of her?”

“Everything about this page annoys me. She strikes me as the type of person I wouldn't save from a fire. Her face is even irritating. I like her cat cartoon at the bottom of the page. The one that vomits on her face.”

“This blog has won awards? How many people can this chick afford to blackmail?”

“There are hints in her writings that she may be playing a character and the whole ‘stupid girl’ act is just that: an act but I don't buy it. Even at her best (and these posts are very hard to come by), she still comes off as a self-absorbed drunk with no clear concept of punctuation and a shaky handle on reality. Seriously, if this is the kind of blogging that's required to achieve great numbers of readers, I'll gladly toil in obscurity.”

“The whole thing is one big pet peeve. I’m sure I’m not the only one giving her a zero here.”

FREQUENCY – 10.0
“Like it or not, raymitheminx posts everyday.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 9% Yes
“Probably not. It's good, but it's not exactly my thing. I'd probably hop over there every once in a while though.”

“Hell no.”

“No way in hell. I wish I hadn't read it for this review.”

“NE-VER!”

“Dear God, I'd rather shove a hot curling iron up my own ass, sans lube.”

“I won't be reading this blog regularly. It wasn't bad though, and I suggest others to have a look, because I can see it having some appeal for certain people -- just not me.”

OVERALL – 45.7

Tiny Voices in my Head

2007-01-29T17:39:00.000-08:00

The cumulative numbers for Tiny Voices in my Head were pretty respectable, but some of the comments were downright nasty … and not all of them were used.

Mixed review? Yes.

Love it or hate it? You bet.

This blog caught a little bit of everything, getting every number from 0-10 in most categories. Tiny Voices in my Head obviously meant more to some readers than it did to others.

CONTENT – 6.3
“Dawn is witty and engaging and I never fail to be entertained by her blog. Oh yeah, she's funny as hell too.”

“There are approximately 8,437,298 MySpace sites done by little girls with Hello Kitty wallpaper that are more interesting than this site.”

“I love the personal nature of this blog. Dawn seems like a real sweetheart and it comes across in her work.”

“The content is pretty mediocre. There's nothing very unique about her blog, just reading the posts that are right there. I'm sure if I were to dig through her archives, I'd see more creativity.”

“I didn't even crack a smile while reading this blog, much less find anything funny.”

“The dual-comments insanity aside, this is one of my favorite ‘personal’ blogs on the Internet.”

“I read all the entries on the first page and wasn't inspired. And in a show of fairness, I clicked her archives at random, settling on the month of October 2004. After reading all of the posts from that month, my opinion is still neutral.”

“This is good stuff. If there were a female version of me, this would probably be it. Or close to it.”

“I just couldn't connect with the content.”

"It's a real bloggy blog. Some days are better than others."

“I have seen Webmiztris around the Web here and there. We frequent the same blogs, but admittedly, I had not visited hers before. Her blog content is not what I would call funny, so much as conversational and matter of fact. She is not intentionally trying to be amusing. She simply tells a story. If you laugh at the end, great. If you don't, so be it. I actually like that kind of writing.”

“Dawn’s blog is naked truth. It’s not always funny, or smart, or anything, but it’s always Dawn. I like that.”

DESIGN – 7.5
“She has probably the absolute greatest looking blog I've seen. It's very easy to read and the layout is the best.”

“It's not the greatest design, but it's easy to navigate and read. She always has a hot photo of herself in the ‘about me’ section, which would make even a bad design look good, so I have to factor that in my scoring.”

“Her blog design is cute, fits the theme of her page. I can only assume she designed it herself, because her advertisment asking 'do you want a new blog template' leads to her e-mail address. The blog is very clean and neat. She's got everything all rolled up like most Web designers do.”

“It's not that bad, but what's with the two places to comment? The calling thing seems like an invitation to stalkers and other psychos. I can't condone that.”

“Love the header, but it's a bit big. I don't like having to scroll down just to see the first post. I also don't care for the drop-downs in the sidebar. Just list everything and get rid of the ads. But it's a nice design and easy on the eyes.”

“I love the theme and the main graphic a lot. It’s a personal touch for a personal blog. I like it.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 6.5
“Her writing style is very suitable for what she has to say, and even long entries are a great read because of her breezy prose. About the only thing that bothers me a bit is that she injects an 'LOL' on occasion, which is completely unnecessary and disrupts the rhythm of her writing. Her blog is funny already and doesn't need a laugh track.”

“Ooooh! It's the angry goth girl with dyed black hair and a blue streak, talking a blue streak because she can, because, like, wow, I mean, oh my God, it's the Internet, and we can say whatever we want out here and, like, Mom and Dad can't rag on us about it, you know?”

“I can't give a decent score to anyone who uses the word ‘redonkulous.’”

“The writing is simple, no grammar problems that I noticed and nothing that really stood out as obtrusive. However, she has a whole lot of one-sentence paragraphs. Why? It might work for the whole conversational tone, and perhaps it is meant for dramatic pause now and then. But, every single post? Maybe it's my own personal quirk. I don't know.”

“Again, good stuff. Thoughts are nicely broken up into small, easy-to-read paragraphs. Lots of gratuitous profanity. I like that!”

“Dawn has a casual writing style that fits a personal blog.”

INTANGIBLES – 7.4
“LOVE Dawn, HATE that she has comments running on both Haloscan and Blogger. Why? It's a pain in the ass for readers to have to monitor two threads of comments, and I'm sure it's a pain in the ass for her as well. Dawn has a lot of fans that love her blog, why is she punishing us like this? On the good side, she publishes her entire entries in her webfeed, which is always appreciated. Too bad she buries the link to her feed in a non-descript FeedBurner icon. If she used the more recognizable orange webfeed icon and didn't bury it, I'm sure she would have more than 21 people subscribed.”

“She can have a 7 from me because I don't find her overly annoying.”

“Nice avatar, but I'd like to see a little more skin. I'd like this blog a lot better if my blog was linked in the sidebar!”

“I neither like nor dislike her blog.”

“Having two sets of comments is terrible. I’m not real crazy about the sidebar, but it’s not bad. I don’t like having to make extra clicks, but I guess it’s a necessity.”

FREQUENCY – 9.0
"Dawn averages between four and five posts a week."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 52% Yes
“Already do. Love her.”

“Probably not … nothing stood out for me.”

“Not even if the only other available reading on the planet were Tom Green's autobiography.”

“Yep. Aleady do.”

“I probably wouldn't read this blog on a regular basis.”

“I don't find it compelling or entertaining or enlightening enough for me to incorporate reading it as part of my regular blog reading habits.”

“Yes, love to.”

“Overall, it's just another ordinary blog.”

“Yes, I would read this blog regularly.”

“Perhaps, just because we have mutual friends. Would I die if I missed a day? Probably not.”

OVERALL – 74.5

Ingrown Brain Stem

2007-01-22T11:53:00.000-08:00

Ingrown Brain Stem drew a couple of fans and a couple of detractors, but most of our reviewers were relatively indifferent about this site.

"I can see why a lot of people like this blog. I just don't get it."

We didn't get a lot of comments to go with our ratings this week, but most of them had this same apologetic quality to them.

CONTENT – 6.4
“He keeps his posts relatively short, which is nice. There's nothing I hate more than bloggers who go on and on and on. And he's pretty funny. I can relate to a lot of what he has to say.”

“It looks like a lot of work goes into finding all the things he writes about, but it's a bit of overload. I prefer blogs that go into more detail about one or two topics, rather than posts with a whole mess of topics. I also like blogs with personal stories, and I only came across one of those; the one about his grandmother.”

“Nothing about this blog stood out for me.”

“Is it me, or are we seeing a lot of people who are utilizing links in their blogs and passing it off as being original material. Yes, once in awhile, a link to a news story is fine. Some original content around that news story, great! But, one sentence with a link? Oh Lord. I was so bored. I can surf the web on my own, thank you very much.”

“My score would have been much higher if there weren't posts like Ass Rape Isn't Always Funny. He's wrong. It's never funny. That aside I dig his cynical and sarcastic wit and he had me laughing out loud quite a few times. I almost fell off my chair reading Jesus of Zombia.”

“I think this guy is funny, but the site just doesn’t do it for me.”

DESIGN – 6.7
“Well done. I like the zombie motif. I would have went with a 10, but there were some items along the side panel that made no sense to me.”

“It's pretty basic, but it's easy to read, which is all that really matters to me.”

“I suppose it's fine. It's neat, organized with a relatively clean sidebar, though, I would suggest rolling up that blogroll. And, that header is kind of obscure, though I think it is a part of the whole Zombie theme. Maybe I'm too old to get it.”

“Clean and simple.”

“Relatively simple design, easy to read.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 7.2
“When he really writes, the writing is well-done. Pretty good grammar too.”

“I didn't see come across any grammar errors, but I also wasn't wowed with any of the writing.”

“I didn't notice any major errors.”

“This is hard to apply a number to because most of the content is not original. The parts that he does write are cute at best. Yes, I realize that the word ‘cute’ will probably irritate the author, but frankly, Scarlett … yeah.”

INTANGIBLES – 5.5
“No pet peeves here.”

“He links to the Animal Rescue site, so he has my heart right there. The sidebar is long as hell, but at least it's nice and neat. He just seems like the kind of guy I'd really like if I knew him in real life.”

“One point for the shitty blog award proudly displayed in the sidebar. Five points for the animal rescue site logo/link. Minus one for the Amazon crap. Minus one for the genuflections, because self-praise sucks ass.”

“His side bar is too messy.”

“The profile picture freaks me out but not near as much as the sidebar. It’s neat and organized but most of it is unnecessary. It makes the whole site feel awkward.”

FREQUENCY – 6.0
“Copygodd posts about three times a week.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 34% Yes
“He has a good take on a variety of topics, but it's not quite funny enough for me. I'd check on it now and again, but I wouldn't add it to my favorites.”

“Actually I do read this one every so often.”

“We read some of the same blogs, but I don’t read his. It's OK but just doesn’t do anything for me.”

“Yes.”

“No, though, it isn't the worst one you have made us review.”

OVERALL – 70.9

Best Week Ever

2007-01-15T14:51:00.000-08:00

After compiling this week’s reviews, it is a good bet most of our reviewers would have had a higher opinion of Best Week Ever earlier last year. It appears many of you have grown weary of the celebrity snark sites.

CONTENT – 6.1
“I am sure this appeals to some, but I am very weary of celebrity pop culture Web sites. There is so much to look at here I don't know where to start. If I had just happened upon this site on my own I would have kept right on going.”

“Loved all the links to lots of cools stuff that I wasn't aware of.”

“Not exactly my thing. I hear more about Britney, Paris, Lindsey and the like more than I care to as it is, so I probably wouldn't visit this blog regularly, but people who are interested in that sort of thing would probably really like this blog. It's kinda like People magazine in blog form.”

“Painfully forced humor coupled with television goodness and a whole assload of YouTube movies which can be seen on YouTube. Why sort through 4,345 ads to see them when you can simply go there, without the eyesore?”

“This is what happens when bloggers sellout and get paid for ‘writing.’ I loved Michelle Collins’ blog [You Can’t Make It Up] but she rarely posts anymore. I assume she and the other contributors post for pennies here instead. Too bad.”

“If you like this stuff, it’s better to subscribe through Bloglines so you can avoid the ads and horrible design.”

“Regular, timely posts, I will immediately commence peppering conversations with the word, ‘robo-vagines.’ And I have promptly passed around the ‘Box in a Box’ YouTube a bit.

“It's just regurgitated crap from other blogs with idiotic comments. Nothing about this blog is funny.”

“They hit more often than miss.”

DESIGN – 4.1
“It's easy to read, but nothing spectacular. And the sidebar is a bit overwhelming. Do people really click on tag clouds and categories? I never do. They always seem like such a waste of space and they make the sidebar look so crammed. And of course, there's a shitload of ads. Ugh.”

“Too cluttered, too much to see. My eyes, my eyes! This is freaking my ADD out!”

“What design? It reminded me of one of those refrigerator magnet games, you know, the one with all the words just strewn everywhere? Except the magnets were mixed up by a 5-year-old. No, nevermind. That would probably make more sense to me.”

"Oh God, not another mediocre celeb-u-tainment blog."

"Holy shit the sidepanel is cluttered. Who has time to sort through all of that?"

“It's too damn busy. The pink font annoys me.”

“There is just too much going on. Too many different fonts/colors/sizes. It looks like a big jumbled mess.”

“The design wouldn’t be all that bad without all the ads and other nonsense.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 5.9
“I don't see any problems with the writing and grammar, but I don't exactly find it all that exciting either.”

“It's fine. It ain't Shakespeare but he could get a gig with People magazine probably.”

“What quality? Everything was taken from somewhere else! Of course the grammar is perfecto! It was taken from other sources! The parts that the author does write, however, are fine. Not Rhodes Scholar fine, but grade school at best.”

“Good use of grammar and punctuation. Should spell check a bit before hitting publish. However, the writers of this site do know their way around a sentence. Currently, I'm enamored with the following: ‘Looks like it’s that time of the month … time to go to rehab.’”

“The grammar is correct enough to get the vapid ideas across.”

“The writing style is so so.”

INTANGIBLES – 3.3
“Ads. Lack of original content. Broken links. Pics that don't work, in the header no less! A blogroll that reads like the Who's Who of the superficial, malcontent and unoriginal. Ugh. I can't find anything redeeming about this blog, except for the little X in the right hand corner of the screen. Here's a 1, just for allowing me to escape.”

“Blogs like these are so impersonal because there is no ‘about’ the blogger/author. You have no idea who's writing it. I have a hard time getting into blogs like this.”

“Is this guy a professional? Look at the bottom of the site. Does he work for MTV or VH1?”

“I am just so burned out on stuff like this. I spent a lot of time going though this blog, but frankly five minutes in I was exhausted.”

“Anything that has to do with VH-1’s Best Week Ever automatically loses credibility with me.”

“I was in a shitty mood before I read this blog. Now I'm ready to gouge my eyes out.”

“Could they add just a few more tags? I think they missed ‘and’ ‘it’ and ‘the.’”

“I think the concept works much better as a TV show than a blog.”

FREQUENCY – 10.0
“Best Week Ever features several posts each day.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 48% Yes
“No, I read too much about celebrities now.”

“If I happened upon it in my web surfing, I'd read it, but I wouldn't blogroll it or add it to my Bloglines.”

“God, no.”

“Yep. I subscribe through Bloglines.”

“Let's play this by ear, shall we? I've put it in my bookmarks and promise to ‘glance’ at it every couple of days. Fair enough?”

“Hell, no!”

“Yes, but only because it's always up-to-date.”

“I might now, but only for the purpose of finding new music.”

OVERALL – 69.2

The Life and Times of RevRee

2007-01-08T03:20:00.000-08:00

The sexual banter that often highlights The Life and Times of RevRee brought out a little bit of that in our reviewers this week.

[Apparently, one of our reviewers really likes green eyes.]

RevRee managed pretty good scores in every category except frequency, setting a relatively high mark for the first review of 2007.

CONTENT – 8.1
"Great content! I don't see any boring ‘I woke up and had a cup of coffee and then I took the dog out to take a shit’ lame-ass type of posts. I like that. She doesn't blog all that often, but when she does, she rocks."

"Hand porn? I'm on board with that concept."

"Even though I don't relate to what she says on many things, she's a lot of fun."

"A good blog makes me want to jump right in and comment. A bad blog makes me want to watch TV. I'll definitely be commenting on this blog in the future."

"I read (almost) every single post on this blog and barely cracked a smile. She has a few sentences that are amusing but even that was pushing it. She does mention in her profile that she often ‘slips in sexual innuendo,’ which can be funny in the right context (self deprecation for example) but here it doesn't quite work. I guess I never caught her at the right moment."

"It's a really nice blog, even though it can be a bit too girly for my taste. The frankness is good, especially on sexual matters."

"How convenient that Rev just did a post in which she picked her favorite posts of the year! I seemed to like the posts better in which she told stories that gave insights into her life."

"She's a funny girl. And she's sassy. I like sassy. She's somewhat provocative in a fun way."

"This is my kind of blog. She comes off as smart, sexy, and funny. I can’t wait to dig deep into her archives."

DESIGN – 8.5
"I like the look of this blog. Very clean and easy on the eyes."

"I like the header image a lot ... very nice colors. Black text on a white background is always very easy to read and the sidebar is neat and tidy. Perfect!"

"Simple, clean and easy. What more can you ask for?"

"I like the lay of the land. Well done."

"It's clean an easy to read. I'm not blown away, but neither am I nauseous."

"The design is clean and neat. I don’t normally like green, but I imagine she has green eyes. That makes my cock hard."

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 7.3
"I really like her writing. She reminds me of myself. The post about ‘How Not to Pick up a Chick at a Bar 101’ Oh yeah, I can totally relate! That one had me rolling!"

"Please use the spell check."

"I saw a few spelling/grammar errors and the writing feels a bit stunted at times."

"I wish it was more ‘different’ but it's good writing and she is who she is."

"As bloggers go, her grammar is pretty good. She had a good amount of grammar mistakes, but often times she'll use a comma wrong in one instance, and then use it right the next in a similar situation. This leads me to believe she merely needs to proof read better, which is why I'm cutting her a break."

"She's a good writer. I like her style, although she uses exclamation marks like she gets paid for every one."

"She’s a good conversational writer. Not everything is perfect, but I don’t care. It’s a blog for God’s sake."

INTANGIBLES – 6.3
"I can't find anything I don't like about this blog."

"I had to take a point off for no Tom Jones references in the Sex Bomb post."

"Good writer. I'm really surprised she's still single, actually."

"If you allow comments on your blog a chat box is superfluous, not to mention just plain annoying. And what's with the voting for best movie of the year? I can see it on Pajiba but here it makes no sense."

"No pet peeves for me."

"Nice tagline."

"I don’t care for the chat box, but that’s just a slight deduction."

"Dude, she has pop-up ads! That’s unforgivable!"

"I really wish she would post more often. It looks like she recently moved and changed jobs, so perhaps that explains the recent dearth of posts."

FREQUENCY - 4.0
"RevRee has averaged almost two posts a week the past six months. It’s been more like once a week lately, but we’ll go with the average."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 74% Yes
"Yes, I added it to my Bloglines."

"No."

"Yes, I already do."

"Oh, hell no!"

"God, yes."

"Maybe."

"Yes. Thanks for another good one."

"Yes. RevRee is perfect for Bloglines because you never know when she’s going to post. It's a good day when she does."

OVERALL – 87.2

Pointless Drivel

2006-12-29T09:43:00.000-08:00

A few of our reviewers really didn’t like Pointless Drivel, but the majority helped push Mr. Fab’s blog into our Top-20.

CONTENT – 7.4
“Almost always hilarious.”

“Original and pretty humorous. Nothing that's written is really an out an out joke, more like funny commentary about the author's life. If the author had gotten me to laugh out loud, I probably would have given him a score higher than 7.5. For me, the funniest posts came from his 'I'm a Dork' category ... the guy is definitely not afraid to poke fun at himself, which is always good in a humor blog.”

“Mr. Fab explains his content in spades in his title: Pointless Drivel. Any blogger who still participates in "Six ways I'm like an 80s hair band while I'm taking a piss" type of memes really shouldn't be on this list at all.”

“Mr. Fab is definitely a looney guy. I like that. He updates constantly and is always doing something different, from video blogging to audio blogging to giveaways.”

“I haven’t watched his videos or listened to any audio (I have virus paranoia), so I’m only rating the written posts. It’s funny. Not the greatest, but not bad at all.”

“Pointless Drivel can be over the top sometimes. Then again, Mr. Fab has received nearly 100,000 hits in just over a year. He's definitely loved.”

“The posts about Mrs. Fab are probably my favorite!”

DESIGN – 8.2
"Professional, unique, and gives a good idea of the mindset of this particular blogger."

“Terrific! Original and engaging. As a writer, Mr. Fab makes a fabulous graphic designer.”

“The color is a little dark.”

“The top image is a little large for my taste, but a lot of blogs are going that route nowadays. I like the color scheme, but it does make it a little difficult to read the light gray/tan text in the sidebar. The design is not cluttered and emphasizes the content above everything else.”

“Everything is neat and tidy and easy to read. No complaints here!”

“He gets an ‘A’ for effort, but the sum of all of these parts is a little flat. The design has a lot of features I like but it’s not organized very well. I don’t know, it just feels kind of clunky. The brown sidebar and the fonts kind of suck. Maybe that’s it.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 7.9
“Good use of grammar, punctuation, and spelling. He’s egomaniacally hysterical.”

“Mr. Fab needs to turn on his cliché alert. His writing is just barely above mediocre, which is more than I can say for 98 percent of the blogs out there in the blogosphere, but still, hardly worthy of breaking the Top-50 humor blogs. Or the Top-500, for that matter. I'm sure if I look hard enough I'll find smileys and IM-speak (LOL, ROTFL, TTYL) on this blog, but I'm already bored.”

“The author is a writer, and it shows in his posts. Well written, but I did notice a few grammar mistakes here and there, which did not detract from the content. Not that I can judge, since I definitely don't write as well.”

“My English teacher would swoon.”

“The writing is a little too ‘bloggy’ for my tastes sometimes, but it’s OK.”

INTANGIBLES – 5.9
“His videos are hysterical, especially the one where he's demonstrating the perfect way to consume a banana, ending with his wife spooging blue cheese dressing on his face.”

“I tried to parse the sentence, ‘Who loved me latest?’ but my head exploded.”

“The sidebar is really long, but at least each section is hidden within an expandable container, so it doesn't really bother me.”

“For some reason this blog didn't speak to me. It's well written, contains decent humor, but for some reason I just didn't connect with it. That's why I only gave it a score of 6 in this category. A subjective assessment, but I don't know how else to address this score. The fact that he posted his own original musical entries kept me from scoring this less than a 5.”

“He’s a successful blog whore.”

“Another shining example of a blog with no ads.”

“I like the voice of this blogger. Sometimes his posts tend to be a little too long, but I have attention span problems.”

“I like the variety of his posts.”

“The sidebar is just too cluttered. I’d wipe it out and start again.”

“His profile picture always reminds me of Michael Jackson from the ‘Smooth Crimnal’ video. Shum on! He, he!”

FREQUENCY – 10
“Mr. Fab posts at least once a day.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 73% Yes
“I do, yet I haven't linked him on my side panel. Love his stuff, but he's like Dooce, he's on everyone's side panel.”

“Yes. I have read this blog on a regular basis since it's early days.”

“I think I'll stay over here on this side of the crime scene tape, thanks.”

“Possibly. I may read it every other week or so, but not on a daily basis.”

“I already do!”

“Yep.”

OVERALL – 85.1

To Do: 1. Get Hobby, 2. Floss

2006-12-18T12:41:00.000-08:00

As one of our reviewers explained, “I don’t know if this blog is called ‘To Do: 1. Get Hobby, 2. Floss,’ or ‘Must Get Hobby.’ Both names are stupid but this is still one of the best humor blogs on the Internet.”

Needless to say, our reviewers loved this blog.

To Do: 1. Get Hobby, 2. Floss managed the second-highest score in our short, little history.

CONTENT – 8.8
“She is hysterical! How did I not find her before? I don't understand? She tells a great story with wry, dry humor. Nothing fluffy about it, just tell it like it is and screw you if you don't like it kind of attitude. Self-deprecating while being positively adorable! Hello? We have mutual friends! Why were we not introduced? I give her a 10 for being so real and so very human.”

“It kept me engaged enough to read past the first post.”

“Mist is consistently funny. Always a fun read with laugh-out-loud moments.”

“Interesting, but nothing really jumped out at me as hilarious.”

“I love her intelligent, wry, dry humor. I wish every blog was this entertaining.”

“God, I love Mist1. I don’t know if I can explain this but ‘I get her.' You know? She’s just really, really good.”

DESIGN – 7.1
[Mist1 did a redesign during our review period. Some of the scores and comments may reflect the older design.]

“Very simple, nice and clean. Some funky stuff going on in the sidebar, like large spaces between links and half-erased links, but nothing I would piss in her Cheerios over.”

“Nothing special here, just a bare bones template. But who cares, it's a great read!”

“Basic Blogger template.”

“It's the same style of template that I have, so how could I not love it?”

“Glad I checked back for another look. The new design is nice.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 9.0
“Excellent writer with a wonderful sense of comedic timing. She can spell. I'm in love.”

“It kept me engaged, I just kept reading expecting ‘more.’ Now I don't know how much more, or what more, but I just expected more.”

“I didn't see any glaring errors.”

“She certainly knows her way around a sentence. She writes very well.”

“Good. Nothing here to make me shudder or wish for an editing button.”

“I don’t know much about her, but she writes in short paragraphs like a journalist. She needs to be writing this stuff for a newspaper or magazine instead of giving it away for free. I saw a couple of tiny mistakes but I’m still giving her a 10. Mist1 is a uniquely talented writer.”

INTANGIBLES – 8.8
“I cannot abide disingenuity, neither in writing nor in speech. Why b*tch instead of bitch? Why G*d instead of God? Do you think we don't know what the missing letters are? Are your children reading? If they are, do you think they don't know what the missing letters are?”

“Nothing to bitch about. She barely has a sidebar, let alone clutter. Nothing is blinking, flashing or asking me to pay for it. She has one lone blog award tucked neatly down at the bottom. How can someone who is so not an attention whore have so many readers? What am I doing wrong here?”

“She posts every day, which I like.”

“Good frequency of posts and an amazing number of comments. Makes me wish I had seen the previous blog that seems to have disappeared in the mists of time.”

“Perfect 10 in this category. I don’t like the name of this blog, but there is nothing here that upsets me in any way.”

“Jesus! Look at all those commenters!”

FREQUENCY – 10
“Mist1 makes a regular post every weekday.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 78% Yes
“Already do!”

“As of today, she is on my blogroll.”

“Yes! Thanks for the new blog.”

“Doubtful.”

“Yes indeed, I have added it to my Bloglines.”

“Yes. I'll be checking back regularly.”

“I noticed you don’t use a lot of the standard yes/no comments. On this one, I’m saying yes. Mist1 kicks ass! How’s that?”

“No.”

OVERALL – 96.9

Gangstas & Hugs

2006-12-11T11:06:00.000-08:00

The following comments are a testament to the fact that our reviewers have a variety of opinions about Gangstas & Hugs.

Of course, when that happens, the numbers end up being averaged somewhere in the middle.

CONTENT – 6.5
“There are only a handful of blogs I read on a regular basis, and Gangstas & Hugs is one of them. Mojotek has a knack for making me literally laugh out loud. I guess I have a soft spot for tasteless humor.”

“G&H contains a lot of unoriginal and borrowed humor from the web. Some of it is old content. Some of it is new and amusing. None of it, however, was created by the writer of G&H. It is pointless unless you don't like surfing YouTube, Fark, various news sources or other blogs. If you like your reading of the stupidest stuff on the Web condensed into one place...then G&H is for you.”

“There is a nice mix of post lengths. The post about diaper fetishes was pretty funny. Overall, good for a chuckle or two.”

“Unoriginal and sophomoric.”

“I don’t know what to say about the content. Every post is at least relatively funny, and different, but it doesn’t seem to have a coherent theme. This blog has promise, but I don’t know if I’d recommend it to everyone.”

“It was just interesting enough to be able to get through a lot of it without my mind wandering, but it still didn't contain anything I really wanted to read. He takes a lot of content from other sites and then comments on it, which is fine, but not in a way that is particularly interesting or funny to me. I am sure there is an audience for this blog, but I am just not part of it. “

“He makes the mistake of confusing mainstream misconceptions with common sense.”

“Mojotek is a funny man.”

“His slogan is ‘Where Humor Comes to Die.’ I don't think it dies here, but it's left arm is tingling.”

“It's an amusing little blog, but superficial. For example, here's a truly weird and disgusting discovery, a man with a human skull tattooed on his face. This presents all sorts of wonderful opportunities to write reflectively on the real or imagined life of this man; the state of our society that such a thing is tolerated (or perhaps it isn't). The possibilities are endless. Yet all Gangsta has to say about it is, ‘Look, isn't this weird?’ Well, yes it is, but .”

DESIGN – 6.6
“This blog keeps it simple design-wise and it's easy to navigate.”

“I liked it. It wasn't flashy, it wasn't dull. It is a Goldilocks template: just right.”

“The old design had too many features that wouldn’t load. This one is better, but still not great. It’s easier to navigate but it isn’t anything special. I’m giving it a solid 7.”

“The design is clean, reads like a newspaper and is free of blinkies, pop ups and loads of ads. It is also exceptionally boring.”

“It’s an original design, but is it really better than some of the Blogger templates?”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 6.5
“The quality of writing is conversational and light … which is nice, but none of it is actually original content. It is hard to judge someone’s grammar when they are quoting other sources.”

“Nothing stands out either way. It’s a solid 6.”

“No glaring mistakes. Maybe I should actually rate it little higher but I think I have been numbed by the general level of higher-end mediocrity.”

“He soured me right from the get-go when the first entry I read had the malapropism of stigmata for stigma.”

INTANGIBLES – 6.9
“I don’t like the ads or the comments in the sidebar, but both are done relatively tastefully. Not much to gripe about.”

“Aside from the few click throughs and two ads, I have nothing else to complain about.”

“Who knew they still made cassette tapes these days?”

“Just not my cup of tea.”

"I like any site that has an about page."

“The fact that Gangsta uses his ‘about’ page to promote his MySpace site says it all. If you're older than, say, 13, this blog is not for you.”

FREQUENCY – 7.0
“Mojotek averaged 3.5 posts a week the past year. [Thanks for listing totals in the archives.]”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 50% Yes
“No. I'm not a 12-year old boy.”

“Of course.”

“Nope”

“Already do.”

“No, I don't think so. Nothing grabbed me.”

“Yes, definitely.”

“N-to-the-O!”

“Sure. Love it.”

OVERALL – 74.0

Snarkywood

2006-12-05T08:14:00.000-08:00

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

The Mighty Blog

2006-11-27T11:59:00.000-08:00

Fans of The Mighty Blog really, really like The Mighty Blog.

Others felt like the blog was “juvenile.”

We get the feeling Mighty Dykerson and his fans don’t care.

CONTENT – 8.0
“I think I have a new favorite blog. Thanks for the link!”

“Overall, the blog is a little too frat-boyish for me to be in love with it. Don't get me wrong, I like the blog but it's a little more base and vulgar for me, without being clever enough to balance it out.”

“Entertaining, engaging, sometimes perversely funny.”

“This blog reminds me of something my 14-year-old cousin would love. A good read if you aren't looking for anything too deep and you don't mind at least one poop joke in every post. A few posts were really funny and unique, but there are just as many that where just a little too juvenile – more silly than witty.”

“Reminds me of Blog Ho or Pop Fizz, but with a deeper sense of humor. Very good stuff.”

“Not bad. Very funny at times. The Valentine’s Day post was laugh-out-loud hilarious. I enjoyed reading the work-related posts, though personally I would be too scared to venture into that territory.”

“The first post I read was the one about ‘If I Did It … .’ That’s like getting a leadoff home run. What a great post!”

“He comments on some of the blogs I visit. His comments are funnier than his posts. Just my opinion.”

“This is one of the funniest blogs I’ve ever read.”

“I liked this blog. Like Borat, sometimes it seems over the top for me, but you cannot deny that it is funny.”

DESIGN – 6.4
“In the name of all that is good, turn off the flashing lights! The cosmic bowling design is not working. Added a couple of points for the entertaining links on the sidebars.”

“The blinky shit turned me off, and I’ll never understand those sidebar comment things, but the logo is great. Find a Web designer to fix your blog and you’ll really have something.”

“I really like his template in that it fits the overall theme very well. It's easy to read, and it's pleasing to the eye.”

“Some of the formatting is off if you don't use IE for browsing. The blinking is a little obnoxious, but so is the writer so it goes with the theme. It's simple enough to navigate and I was thankful for the two-column layout. Three columns and blinking would have sent me into seizures.”

“Lackluster. However this is rated as high as it is because it's not too link heavy.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 7.1
“I like his writing, but again ... I think my biggest beef with it is that it sometimes appeals to a lower common denominator than it has to. On the other hand, it's his choice how to write, so whom am I to criticize?”

“Not the greatest writer in the world, but he’s funny.”

“Despite the occasional overuse of the ellipses, deliberate misspellings (I hope 'edukational' isn't spelled like that), and self-created words; he does alright. Just a few annoyances, but none that make it too hard to read.”

“The writing didn’t do anything for me either way, which is a good thing. I didn’t see any glaring errors for a personal blog. I didn’t see anything that made me say, ‘This guy is a great writer,’ either. The quality of writing is OK.”

INTANGIBLES – 7.1
“Those blinking lights are fucking horrible."

“Other than the annoying lights, it’s a neat, uncluttered blog that I have no complaints about.”

“I feel weird about my review because while I like it, I think it could be more, and I know that comes off as arrogant. But it's honestly how I feel.”

“The monkey clown freaks me out.”

FREQUENCY – 6.0
“The Mighty Dykerson has averaged almost three posts a week the past six months.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 64% Yes
“Yes. I’m adding it to my links.”

“I might pop back in sometime.”

“No. I don't care for it. I think he's trying too hard to be funny. Seems forced to me.”

“I do. It's not one of the ones I read first, but I get around to it. I like it.”

“I'll check back occasionally. I can appreciate a little shameless and immature bullshitting every now and again.”

“Sure. Good stuff.”

OVERALL – 85.7

Vonnegut’s Asshole

2006-11-20T13:21:00.000-08:00

Eric Spitznagel has writing/editing credits from Playboy, Esquire, Spy, Harper's, Blender, McSweeney's, and many other publications. He’s written (and published) six books. He even had a brief career as an adult film screenwriter.

These days, he’s a contributing editor for Believer Magazine, Web site editor for Monkeybicycle, and the world’s foremost authority of Vonnegut’s Asshole.

The blog, that is.

Most of our reviewers loved Vonnegut’s Asshole, placing it near the top of the blogs we’ve reviewed.

CONTENT – 8.8
“Totally brilliant in most every way: A humor blog that is actually laugh-out-loud funny.”

“Laugh-out-loud funny in places. His mind works like mine does, and that's almost frightening. Cigarette Penis Envy and Hot Lesbian Muppet Love made me cover the laughing with fake coughs since I was wasting time at work, reading.”

“Very entertaining. The posts are generally pretty long, but I wrestled my short attention span into submission because I really enjoyed reading them. I don't know if this blog would appeal to everyone, but if not it is a reflection on the blogging community and not the blog because his writing is wry and clever.”

“This stuff is original, funny, and so well written. One of the best I've reviewed so far!”

“Good use of kitsch.”

“In today's blogosphere, it's awfully hard to find a subject that hasn't yet been covered by thousands of others. The author gets a lot of credit from me for being able to find fresh topics for almost every post. Of course, some are boring as hell to me, thus the few points I've taken of.”

“I'm ashamed to admit I enjoyed the whole huge thing about cereal mascots.”

“The Pete Best of cereal, good one!”

“With a name like Vonnegut's Asshole, it has to be good! I'm not sure if the world is ready for two long-winded posts about breakfast cereal mascots, but I found Eric's essay on Dig 'Em particularly moving. And I was truly impressed with his Nov. 2nd post, which includes a picture of a Scottish guy with an enormous uncircumcised wang. Pure genius!”

DESIGN – 7.4
“The monkey was funny but hate the 'grandma's wallpaper' background.”

“Sadly, as brilliant as this blog is, it really suffers in the design department. Desperately needs a re-design to match the quality of the writing, which is excellent.”

“It's a plain jane blogger template, and I don't care much for the way he plops his pictures into his posts in such a manner that some of the words are crammed to the left or right of the picture, but that is such a minor quibble that I am embarrassed to even bring it up.”

“Nice, easy on the eyes, low on redundant paraphernalia like ads. I liked it.”

“Standard Blogger template.”

“It’s an altered, standard template but I love the monkey. A re-design would make all the difference in the world.”

“Its uncluttered and neat but at the same time, boring. The brown/tan color scheme doesn't do much for me. I guess I'm impossible to please. “

“The template isn't earth shattering, but at least it's clean and easy to read.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 9.6
“I really like his writing style.”

“Impeccable. The guy is a professional writer, and a very good one at that.”

“I've got no complaints. The guy knows his stuff, not surprising given that he is a published author, I suppose.”

“Conversational and easy to read.”

“Has a handle on rudimentary grammar and spelling.”

“Generally done well but I have to point out that something with stripes is 'striped,' not 'stripped' (not necessarily, anyway).” [See Snap Crackle & Pop post.]

“The man writes for a living; his writing has to be good.”

“Not every professional writer I read is this good. It’s an honor he bangs this stuff out for us. Very good.”

INTANGIBLES – 6.6
“Whenever I see anti-aliased type I go into spasm, and his header text brought on a full seizure from which I am still recovering. Extra points for having full entries in the RSS feed.”

“Loved that he used illustrations, old ads and video clips of the different cereals.”

“I have no beefs. He doesn't post every day, but his posts are very full and robust, they last you a couple of days.”

“I hate to even mention the long posts, but they really bother me. Part of being a good writer is knowing when to quit.”

“I'm not a big fan of long posts, but they are well written.”

“Don't really love the interview transcripts. They're the equivalent of memes and Quizilla – sins that I am equally guilty of committing. People that write in glass blogs shouldn't throw stones, but I still don't love them.”

“I don’t get the name.”

“I had to skip through the majority of his posts, because, had I attempted to read them to the end, I'd still be at it when I retired. The posts are painfully long, and the author takes forever to get to the point. On the other hand, if you stay with a post, it proves to be worth the read. Loved the Chicago post, for example!”

“At first I didn't understand why the author only posted twice a week, but after seeing the length of his posts, it seems fair.”

“Eric, you just sold another book.”

FREQUENCY – 4.0
“Eric Spitznagel writes a new post every Monday and Thursday … because he loves us.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 64% Yes
“Yes indeed. I am putting it in my Bloglines as soon as I finish this review.”

“Maybe. I'll try a few more posts and see if he keeps my interest.”

“Sure, why not?”

“Doubtful. Not sure if it was the kitsch or the template, but it just didn't pop at me, and the posts were too long to grab the attention.”

“Maybe once a week is good.”

“I liked Eric's blog and I will be coming back, though I don't promise to read all his posts in their entirety.”

“I would read this blog regularly.”

“I added it to my Bloglines about a month ago but I didn’t realize this was the same blog. Honestly, the long posts probably kept me from thinking of it as one of my favorites. Thanks for forcing me to dig into the archives.”

“No.”

“While I enjoyed what I saw, I'm not sure it did it for me well enough to go back regularly.”

“Already do, and recommend it highly. Why this blog isn't immensely more popular than it is boggles my mind.”

OVERALL – 91.8

Bookfraud

2006-11-15T12:15:00.000-08:00

Even the reviewers who didn’t like Bookfraud recognize the quality of writing.

That’s a pretty good sign with our bunch, helping to propel Bookfraud to the middle of our Top-50 blogs.

CONTENT – 7.4
“An excellently written blog about life, self-loathing, political rhetoric, with a side of pity parties and witty question and answer segments. But, it is just not funny. Smart and fun, certainly, but not funny. Why is this one being reviewed by BlogLaughs? This is more of a Dennis Miller-type site, not a Dennis Leary. Regardless, I love it.”

“I enjoyed the 'Dear Bookfraud' post.”

“The potential for funny was there ... and then it was gone. Several strong starts but wound up more of a bitch-fest about how hard it is to write and get published.”

“I really liked his posts. He always begins them with some sort of personal anecdote, and then proceeds to either rant about an obscure issue associated with the personal story, or fall into a witty diatribe that takes the topic in a funny direction.”

“I couldn't get into it at all.”

“He tells a good story, and he does so intelligently. I especially like the captions for his pictures. I certainly identify with his self-loathing.”

“I’m not a book guy myself, but he tells a great story. If the posts were a little shorter and the design was cleaner, this blog would be perfect.”

“Filled with the insane wisdom that can only be understood by the amateur wannabee novelist, Bookfraud is a genius at taking all that insecurity and indecision, filing it under ‘horseshit’ and allow you to want to continue your journey into becoming a novelist. He absolutely gets the writers mindset. He puts things into words in such a humorous yet desperate fashion that you can't help but say, oh my god, he's reading my mind! Brilliant.”

DESIGN – 5.3
“A standard Blogger template. Normally this makes me want to jab the writer in the eye with a sharpened No. 2 pencil. However, Bookfraud's style of writing, ironic at least, somehow manages to overcome the droll template. We forgive you, Bookfraud.”

“One of the few down sides to this blog. Just a simple Blogger template that hasn't been modified.”

“There was something wrong with the side bar.”

“He screwed up his template somewhere, which pushed his sidebar to the bottom. I’ve done it myself, but I have to knock off another point from my standard 6 for a Blogger template. Pay someone to redesign it for you. It’s cheap and it’s worth it.”

“This is always the hardest category for me. If the content is good, I don't really care about the template much. But, since I guess ultimately I have to grade it based on the esthetics, I give it a 5.”

“Standard Blogger template but clean. Bonus points for including pictures in the posts.”

“Blogger template, right? Too plain. Boring. I give it points for simplicity and lack of ads and other crap in the sidebar, which was located at the bottom of the page for me.”

“Standard Blogger template, but clean, oh so very clean.”

“It's a typical template, not bad, not good.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 8.9
“Excellent. Bookfraud is a superb writer who just can't seem to get published. That's a damn shame, because Bookfraud is a great read.”

“He can write. A grammatical God. Proper usage of apostrophe. Doesn't have long, steamy affairs with ellipses. He tells an amazing story.”

“Well-written but dry in places. Could be that I'm just not edumacated enough to appreciate the prose in this site.”

“I couldn't stand to read much of it but I think in what I read the writing was acceptable. I could be wrong.”

“He writes in that sweet spot of using big words but none so big that I have to look any of them up. I love that. It's fun to read, and I feel smart. Very good writer.”

“You can definitely tell he's a writer. Even though the posts are long, they aren't too wordy.”

“I went in and really tried to like the writing but overall it was obscure and downright pretentious.”

“Very good writer. A perfect 10 is rare for me, but this one gets it.”

INTANGIBLES – 6.7
“Most of the posts were a little to long for my gnat-like attention span.”

“He's a clearly interesting, or at least he knows how to say mundane things in an interesting way.”

“I love that he's a dumb Jew. I'd give him an extra point for that, if I could.”

[This reviewer is Jewish. Stop sending e-mails about anti-Semitism.]

“Meh. Content is very specialized to writers, would-be writers, and liberals.”

“Long boring posts.”

“I really like this blog. Seems to me its kind of a 'well kept secret'. If the author ever had the desire to take the blog to its own domain and create a semi-nice design, then I'm sure he'd get a heck of a lot more readers.”

“The posts are a little longer than I like, but why penalize him for my short attention span?”

“The posts are too long for me.”

“He doesn't post all that often, maybe once a week. I always wonder about blogs like this in that would he be as entertaining if he posted every day? Can you appear smarter, funnier, etc. if you save it up for a week?”

FREQUENCY – 3.0
“Bookfraud averages less than two posts a week, but it’s close enough for jazz.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 54% Yes
“Have been lurking there for months. I think I will come out of the closet now.”

“Hmmm … no, but only because I have to read so many these days. It would be on my blogroll if my blogroll were smaller.”

“Probably. I'm going to add it to my feed reader and give it a spin.”

“No.”

“While I wouldn't throw this blog into the category of ‘funny,’ I will definitely put it on my permanent read list because the writing is smart, solid and Bookfraud is one of the few really intelligent people I have seen in the blogworld.”

OVERALL – 79.2

Perez Hilton

2006-11-08T16:52:00.000-08:00

While reviewing other celebrity blogs in the past, a few of our reviewers have remarked, “It’s OK, but it’s not as good as Perez Hilton.”

If memory serves, none of those people responded for this review.

Instead, the reviewers who rated Perez Hilton gave us every number from 0-10 in almost every category. The numbers are literally all over the place.

CONTENT – 6.3
“The stuff is kind of funny in a ‘look at me I'm gay and I love acting like a bitch’ sort of way. There are pictures with almost every post, so you at least have a visual connection to the insults the author is spouting about celebrities.”

“I enjoy the psychotic scrawl on the photos.”

“Gossip whores of the world worship Perez Hilton, though I still don't understand why. He is a Ted Casablanca wanna be. Equally as gay but not nearly as much style and class. He is the gossip goddess for the mean-spirited. About 90 percent of the time his ‘scoops’ turn out to be wrong, but when he is right, good lawd, watch for him flamboyantly screeching ‘I told you so’ all over his page! He has a lot of growing up to do. I find him incredibly boring compared to Eonline, Gawker, Defamer or various other gossip sites on the Web.”

“I'm going to have nightmares about that Cameron Diaz photo.”

“Ugh! I am not a big fan of celebrity blogs. I have one on my blogroll and it is not, nor will it ever be, this one. There are a few sincere posts scattered among mostly sophomoric and/or mean-spirited posts. Who needs this? Is this contributing anything to our lives? If so, it sure ain't the gift of laughter. I guess some people like this. I am not one of those people. This blog gets a lot of comments. I think that makes me sad. There are blogs that do this sort of thing so much better.”

“Perfect 10s are so boring, aren't they?”

“I know I seem mean. I guess this blog is okay for some people. Maybe the kind of mouth breathers who can't read the bigger words in People Magazine or can't pick up Entertainment Tonight on their stolen television set.”

“I’ve just had enough of the ‘snarky comments about celebrities’ sites. Here’s a big ‘who gives a shit!’”

DESIGN – 6.3
“With the amount of media attention this blog is getting, I figured it would be a better layout. The main header image is out of sync with the background (in both FireFox and IE7). The images even overlap the post boxes if they're too large. I guess the pink color fits the theme, but I just hate pink. Overall, better than most homemade Blogger templates.”

“It was really slow to load at home and at work. Both have fast connections.”

“The ads were a little too busy, but I liked the pink.”

“It's a good template and design for what it is supposed to be. It's attractive. I don't get hung up on ads or mumber of sidebars or stuff like that. It's clear and attractive and easy to read. If I liked the content, I would rank it higher. I still can't get past the content."

“While I love pink to death, he manages to make me hate it. The dual sidebars are annoying as hell. On the left, how wonderful he truly believes he is. On the right, ads ads ads ads...and ads with spelling errors no less, which doesn't surprise me as PH could use a class on spelling and grammar himself.”

“Professional, unique, clean layout.”

“Not bad, but the pink sucks. It’s just too gay for me.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 6.5
“Pretty funny stuff, but for a guy who claims to have been part of a real journalistic publication before blogging, there are still too many grammar mistakes.”

“If spelling is truly not the mark of which intelligence should be rated upon, then PH is a genius. He makes so many spelling errors that I find it painful to read his column. His use of grammar is atrocious. Maybe it's intentional. Who knows.”

“Witty captions. Very relatable. Easy to digest and enjoy.”

“The words are spelled right. I'll give him that much.”

“It’s better than average for this sort of thing, but you have to be in the mood to read it.”

INTANGIBLES – 3.8
“Too many ads will make your readers go blind.”

“Lots of ads and it tried to make me download some ActiveX bullshit. I don’t think so.”

“I'm not sure why, but the intangibles of this blog are higher than the scores for the other areas. I guess a queen from LA who posts dozens of times per day on the latest celebrity gossip is more entertaining than watching it on Entertainment Tonight.”

“Ads. Ads. Ads. Ads. Ads. And that stupid cutsie poo writing thing he does on photographs. Argh. Hate it!”

“Very plugged into celebrity-ville.”

“I'm sorry. I just can't get past the content. I think my laptop is starting to smell. I need to get off this blog.”

FREQUENCY – 10.0
“More posts than you know what to do with.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 50% Yes
“Yes, but I think dlisted.com is better.”

“Nope.”

“I added it to my feed reader, but I'm sure I'll get tired of it pretty soon.”

“No. And I have to go bleach my corneas now for taking the time to review it.”

“Sure.”

“No, no, a thousand times no. If I am in the mood for this kind of humor I can just hang out at a bowling alley or a frat house."

OVERALL – 72.4

Citizen of the Month

2006-10-31T09:47:00.000-08:00

After our last review, we’re a bit gun-shy about taking on blogs written by nice people with a loyal following.

Neil Kramer’s Citizen of the Month garnered the fifth-highest rating we’ve awarded here at BlogLaughs, but we are convinced his faithful minions will still want to string us up while the Monkey-followers continue to pepper us with feces.

CONTENT – 8.1
“Brilliant, brilliant blog. Neil has a unique sense of humor and never fails to deliver the funny.”

“Posts are tongue-in-cheek and give humorous commentary on current events and personal anecdotes. A good mix. Some posts do ramble on a little too long to stay witty.”

“Original; loved ‘A Story for my younger readers.’”

“I like Neil. He's an affable enough person, enjoyable to read, and he seems like a real mensch. I will give him bonus points for being a Jew. I loved his yenta matchmaking post ... and his camera post was hysterical. He doesn't seem like he is trying to make you laugh. He just does.”

“Neil and his penis are quite entertaining. Not that I laughed out loud reading every post, but I chuckled. I did feel as if I was reading an English professor's blog at times, but, at least this guy knows how to spell, or, use spell check and the proper way to punctuate, and use paragraphs.”

“Only remotely humorous.”

“I like this blog. The blogmatcher post was intriguing as well as the photos of different reader's beds.”

“I like this blog and have been a regular reader for quite a while. He is not laugh-out-loud funny but he is smart and witty in a New Yorker kind of way. I don't read many blogs like his because I am more of an Entertainment Weekly guy than a New Yorker guy, but I still enjoy Neil's writing quite a bit.”

“Dynamic interesting posts. My favorite was ‘How Much Is That Dildo In The Window.’ Good, amusing, engaging.”

“He has an entertaining style of writing, but I believe he and others think he's more entertaining than he actually is. However, I do like the talking penis. Maybe I'll train my cootch to talk.”

“I like the way he mixes it up. You can never really be sure where he is going to go. The video post he did of himself dancing with a mop while all dressed up was very enjoyable.”

“I like Neil a lot. His blog is very good, but not great. I can’t put a finger on it.”

DESIGN – 7.3
“Straightforward.”

“It's not a great template, but it doesn't have to be ... the content is the star here.”

“The design is simple and clean. I like the fact that he went pink for October. Not too many men can pull that off. Pink is the new blog, you know.”

“Simple, which is nice. But the color scheme doesn't seem to really gel with the blog and its content.”

“Yet another boring Blogger-looking template.”

“Clean design, however I hate scrolling for long periods of time – too many posts on one page.”

“Would be a perfect 10 if it weren't for the basic template.”

“I like the design very much. It’s original and simple. I’m taking off for a little bit for the lack of color and the comments in the sidebar, but that’s about it. Solid 8.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 9.3
“He's an excellent writer, no question about it. Better than most. Not necessarily funnier than most, but I bet he can diagram a sentence, which is more than I can do. “

“Good solid writing skills; entertaining.”

“The guy is a writer, and his blog reflects that. You don't mind the long entries because everything reads so well.”

“Well written. I mean, when a man's penis can use commas, I think I'm in love.”

“In true Jew form, his writing is impeccable. He has a wonderful grasp of the English language, which brings me to near orgasm. I love a man with a rich and enhanced vernacular.”

“Good use of language, punctuation, capitalization, and grammar.”

“Well written, good grammar and vocabulary. Very easy to read.”

“Big 10 for this one. Neil is a writer’s writer.”

INTANGIBLES – 8.1
“The scrolling comment bar on the side. Ugh. Why? Who cares what the latest comments are? We can read them for ourselves. Make that go away. And I hate tags. Hate them. That's my own personal hang up. Nothing to do with his page. I promise to seek therapy for it, but for now, it lowers the points.”

“This is a great blog, and it's hard to fault it for much.”

“Alrighty! No ads!”

“Posts seem rather long and rambling for the most part.”

“I think if I knew the blogger, I might be drawn into his posts a little easier. But sometimes, he can keep rambling about a subject before getting to the ‘punchline.’”

“The long posts turned me off a bit. It's one thing to use conversational writing, it's another when the reader has to scroll to China to finish a post.”

“You can't go by me, because most of his readers seem to be pretty smart, he definitely appeals to a certain demographic but he has a good-sized following. I am not sure if that is because there are so many semi-intellectual readers around or if it's more of a case of their not being too many semi-intellectual blogs around. He's got a lot more Bloglines subscribers than anyone else I have come across. Some of that may be a function of his being a web producer in Los Angeles. I think he has a lot of local readers.”

“His wife Sophia sounds hot. Or maybe I'm just imagining her accent.”

“He mentioned his pending review on Bloglaughs, that was kinda cool.”

“I don’t like the comments in the sidebar, but its not too bad. No ads. No begging. No bullshit. Gotta love that.”

FREQUENCY – 10
“Neil posts about every day.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 81% Yes
“Already do, and I have no plans to stop any time soon.”

“Perhaps.”

“He is already bookmarked and I am dismayed to know that I am not one of his frequent reads. How do you not read the Jewish Princess? I am shocked and dismayed, but I will get over it.”

“I don’t think so.”

“I do, every day. He's been on my blogroll for quite some time.”

“No.”

“Yes. I actually added it to Bloglines pretty quickly.”

“Already do.

OVERALL – 92.2

Monkey’s Deep Thoughts

2006-10-24T13:49:00.000-07:00

We haven’t had a true “love it” or “hate it” blog in quite a while, but Monkey’s Deep Thoughts changed all of that.

Every single reviewer gave this blog either an 8 or 9, or a 4 or 5 for content. Ratings in other categories were all over the place but the positive scores helped push Monkey’s Deep Thoughts into our Top-50.

CONTENT – 6.0
“Cute, original in a primate kinda way."

“I never thought anybody could take something as inherently funny as monkeys and make them un-funny. Cute idea, but not my thing.”

“This isn't supposed to be a funny blog. It's more of a clever, ‘day in the life’ kind of blog than drop-dead funny. I’m sorry to keep going back to this, but this is still funnier than blogs featuring pictures of cats.”

"Yawn. Premise would be cute if I was 17."

“I enjoy the stuffed animal concept. If only I'd thought of it first.”

“Somewhat lame. The daily goings-on of a monkey puppet? Creative, though. Extra points for that.”

“It's kind of a one-trick pony blog. It's a cute enough idea, and it grew on me a little bit more the further I went back, but still, I would rate it mildly enjoyable at best. Somewhat clever, but nothing hilarious. “

“What the hell? I've heard of animal blogs, but a stuffed monkey? What happened in this person's childhood to come up with this?”

“I didn’t get it the first couple of times I checked it out. After Monkey spent a few days with Spinning Girl, I was hooked. I’ve been reading ever since.”

DESIGN – 6.0
“Standard Blogger template. Boring, but easy to read.”

“Snore.”

“Nothing special, looks like a basic Blogger template but at least it's clean and easy to read. Still, personally I like at least a little more pizzazz.”

“Standard Blogger template.”

“Blah. Basic green Blogger template.”

“For a standard template, its not too bad. I love the tagline at the end. That’s probably the funniest thing on the site.”

“Plain old Blogger template. I like green though, Extra point for that.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 7.3
“There is not a whole lot of writing, as half the gimmick is visual, but the author clearly can write clearly and well, which was refreshing.”

“Good, if not a bit ‘out there’ writing from the point of view of a stuffed primate.”

“There are some style issues that need to be addressed, but for a monkey, the writing isn't bad.”

“It's written by an unfunny monkey, so it's hard to complain. For a monkey, I guess it's okay.”

“Good.”

“Pretty good for a stuffed monkey.”

“For a monkey, the posts are well written, maybe a few were entertaining, but I didn't laugh. Although I am craving bananas.”

INTANGIBLES – 8.0
“Monkey is a very loyal reader/commenter of other blogs. That’s got to count for something.”

“I’m hoping the ‘Rated R’ notice is meant to be ironic. This site is ‘Rated G,’ not that there’s anything wrong with that.”

“What's with the R rating? Is it an inside joke or did this blogger get PMRC'd?”

"My only pet-peeve is the time I wasted trying to find something funny here."

“How does a monkey get so many comments? And why do I have to scroll endlessly? Thank goodness the blog has no pop-ups, or I'd have to hurl feces at my monitor.”

"It's a blog about a stuffed monkey for Gawd's sake. Is that not intangible enough for you?"

“Nothing really jumps out at me. Nothing pissed me off, nothing got me excited. Eh.”

“The blog seems to have a small but fiercely loyal readership, which seemed to return fairly unabated after a 7 month hiatus that ended in September. I don't think there is enough to the blog that will elevate it to much more popularity.”

FREQUENCY – 6.0
“Monkey has posted more than three times a week (which would be 6.0) since the recent hiatus, but we’re not comfortable going much higher because of the hiatus … if that makes any sense.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 44% Yes
“Doubtful, but I will pass the link on to others.”

“Already do.”

"I regret even reading it now."

“Now THAT'S funny!”

“Already do.”

"I would probably not read it regularly."

“Probably not. It's a cute idea but I don't see myself going back on a regular basis to see what the monkey is up to.”

OVERALL – 70.1

Pop Fizz

2006-10-19T09:08:00.000-07:00

Pop Fizz admittedly has a “sick, disgusting sense of humor.”

With that in mind, some of our reviewers will shit a brick when they learn he found a temporary spot at the bottom of our Top-50.

Others will be pissing their pants with joy.

Mixed reviews anyone?

CONTENT – 6.1
“Sure it's funny, but how hard is it to get a laugh out of masturbation and anal sex? He occasionally puts up an entry that shows some actual creativity and imagination, but not often enough to keep me reading.”

“Fizz's posts are juvenile and dirty as hell, but I'd laugh pretty hard at about every other one. He sticks to the same vein of wickedly vile humor, so its not like he's all over the place.”

“What is this? The blog of a masturbatorial 12-year-old? I found it somewhat offensive, and I usually lay claim that one of my many aspects of my personality (my penchant for potty humor and salty language) is due to having been a 12-year-old boy in another life.”

“I love Pop Fizz. He’s not afraid to write about anything and I like that.”

“Pure juvenile crap. There isn't enough bleach in the world to wash out my eyes right now. “

“He's definitely funnier than most bloggers, but the explicitness of his homoerotic posts aren't for the faint of heart.”

“I kept saying to myself, ‘How old is this douchebag?’”

“Tell him to grow the fuck up!”

“I didn't laugh once. Ok, I admit I laughed at the jizz swiffer line, but that's it.”

“The Maf54 IM re-write was pretty funny, even though I hate myself for reading the entire thing.”

“I always think of Pop Fizz and Blog Ho together. Blog Ho gets credit all over the Internet as a ‘genius,’ but Fizz is funnier because his stuff is different everyday.”

“Sexual humor doesn't do it for me.”

DESIGN – 4.9
“Heaven save us from yet another Blogger black template of death.”

“Basic Blogger template.”

“His old design was better, even though that was a piece of shit template too.”

“Standard blogger black template. More crap.”

“Meh... black Blogger template. Could use a little creativity or uniqueness to separate it from the umpteen million other blogs with black Blogger templates.”

“Bring back the white one!”

“Boring blogger template.”

“Of all the Blogger templates, this one is near the bottom of my list. It’s black and boring. Yuck!”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 6.3
“He owns up to the fact that his spelling and grammar are shitty, but I didn't think it was that bad.”

“For such nasty content, he writes pretty well. Even though the grammar isn't correct in most of his posts, its more like the 'author taking liberties' than the 'idiot who can't put together a complete sentence.’”

“Crappy spelling, grammar, punctuation and abysmal capitalization.”

“Garbage.”

“At least he admits that he has a grammar problem.”

“Lots of typos.”

“Fizz freely admits his mistakes, but his willingness to write about anything has got to be worth something.”

INTANGIBLES – 5.6
“POP UPS! POP UPS! DID I MENTION POP UPS? I will give it a 3, because at least it is a clean template, but I really was disgusted by this blog.”

“Immature, misogynistic. The corn and peanuts in my own stool is more compelling and entertaining.”

“The pop-ups are unforgivable. One of them has fucking video and took forever to load before I could make it go away. Thankfully, there weren’t any ads or other bullshit on the page.”

“I'll let you know once my eyes have recovered from reading pages of white type on a black background.”

“I wonder if he has anything to do with (irreverent podcast) Nobody Likes Onions? Those guys are in the Tampa area and have the same sense of humor.”

FREQUENCY – 5.0
“Pop Fizz makes relatively frequent posts when he’s open for business. However, he’s taken several long breaks in posting over the years. I’ll punt and give it a 5.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 43% Yes
“This rating is being sponsored by the letters, ‘N’ and ‘O.’”

“Fuck yes!”

“Maybe once I've worn out my Andrew Dice Clay standup videos.”

“I already do.”

“Only if someone was pointing a loaded gun to my head, and even then, I'd have some reservations.”

“Um, no.”

“I subscribe to his feed so I don't have to deal with the pop-ups. Besides, you never know when he's going to disappear.”

“Probably not. While his posts can be something funny to read once in a blue moon, I don't see myself checking back all the time for updates.”

“Not even if I got paid for it.”

OVERALL – 67.9

-- BlogLaughs Goes Weekly --

2006-10-17T06:46:00.000-07:00

Things have been kind of hectic here at BlogLaughs Headquarters the past few months and I've come to the realization this blog may work better if we only do one blog review a week.

Compiling three reviews each week has become tiresome and I'm hoping to get better response from my reviewers by cutting the workload for them as well.

Hopefully, I will get around to compiling the review for Pop Fizz tomorrow. After that, I plan on posting a new review each Tuesday.

Thanks for understanding ...

The Letter D

2006-10-13T13:31:00.000-07:00

The blogger behind The Letter D is a freelance writer, humor columnist, and stand-up comedian among other things.

It is no surprise he made it into our Top-10 with a cumulative score of 88.1.

CONTENT - 8.2
"Not every story is meant to be funny, but the guy can’t help it sometimes. He’s just damn funny."

"I can relate to the math in school post. In the archives, the list about different groups of women was pretty creative."

"Every post he makes is worth the click. You just can’t say that about every blogger."

"This score would have been higher if the blogger posted more regularly."

DESIGN - 6.4
"It's your basic Blogger template. No frills or ads."

"Plain, old Blogger template. Uncreative, maybe, but it's clean and simple, just how I like it!"

"Basic Blogger template."

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR - 8.5
"Perfect 10."

"Seemingly random posts, a smattering of things that either interest the blogger or ‘slice of life’ posts. Good spelling, use of punctuation/capitalization, and grammar."

"He writes with heart. God, I love that."

"Better than average."

"The quality of writing makes up for anything else. Thanks for sending me to this blog. This is what BlogLaughs is all about."

INTANGIBLES - 8.9
"No ads, no begging, nothing but good, solid writing."

"His Oct. 6, 2006 post hooked me right away, what's not to like about a church message about spreading intergalactic cocoa love?"

FREQUENCY - 4.0
"Mr. Hamilton posts a couple of times a week."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY - 68% Yes
"Yep."

"Doubtful."

"I think so."

"Yes. I’m adding it to my side panel."

OVERALL - 86.7

Gallery of the Absurd

2006-10-11T11:36:00.000-07:00

Gallery of the Absurd is the home of Fourteen, a talented artist who “illustrates the sordid world of gossip and slander while trying to keep a straight face.”

Mixed reviews kept Gallery of the Absurd from scoring too high or low, but it did find a spot on our Top-50 list.

CONTENT – 6.1
“Fourteen is quite a talented artist, but I don’t know how funny this is. Amusing, maybe.”

“Definitely bizarre. Good call on the Janet Jackson photo, though.”

“I didn't find it funny or even interesting or read-worthy.”

“Regular, timely posts.”

“Don't we rate humor blogs? I didn't laugh.”

DESIGN – 6.5
“Looks like a standard, three-column TypePad template.”

“Google ads-ick. Boring color scheme.”

“A little better than a standard template.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 6.6
“Regular, timely posts; good use of grammar, spelling, punctuation and capitalization.”

“I don't see anything glaring.”

“The writing is OK, but the artwork is the star. She misspells a few words here and there but nothing bad.”

INTANGIBLES – 7.9
“I enjoy the original artwork on this blog. Therein is the true creativity of this particular blog. This would have garnered a ‘10’ if it were not for the ads in the side panel.”

“I think the whole blog is a peeve.”

“The ads on the side panel suck, but posting original artwork has got to be worth a few extra points somewhere.”

“I like anyone who has an ‘about’ page.”

FREQUENCY – 5.0
“Fourteen posts about two or three original pieces a week, from what we could tell.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 36% Yes
“Sure.”

“No.”

“Perhaps. I added it to my faves. Let's wait and see.”

“Not a chance.”

OVERALL – 69.3

Aly’s World

2006-10-09T12:41:00.000-07:00

You know those friends who like to fill your inbox with the most hilarious things they can find on the Internet?

They would love Aly’s World.

Our reviewers?

Not so much.

CONTENT – 4.9
“Not original, just reposting funny tidbits she found elsewhere.”

“Trite. This score is as high as it is because the blog was interesting enough to drive me to Google, ‘Proteus Syndrome.’ I think if it didn't pique my curiosity to do that, this particular score would be in the negatives.”

“OK. Enough with the joke blogs! This one isn’t funny either.”

“Some of it may be funny, but its not original content.”

DESIGN – 3.7
“Something in the formatting made the sidebar screwed up.”

“I didn't dig how her masthead was off to the left instead of centered; this score would be higher if the individual were mentally handicapped. I'd definitely cut her some slack.”

“A standard Blogger template that has been altered for the worse.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 3.5
“The posts mostly seem to be pictures. What writing there is, seems to be copied from forwarded emails or joke books.”

“Nothing original. I bet if we were to find the rip in the space-time continuum, this particular blogger would be one of those folks who would go crazy at the photocopier (or earlier, the mimeograph machine), clogging our inboxes on our desks with the hard copy version of this crap.”

“Not much writing here. I would imagine she didn’t write most of it anyway.”

INTANGIBLES – 5.9
“I was so annoyed by this blog's lack of creativity and originality, my taint itched. Actually if this blog were all pink and had pop ups and annoying music, I'm sure it would have not been AS annoying.”

“There’s one ad for disaster relief, but not much else. I have to take off a few points for the screwed up sidebar but that’s about it.”

“Nothing too annoying.”

FREQUENCY – 10.0
“Aly doesn’t post every day, but she often posts several items when she does.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 12% Yes
“Not a chance.”

“You've got three guesses, and the first two don't count.”

“I might … it could be good for a quick laugh.”

OVERALL – 57.1

Smile of the Day

2006-10-06T08:26:00.000-07:00

Smile of the Day ended its run shortly after our reviewers were asked to critique it. According to the last post, the site will be revived at www.theblackfly.net.

Still, I doubt many of our reviewers will follow along.

CONTENT – 5.0
“This is the first ‘joke-joke’ blog I’ve seen and I’m not impressed.”

“Very sweet but very bland content. Jokes we've seen or heard dozens of times before. Reads like the "Laughter is the Best Medicine" section of Readers Digest. Even sort of looks like it.”

“I got a chuckle or two out of this blog.”

“I found it boring.”

“Consistent posts, upbeat, amusing.”

“Humorous but not very creative. Anyone can post a joke every day.”

DESIGN – 4.5
“Basic Blogger template.”

“Not particularly creative.”

“Standard Blogger template adds to the Reader’s Digest effect.”

“This is one of my least-favorite Blogger templates.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 5.3
“Unoriginal.”

“The writing is fine, the grammar is impeccable. Sadly, most of it comes from other sources.”

“I would imagine most of it is cut-and-paste from other sources. The grammar is OK, but the writing probably isn’t ”

INTANGIBLES – 4.2
“Ads everywhere. Tip cup, for what? Recycled humor? Oy. I have a headache. Too much blinking. Take your 2 and be grateful.”

“I've decided the donation button annoys me more than the ads.”

“What do you call that when you go around collecting other people’s trash and then try to make money off of it with a bunch of ads? I don’t know either, but that’s exactly what this site does. We should make up a word.”

FREQUENCY – 10.0
“Smile of the Day was a pretty frequent site in its day.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 6% Yes
“Nope, it's like any other personal joke blog out there.”

“Not sure.”

“I am trying to forget it.”

“Maybe.”

“Not on your life.”

OVERALL – 57.6

Mommy Needs Coffee

2006-10-04T07:15:00.000-07:00

Yahoo! lists Mommy Needs Coffee as one of the most humorous blogs on the Internet.

Our reviewers seemed to walk on eggshells a little bit, but they still didn’t find much to make them laugh.

CONTENT – 5.8
“Jenn seems like a very nice person, a decent personal blogger, but I didn’t find anything all that funny.”

“Normal everyday mom-type issues. I can relate.”

“I'm just not a fan of mommy blogs, most of their content is unrelatable for me.”

“Blogher, Blogher, Blogher, mommy blogs, mommy wars, 9/11, Steve Irwin, and happy birthday to my teenager. And that was only September. She's not funny. She's not interesting. She is just another sweet mommy blogger making her own space in the world. I liked her story on hair violations though. Induced two or three chuckles.”

“She's a professional blogger.”

“I believe this is the prototypical mommy blog. It’s sweet, honest, and heartfelt but doesn’t have the zing of Dooce or Karlababble.”

DESIGN – 5.0
“The main graphic is nice, the background is OK, but the color of the sidebars is annoying as hell! What color is that? It looks like my poop after eating blueberry pancakes!”

“The sidebars are chaotic. It takes away from the content in the middle. And I know this is picky, but the page scrolled kinda weird making it more difficult to read.”

“Hate it. It's drab in color. Three columns mean a whole lot of nothing in the sidebars. Boring.”

“The sidebars are terrible. The colors aren’t attractive and don’t go together.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 5.6
“The writing is OK for a blog.”

“She writes in conversational tone. I like that. However, she makes a lot of typos. As a grammar Nazi, I find that to be really annoying. Not a huge deal, I just wish she would re-read before hitting ‘post.’”

“I have to deduct a point because I saw ‘high-healed shoes.’”

“Typical mommy blog fare.”

INTANGIBLES – 3.8
“Too many ads and buttons.”

“Ads. Everywhere. Ads. Too much self-promotion going on. I've gotten a bunch of recognition for my writing as well, but I don't load my sidebars up with it. Just Google me to find my greatness. I hate all the blinkies. It makes me have seizures.”

“She is obviously a member of every blogging group on the planet.”

“Busy, busy, busy.”

FREQUENCY – 6.0
“Jenn has averaged about three posts a week the past six months.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 12% Yes
“Noooooooooooooo!”

“Not on a bet.”

“Ummmmm … no.”

“No, thank you.”

“I don’t think so.”

“Yes. I was entertained.”

OVERALL – 62.0

Wil Wheaton

2006-10-02T06:57:00.000-07:00

Much like our review of little.yellow.different, it is with great trepidation I post a mixed review of Wil Wheaton’s blog.

Wheaton is probably best known for acting roles in Stand By Me and Star Trek: The Next Generation, but he is also a blogging pioneer with three books to his credit.

Wheaton’s not-so-temporary blog, Wil Wheaton dot Net: In Exile, is one of the most popular sites on the Internet. In 2002, Wheaton won six Bloggies, including Most Humorous Weblog and Weblog of the Year.

CONTENT – 6.2
“Poor Wil is gonna get killed by the people who aren’t long-time readers, isn’t he? I’m a big fan, but even I’ll admit his blog has suffered as his writing career has taken off. He has several more writing and acting gigs than he did when his blog was blowing up. He’s still just as honest and self-effacing, but reading about his struggles was more interesting than reading about his latest poker tournament. On the other hand, Wil seems much happier in his skin these days. I am truly happy for him. This blog doesn’t quite deserve the 10 I’m going to give it today, but I’m certain it won’t deserve the low scores you’ll get from your other reviewers either.”

“Was this a humorous blog?”

“Copious posts.”

“Very sweet. Ordinary content. Nothing too amazing. Nice to see someone is wordier than I am. I have to admit that nothing made me laugh. A smile or two during the Kmart/StarWars story, but seriously, nothing laugh inducing.”

“Not a fan of Star Trek or any of its incarnations, so there wasn't much to interest me. My dad would probably like it though.”

“Boring.”

“The ‘dewdrops in the garden’ post was nice. I often wonder if my husband sees me that way in his beady little mind. … Nah.”

“I miss Wil’s old blog. WWdN used to be really, really good.”

"The story he tells about how he into blogging is one of the best posts I've ever read by anyone. Period."

DESIGN – 6.4
“He’s been ‘in exile’ at Typepad for too long. The lack of a redesign at his primary site just goes to show he doesn’t care that much about his blog anymore.”

“Standard Typepad template, but kudos for being a nice calming blue/gray. Not a lot of thought went into this.”

“Basic.”

“The font is just a wee bit too small.”

“Boring but an extra point for neatness.”

“He’s tweaked a standard template, but there isn’t anything bad about that.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 8.6
“I love when he writes about his childhood. He has such a sweet way of telling a story. It just goes to show that his casting in Stand By Me was brilliant. Thankfully, he grew up to be better looking than Richard Dreyfus.”

“The writing is fine. Grammar is fine. Stories are fine. Everything is just … fine.”

“Wil is a better writer than he is an actor.”

“Wil is a fantastic writer. His honesty is simply wonderful.”

“Good grammar and spelling and use of punctuation.”

“I still read WWdN because of the writing. When he’s on, there are very few bloggers who compare.”

INTANGIBLES – 8.8
“Not many ads or other bullshit, but he gets a little long-winded sometimes.”

“He gets points for posing with Charlie McCarthy.”

“Dear God, if I read another poker story I think I’ll poke my eyes out with a stick!”

“I can’t recommend ‘Just a Geek’ enough. It’s as much about ‘blogging’ as it is about anything else. He goes through the same things all of us go through. It’s a good read.”

“I love the video game stuff he writes for The Onion AV Club.”

FREQUENCY – 10
“Wil has averaged more than six posts a week the past six months. He might not post everyday, but he’ll make up for it with two or three the next day.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 50% Yes
“Already do.”

“Nooooooooo!”

“I’ll always read Wil’s blog.”

“No. My eyes glazed over. Is his stuff amusing? I couldn't tell.”

“I still read it because the good posts make up for the bad ones.”

“Not a chance.”

“I used to, but not anymore. It’s kind of gone stale.”

OVERALL – 75.3

Where the Hell was I?

2006-09-29T07:52:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-27T12:39:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-25T09:04:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-15T07:12:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-13T05:27:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-11T06:59:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-08T13:20:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-06T10:45:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-04T10:29:00.000-07:00

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

2006-09-01T12:58:00.000-07:00

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

Banterist

2006-08-30T11:24:00.000-07:00

The Banterist slipped into our current No. 12 spot with generally favorable marks from all of our reviewers.

“This blog is pretty funny. Very witty with a mix of both lowbrow humor and intelligent irony. I love the bit about incorrect grammar being all around us. The only issue I had was the site layout. The body is squished all the way to the left. His writing and pics should take center stage. Great blog.”

CONTENT – 8.2
“I have fallen in love with Banterist. The content ranges from the intentionally silly to the political to the interesting. There is not a dull moment to be found. I had more laugh out loud moments with this blog than I have had with any other in a long time. I might have even snorted once or twice. The MTA Store for Germaphobes has to be my absolute favorite. If you ever lived in NYC you will totally relate. Content is a fat 10. If I could post an 11, I would.”

“The Grammar Cop posts are good for a laugh.”

“Amusing enough.”

“We lowlifes appreciate a sneak peek into a life of the celebrity crowd. Liked the Photoshop Awards post, too!”

“This blog has its moments, but is a bit uneven. I found myself cracking up on one entry, but then completely bored on the next. This would be forgivable if he posted with any regularity but, since he doesn't, he should be hitting more home runs than this.”

DESIGN – 6.1
“I didn't like the way the archives shortened up the posts. It's picky, but I'd rather the posts show the date they were posted. At least it didn't show the date on the front page.”

“Nothing tragic, but the overflowing sidebars and abundance of ads really work against a cohesive look.”

“Classy, neat lines. Great layout. Nice columns in colors that are conducive to spending a long time reading.”

“Unique.”

“The design would be very good if it weren’t for all the ads. A couple of them look too big for the side panels.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 8.0
“Well written and easy to read. Nothing to get excited over, but great compared to most blogs.”

“The writing is articulate and the grammar is spot on. Brian has a way with words, that's for sure. It's not easy to post conversational type posts, but he manages with flair.”

“Someone with posts about grammar better score high in this category.”

“I didn't much care for the actual text entries. However this blogger knows good grammar and punctuation, which kept this score to a solid 7 in this category.”

“The man knows how to use his apostrophe's proper'ly. (sic) I've got to respect that.”

“He’s a pretty good writer. Not the funniest in the world, but he’s still a good writer.”

INTANGIBLES – 6.1
“His Google ads are out of control. There are so many of them. Gads.”

“Normally I don't dig blogs heavy laden with Youtube stuff and nothing original, however the selections were decent enough. His use of Gallagher kept this score to a 7.5 (who doesn't enjoy gratuitous melon bashing?)”

“Ads galore.”

“Doesn't show the date of his entries, and that's kind of lame. Of course, since he doesn't post very often, I guess that's one way to camouflage it.”

“The one side panel is great. The archives are organized by both category and month with totals for each. There’s a FAQ, most popular posts, all kinds of good stuff. Of course, right next to it is another side panel full of ads. That sucks!”

FREQUENCY – 4.0
“The Banterist has averaged about two posts a week the past year. However, the frequency is usually down during the summer months.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 57% Yes
“Maybe.”

“Absolutely. He is bookmarked and will be added to my page this weekend. Thank you BlogLaughs for this find!”

“Not likely.”

“Subscribed to it.”

“Sure, if he'd post regularly.”

OVERALL – 85.2

Jonathan Coulton

2006-08-28T11:53:00.000-07:00

Looking at Jonathan Coulton’s work in the context of a "humor blog review" is not the easiest thing to do.

Some of our reviewers skimmed the surface and discarded it. Some dug deep and didn’t think it was all that great. Others thought it was nothing short of genius.

Either way, our reviewers had lots of opinions. Let’s get to it ...

"This one is difficult to judge at face value. At first glance, it’s not a ‘humor blog.’ But then again, if Jonathan Coulton’s songs were written without music, you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who would say these ‘posts’ were not clever, poignant, witty, sweet, or sometimes funny. Throw in the fact that he’s a brilliant musician and this blog has to be considered very good."

"I don’t know if I’d call this a humor blog, but the quality of the free content is better than you get from most blogs."

CONTENT – 7.9
"I just didn't find the blog funny. It seemed more music oriented or something."

"I’m not from New York, and I had never heard of Soterios Johnson before, but the whole idea of a straight-laced news guy who lives to dance is brilliant."

"His regular songs are OK, but I’m not into the whole funny song thing."

"Love his Tom Cruise Crazy tune. That alone sells it."

"The first song I heard was Rock and Roll Boy on the Delta Park Project. Jonathan found a little song some 6-year-old kid sang into a recorder and turned it into a real song with backup vocals, a guitar solo, and everything. After that, I was hooked. Good, good stuff."

"This isn't a humor blog."

"I have more Jonathan Coulton songs on my iPod than I have The Beatles, Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin combined. That’s so wrong, but I don’t care. I love JoCo’s music."

"The music is amusing enough, but where's the funny? Sure a few tunes I listened to brought a smile to my face because they were clever (Skullcrusher Mountain is an instant classic) but I don't find myself laughing at all. Maybe he's just too subtle for me, because I love musical comedy by the likes of Stephen Lynch and Evan Wecksell?"

"Drinking With You, Big Bad World One, Madelaine, and You Could Be Her are not nearly as funny or clever as Tom Cruise Crazy or Code Monkey, but they’re not supposed to be. Those songs are just damn good. Those songs should be on the radio."

"Brian Wilson would never write a song about a kid riding in a stroller. Cute song."

DESIGN – 6.0
"Same old WordPress template I've seen a hundred times. The good news is that this means it's easy to read, the bad news is that it also means the site is boring to look at."

"The top is a bit cluttered and confusing. I thought the upcoming shows list was some kind of annoying ad."

"Functional."

"Meh."

"I like blogs that have a FAQ and other features. This one even has its own forum. You can’t beat that."

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 8.6
"His song writing is exceptional. The writing on the blog is only average, but I don’t care about that. His music is everything."

"The quality of his writing is nothing special, but the quality of his music is good so I'm giving him an 8 here."

"Perfect 10 for song writing only."

INTANGIBLES – 7.9
"For some reason, it bugs me when people toot their own horns with excerpts of their appearances in the press. Maybe it's because I haven't appeared in the press."

"He likes monkeys, and that's worth quite a few intangible points!"

"He sells stuff, but not nearly as much as he gives away."

FREQUENCY – 8.0
"Jonathan Coulton’s ‘Thing a Week’ is, of course, weekly. His other posts depend on his schedule, what people send him, and other happenings."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 64% Yes
"Oh, yeah. Good music."

"No, but I might check back from time to time to see what new music he's posted."

"Yep. I even listen to the Popular Science Podcast (hosted by Jonathan Coulton) and I don’t normally care for that kind of thing. Coulton makes it interesting."

OVERALL – 87.0
"Thing a Week is supposedly ending soon and that makes me sad. I plan on buying some CDs and t-shirts because I want to help support him. Jonathan Coulton deserves to make music for a living."

The Plumbutt Chronicles

2006-08-25T10:40:00.000-07:00

The Plumbutt Chronicles offers a satirical and sarcastic view on the entertainment, political and cultural fields.

Of course, when that is your goal, the comparisons are many.

CONTENT - 5.8
"A pale imitation of Perez Hilton and other more capable Hollywood gossip blogs, but never-the-less entertaining in spots. The sole saving grace for the content would be 'The Bikini Zone' which raises my score from a 4 to a 6."

"While I did find a couple of the videos to be mildly entertaining, for the most part I wouldn't classify this as a humor blog. I give it a ‘meh.’"

"Engaging."

"On the front page, it seemed like it was mostly just random pictures of celebrities, most of which were not flattering. I enjoy celebrity gossip, but this site just doesn't do it for me. It's OK, but I just don't think it's that funny."

"I'm not so much into the celebrity gossip stuff. Plus, I didn't think most of this stuff really counted as ‘humor.’"

DESIGN - 7.0
"Unique to this blogger."

"Middle-of-the-road fare. Nothing special, but not at all annoying either."

"I really liked the design. In fact, I like the design better than anything else."

"The layout was fairly clean and the theme seemed to be consistent. The only real problem was that the sidebar was a little chaotic and the listed recent rntries were all on the front page. Are people so lazy they can't scroll?"

"Something about it looks cluttered to me."

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR - 5.9
"Good grammar; amusing."

"Quick hits of wit and humor that are fairly enjoyable to read, but not at all difficult to write."

"For not having much in the way of text, there were too many misspellings."

"The writing is just OK. Nothing special."

INTANGIBLES - 7.0
"Ads and click-throughs. I don't like it when blogs ask for submissions. It just seems lazy to me."

"Advertising is a bit annoying, but understandable. Sidebar badges are disorganized and distracting."

"Timely, engaging, non-trite celebutainment."

"I don’t care for ads, but this is tastefully done."

FREQUENCY - 10
"Plumbutt Chronicles features several posts each day."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY - 27% Yes
"I don’t think so."

"Yep. Bookmarked it."

"No. If I want to read snarky commentary on Hollywood and politics, I'll read Perez Hilton or Just Jared."

"Occasionally."

OVERALL - 68.3

In Passing …

2006-08-23T15:02:00.000-07:00

In Passing … is Overheard In New York’s older sister, through they are not really related.

“It’s really difficult not to compare this to Overheard In New York. Eve may have come up with the idea first, but Overheard just does it better. Sorry.”

CONTENT – 5.2
“Half the quotes are amusing or entertaining, half are not. This is one of those blog concepts that would be better with a team of contributors so that entries would be more frequent and content would be more even (like Overheard in New York). As it is, it's a bit much for one person to take on.”

“I enjoy the randomness. I had to take points off for lack of post frequency.”

“Random things that a person overhears people saying in public has great potential for funniness.”

“I didn’t see many funny posts.”

DESIGN – 3.9
“If you put aside the temporary problem they are having with PHP formatting errors, the blog is readable, but that's about it. Archive navigation is a nightmare, particularly when you consider there's one of those calendars, which is useless and only accentuates how rare new entries are posted. Instead you have to continuously scroll to the bottom of the page for a bunch of page numbers, which is quite poor. There's no eye candy whatsoever, so the layout itself is boring.”

“Pop-up city and ugly to boot.”

“The layout is a little too simple, but not too bad. Why would I want to register to comment?”

“The first few posts I saw had some weird slashes where line breaks or punctuation should be. At first I thought it was some attempt to be poetic, then I realized it was probably an HTML malfunction.”

“Rather boring.”

"Worse than a Blogger template."

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 5.4
“Since these are quotes of things said by other people, eccentricities in grammar are to be expected, but is overall acceptable.”

The slashes all over the place are annoying but its an acknowledged problem that they're working on. Other than that, since these are direct quotes from people, you have to take into consideration people do not use 'perfect' writing and grammar in speaking in normal conversation between friends.”

INTANGIBLES – 4.6
“There's nothing really annoying except the navigation. Everything else is just bare minimum … nothing great, nothing bad. Posting is a bit infrequent, so I drop the score down to a 5.”

“On my end, the site fails to load.”

“The registration and the begging were the only real peeves.”

FREQUENCY – 1.0
“Posts are infrequent, but the site is still going.”

“I wish this blogger would post a little more often.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 18% Yes
“Nope.”

“Yes.”

“Hell, no.”

“I don't think so. While there is great potential for laughs, I didn't actually find a lot of funny here.”

“I’ll try it out on my feeds, but I can’t imagine anyone checking this site everyday when they rarely post.”

OVERALL – 55.7

Emerald Bile

2006-08-21T21:21:00.000-07:00

Some people love a fine Guinness beer. Some people – even red-nosed alcoholics – are completely repulsed at the thought of it.

The same could be said for the popular European blog Emerald Bile.

"It cracks me up how angry these people are and how much they hate everything and how much they cuss. I think if I was in the right mood while reading this blog, I'd find it hilarious. However, in reviewing the blog, I only find it mildly funny here and there."

CONTENT - 5.8
"Original, biting humor."

"I am not a stranger to foul language, but this is absurd. Some of the entries might be good reads, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to find them."

"These fucking cunts are sodding hilarious!"

"I just don’t get it. I can read all the words, but they don’t mean anything to me."

"While I admire anger, too much is just not a good thing. Short, quick bursts of anger are fine and usually funny. Long drawn out rants are just annoying."

"My goodness these people are angry!"

"Good shit in small doses. I like all the bollocks, fucking, cunt stuff."

DESIGN - 5.0
"A site called Emerald Bile should be green, but it’s just not very attractive. It’s weird to say, but this design is worse than the Blogger templates."

"Straightforward, no question of whose blog it is."

"Bleeding Christ, this fucking blog is ugly."

"Functional but boring. Everything is a wash of the same colors and type sizes."

"It's simple and green, but the font is not easy on the eyes."

"Rather boring."

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR - 5.1
"I found this site about a year ago. At first, I was drawn to the foul language like a shiny penny on the floor. What I could understand, I thought was funny. After a while I realized the writing just wasn’t good enough to read it regularly. Same shit, different day."

"I have the sense this blog could be entertaining because the writer(s) entries are actually quite talented in spots. But when every other word is ‘fuck’ or ‘cunt’ the writing becomes monotonous and boring. Dropping an occasional F-bomb for effect can have impact, but when you use it constantly the reader becomes numb to it. A better writer would have a better way of expressing their thoughts than resorting to this profanity-laced mess."

"Good use of grammar; and though I am by no means a prude, I just ‘don't get’ where folks from the UK/Ireland overuse the word cunt."

INTANGIBLES - 6.1
"I don’t care about Robbie Williams or most things from England, but no one talks shit about John Lennon. That’s blasphemy!"

"Other than the non-stop parade of ‘cunts’ running through the blog, there's nothing particularly annoying or praise-worthy."

"I sense a not so obscured hostility. As such, it wouldn't surprise me if these folks get in bar fights frequently."

"No ads, but some of the posts are too long."

FREQUENCY - 3.0
"Noreen, Ball Bag and Harry average about one or two posts a week."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY - 27% Yes
"Not if you paid me."

"You’re a wanker if you don’t read this blog!"

"I'm not sure. I don't think so."

"Hell, no."

OVERALL - 62.9

The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns

2006-08-18T06:18:00.000-07:00

The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns confirmed our theory that a lot of people are turned off by political humor.

“I started reading this blog a few months ago. I thought it was funny at first, but I lost interest when I realized almost every post was political. The first ones I read where not like that. It was like a red flag for me. I kept reading for another couple of weeks before I finally gave up.”

CONTENT – 3.9
“Hey! She’s ranting! And it’s craaaaaaaaaazy! Uh … not so much.”

“I just don't get conservative humor. I do have to give her points for posting on a regular basis and quite frequently.”

“Meh.”

“Gotta love a hot conservative chicks. Yowza!”

“Not funny.”

“I don’t get the PERV thing. I assume she’s trying to be ironic, but it’s mainly not funny.”

“I don’t like political blogs.”

DESIGN – 4.1
“I like the color scheme, but the side bars are chaotic and riddled with ads. It takes away from the content.”

“Again, meh.”

“Cluttered. Too many blogs on the blogroll. I'm all for supporting fellow bloggers, but gosh, organize it somehow. It’s too long.”

“The design itself is not too bad, but I wonder if there is any way she could squeeze any more ads in there.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 5.1
“Her posts are short and not really very funny or interesting.”

“She’s a decent enough writer.”

“I don’t care for the content, but the writing is better than average.”

“She writes like a teenager in a chat room.”

INTANGIBLES – 2.6
“Wish lists, ads, begging, long posts that you have to click through to finish reading, surprising lack of a profile … need I go on? I think 5 is a generous number for this category. At least there are no pop ups.”

“I think this chick likes her name since it's referenced three times at the top of the blog (including the address), but that's just a wild guess.”

“None to speak of.”

“Jesus, what a fucking nightmare! I hope she makes enough money from all her ads to retire.”

FREQUENCY – 10
“Samantha Burns posts several times a day.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 8% Yes
“No way.”

“Sure”

“No.”

“Maybe”

“No.”

OVERALL – 49.0
The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns obviously has a pretty good following. However, most of our reviewers are not part of the fan club.

“I didn't find this blog funny or enjoyable. However, I can't put my finger on the ‘problem,’ so I should probably just shut up about it.”

jOrg3

2006-08-16T08:15:00.000-07:00

Next week, we will have done enough reviews to make the list on our sidebar a Top-50 list.

That being said, jOrg3 will not be on the list very long.

“I’ve got to give this guy a break because he really is trying to be funny. He’s not, of course, but at least he’s not trying to pawn off sickening sweet pictures of cats as humor.”

CONTENT – 3.8
“I’ve got to admit, the sweaty headband post made me laugh out loud. However, the post with all the pictures of people in leather straps and so forth freaked me out a lot and made me want to hide under my desk. I'm not sure I'll be able to have sex with my husband tonight now because of the scary images lodged in my brain. Gah!”

“Quite difficult to get actually.”

“Hot Cheetos sounds like a good band name.”

“I don’t get it.”

“The photos are kind of funny, but nothing really goes together. This blog needs an enema.”

“I just don't get George.”

“He’s good at profanity.”

DESIGN – 4.4
“Simple Blogger blog that isn't very uniform.”

“It’s clean but too black.”

“It’s a Blogger template that’s been bastardized by someone who doesn’t know much about HTML. That’s always a great combination.”

“I kind of like the jOrg3 logo. I kind of like the black. The rest of it kind of sucks.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 3.2
“Maybe its possible to understand what he's saying. I don't.”

“I think I'm out of the loop. Much of what this guy said made no sense to me!”

“I wonder if this blog has been translated from some other language. Other than that kind of explanation, the writing just isn’t very good.”

INTANGIBLES – 1.7
“Ads, games, crazy.”

“The guy would like to impeach Bush, so that’s not too bad.”

“There’s a lot useless stuff on the sidebars and the template has been screwed up a little.”

“I’ve been to this blog before, but it was by accident. Apparently, this guy swiped Used Hack’s URL after he deleted his blog and set up a redirect to jOrg3. I don’t know if other bloggers find that unethical or not, but it kind of gives me a skeevy image of the guy.”

FREQUENCY – 0.0
“jOrg3 hasn’t posted since June.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 4% Yes
“No way.”

“Maybe”

“Nope.”

“If he posted more often, sure.”

“I kinda doubt it.”

OVERALL – 41.7
jOrg3 set new lows in several categories.

-- 2005 Best of Blogs Recap --

2006-08-15T04:40:00.000-07:00

Now that all of the finalists in the humor category from the 2005 Best of Blogs awards have been reviewed, let’s take one final look back at this competition.

Dead Guy. The Cartoon. won the contest back in January, followed by AnonymousCoworker and Blogography. Our reviewers flipped things around a little, rating Blogography, AnonymousCoworker, and replacement nominee karlababble ahead of Dead Guy. The Cartoon.

I think there are two major reasons for this disparity – dubious voting procedures and the number of judges for each category (two). We’re not going to waste time rehashing what went wrong with the 2005 Best of Blogs awards, but the organizers know they need some major changes for 2006.

Problems aside, the Best of Blogs do a superior job of promoting relatively unknown blogs. Let’s face it, that’s much more important than awarding a snazzy JPG image to the winning bloggers.

Our final scores went like this:

Blogography not only managed to score higher than all of these competitors, it is currently the highest-scoring blog we have reviewed. AnonymousCoworker and karlababble also managed to work their way into our current Top-10.

* karlababbble was not a finalist in the Best of Blog competition. However, we added this blog to the discussion because one of the other finalists stopped blogging earlier this year. The decision to exclude karlababble was a hot topic when the finalists were announced, so we thought it was an appropriate replacement.

karlababble

2006-08-14T11:12:00.000-07:00

Karlababble was nominated for a Best of Blogs award last year but failed to make the finals. Our reviewers believe that was a definite mistake.

“The design is very good and the writing is even better. Karlababble is a great blog.”

CONTENT – 8.0
“I didn't know that I'd find her writing so amusing. I know I shouldn't, but I often associate female bloggers with 'babble' in their blog name to be mommy bloggers whining about how bad their week has been. Karla does write about her life, but in a funny and witty way.”

“I enjoyed the cock soup and aggressive plumbing posts.”

“This is a very good weekly blog.”

“Anyone who claims one of their interests is ‘poking children with sticks’ is OK in my book.”

“Funny.”

“She’s a better-than-average mommy blogger, but she’s still a mommy blogger.”

DESIGN – 8.6
“I love this layout. I might steal it. It's clean and neat. The colors don't make me go blind, but soothe me into the content.”

“Professional, neat, unique.”

“Obviously this was a professional template created specifically for her blog, so its laid out very well and the content areas are separated without hurting the eyes. The only negative I can give it is that the block theme doesn't really encourage your eyes to move down the page, but that's really just personal preference.”

“The colors do nothing for me, but it’s a very good design.”

“It's visually pleasing, nice and clean, but I found it a little difficult to navigate.”

“Nice design. She has a link to the guy who did it too. Yeah, baby!”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 8.4
“Good use of grammar, punctuation and spelling. Content of posts are almost always has ‘meat on the bones,’ and is satisfying to read.”

“The witty tangents she runs with are probably the funniest part of her posts.”

“She’s a good writer. Not every post is funny, but the writing is solid.”

INTANGIBLES – 8.3
“Long posts, but the writing is pretty good, so I don't mind much.”

“I think this is a good example of how a blog can be done well without having to resort to begging and ads.”

“She doesn't appear to post every day. As a reader, I'd much rather read when a blogger has something of substance to post rather than just posting for the sake of posting.”

“It probably helps that the picture she uses of herself on the side of the main page is attractive. Hot blogger chicks always excite me.”

“Some of the posts are too long. I hate long posts.”

FREQUENCY – 2.0
“Karla usually posts once a week.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 73% Yes
“Sure. It’s amusing.”

“Uhhhhhhhh, no.”

“Currently, I do. She's on my sidepanel.”

“Yes, I actually just put her in my feed reader for humor blogs.”

“Probably.”

OVERALL – 86.0
Karlababble managed very good ratings in every category except for frequency. But again, that’s only worth 5 percent of the final score. No perfect scores from any of our reviewers, but lots of 8s and 9s pushed karlababble toward the top of our ratings.

little.yellow.different.

2006-08-11T08:15:00.000-07:00

In the six years Ernie Hsiung has been writing little.yellow.different., he’s been nominated for a fistful of Bloggie awards, including a lifetime achievement award. He didn’t win that one, but he’s won almost everything else. (Check out the 2003 awards. Damn!)

“This is a very good blog. It's professionally designed and an excellent read - a rare combination. Go Ernie!”

CONTENT - 6.8
“You’ve got to give it up for a guy who’s been blogging since 2000, but this blog just isn’t as good as it used to be.”

“Good, solid posts. Love his Reno versus Vegas perceptions. Dead on the money.”

“Tales of immigrant kids growing up are very near and dear to my heart.”

“Ernie has a good sense of humor, but this is not necessarily a humor blog. I don’t know if it’s even a humorous blog anymore.”

DESIGN - 8.0
“Professional. Nice color. Nice layout.”

“This site is very well organized. I liked the ‘about’ page.”

“Clean-looking design but really ugly color. Also, I had trouble figuring out how to navigate the site. Like where are the archives? I gave up.”

“I like the ability to change the skin to honor his crushing loss on The Weakest Link. Cool.”

“This is easily one of the best-looking blog designs I’ve ever seen. It doesn’t preform as well as it should, but that makes it a 9 in my book.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR - 7.7
“Well-written.”

“Good grammar – punctuation needs a bit of neatening up – however it doesn't detract from this reader's enjoyment.”

“Very good.”

“I saw some typos.”

“Good writing, but not great.”

INTANGIBLES - 7.8
“The blog/mini-blog thing confused me.”

“Do they still make Nuprin?”

“Hey, where's the blogroll? Just because you're big and famous, doesn't mean you shouldn't give props to your fellow bloggers. This is a pet peeve for me, two points off.”

“No ads, but the archives and mini-blog posts are just not reader-friendly.”

FREQUENCY - 1.0
“Ernie still posts, just not on a regular basis.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY - 40% Yes
“I would read it regularly. I've read it before.”

“Maybe, if he posted a litte more often. I usually enjoy writers who talk about San Francsico since I used to live there.”

“Occasionally ... not regularly.”

“I used to, but I gave up on him.”

“Most definitely.”

“I might. I've not decided yet.”

“Let's wait and see. I added it to my faves.”

“I might put it on my list of blog feeds, but he just doesn’t post enough to visit regularly.”

OVERALL - 73.9
Good scores for design, writing, and intangibles led the way for little.yellow.different., but “humor content” is 70 percent of the score here at BlogLaughs.

“I liked everything about this blog, but I get the impression its running on fumes. Don’t get me wrong. It’s better than most blogs out there, but it’s a shell of its former glory.”

Emails From Jesus

2006-08-09T09:01:00.000-07:00

Emails From Jesus managed one of the Top-10 scores we’ve seen to date, but some of our reviewers believe that “style” is outweighing “substance” at this point.

“The idea behind this blog is great. The design is great. The only thing – the most important thing – is that it’s not always funny.”

CONTENT – 7.5
“They’ve already crossed the line. They might as well go ahead and piss all over the floor. You know what I mean? They need to let loose with some real fire and brimstone, wrath-of-God-style, hilarious, irreverent comebacks. I’m just not seeing it. Jesus and Satan need to really lash out at these people.”

“Almost always satisfying.”

“Didn't really trip my trigger.”

“Funny!”

“Great idea for a blog!”

DESIGN – 9.0
“Custom, unique, unfussy.”

“Love the Jesus and Satan graphics!”

“Clean and fairly simple. I like the headings in the sidebars. Clever.”

“What a great design! It tells you right up front what the blog is about. Well done.”

“Collection plate? Soul searching? Man, that shit is awesome. Nice blog.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 7.2
“The writing is decent, nothing omnipotent.”

“Good grammar; writing always is enjoyable and makes me laugh.”

“You’d think Jesus and Satan could wrangle a few lessons from some of their eternal roommates.”

“Good stuff.”

INTANGIBLES – 7.1
“Jesus shouldn't need ads on His blog.”

"The little things at this blog are really good."

“Lots of ads and junk in the sidebars.”

“I think if we are going by Dec. 25th, Jesus is actually a Capricorn, not a Sagittarius.”

“That's too many ads.”

“I don’t like the ads, but some of the links Google picks are hilarious. The juxtaposition is great.”
FREQUENCY – 10
“JC and Stan answer a couple of e-mails every day.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 54% Yes
“I do. It’s on my side panel!”

“It was somewhat entertaining, but I doubt if I'll go back to read it again.”

“Yes, and it's not just the Catholic guilt talking.”

“No. It’s just not funny enough.”

“I've read it before. Too funny and a great, fun idea for a blog. Too many ads, though.”

OVERALL – 84.6
Emails From Jesus managed good scores in every category, but “room for improvement” isn’t always a bad thing.

“I think this blog shows great promise. It’s not there yet, but it’s definitely one to watch.”

The Peevery

2006-08-07T10:51:00.000-07:00

A pet peeve is a minor annoyance that can instill extreme frustration in an individual. Typically each person has several pet peeves that aggravate him or her more than the average person. Another person may not react as negatively or at all to the same circumstance.

That, my friends, is always the rub here at BlogLaughs.

The Peevery aggravated a few of our reviewers, but most of the scores were fairly positive.

CONTENT – 6.7
“I'm totally engaged by the assortment of posts, and have literally laughed out loud even. I may even have guffawed, too.”

“I love to bitch and complain, so it was right down my alley!”

“The content was only average.”

“With that many contributors, there better be more than one post per day. The short one-liners were always good for a chuckle.”

“While oftentimes blogs with completely random topics have annoyed me, I find this blog to be really funny.”

“Not funny.”

“I couldn't help myself, I clicked the poop etiquette link. Laughed out loud through the entire thing and forwarded the link to some friends. Crazy. I thought I was beyond the bathroom humor stage.”

“Is this supposed to be funny?”

DESIGN – 7.9
“The look of the design is a little too simple, but the functionality of the design is downright admirable. Every post is archived by category. The blogroll is done through del.icio.us. The design works.”

“Clean, straightforward, unique.”

“Nice and clean. I think I like the blogroll. I couldn't quite figure it out (didn't try real hard) but it looks like its categorized rather than just listing the names of a bazillion blogs. I like that idea.”

“It’s a simple, well-done design with a sweet color palate.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 7.2
“Good solid writing from an assortment of contributors. Consistent.”

“I find the writing to be well-done in most cases, despite the fact that there are multiple posters, which I would think would leave the potential for poor quality writing wide open.”

“These people are average writers, which in the blog-world should be considered a compliment. I like the short posts.”

INTANGIBLES – 8.7
“No ads, no problems, nothing. I guess this gets a perfect score.”

“Most of their commenters are themselves, what's up with that?”

“I really like the short posts - it makes it easy to read a couple for a quick laugh and go back for more later, rather than having to get involved in reading a long story.”

“The del.icio.us links are so fucking awesome. I’m totally stealing this idea for my blog.”

“They take donations for public classroom projects, but its not like they’re whoring themselves for Google. It’s a 10 in my book.”

“Thankfully, no pet peeves at a blog about pet peeves. Man, that’s deep.”

FREQUENCY – 10
“The Peevery features at least one or two posts a day.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 50% Yes
“Not my kind of blog.”

“Added it to my faves.”

“I might check in with it sometimes, but many of the blogs on my blogroll are funnier than The Peevery.”

“Very likely.”

“Nah. I’ll pass.”

OVERALL – 78.8
High scores for frequency, intangibles and design lead some very good secondary numbers. The Peevery would have landed higher on the list with higher scores for content.

“It’s not the funniest blog out there, but it’s a very good blog nonetheless.”

He Looks Like …

2006-08-04T06:38:00.000-07:00

Much like The Best Page In The Universe, He Looks Like … would have scored much better if there were more regular posts.

“There hasn't been a new post since April. Are you sure this blogger did not abandon their blog?”

“I'm wondering if the blog author is ever going to keep up with this blog regularly. It has a lot of potential, and with frequent posts and a nice template design I can really see this one taking off.”

CONTENT – 6.9
“Who doesn’t like making fun of people? This shit is funny. Fantastic idea for a blog.”

“The posts are great! The simple concept really works for a blog. All of the posts are short enough to stay funny, and long enough to throw in as many witty and fictitious back-story lines as the author can.”

“I enjoyed the crazy stories that captioned the photo. It's too bad the author hasn't posted something new in 3 months. She's probably too busy with her book deal.”

“I could see where others would find the content amusing. I might, if I had a few drinks in me. However, I didn't even chuckle. This format has been done to death. Besides, my own imagination is far more intriguing than any story concocted here.”

“What a great idea for a blog! Funny as hell!”

“This is a great idea, and one I've never seen before. I bow before the author for I am not worthy!”

DESIGN – 6.4
“Standard black blog format. Not a huge fan, but I like that she's kept it simple.”

“This is about the only sore spot for the whole blog. It's a crappy Blogger template, but it's still simple and easy to read (although white text on black background isn't my first choice). I originally gave this item a 3.5, but because the design didn't really detract from the rest of the blog, I changed it to an even 6.”

“Basic Blogger templates like this one don’t bother me too much. It’s mainly a photo blog with sarcastic cutlines. A header across the top could do wonders for the design.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 8.5
“Well written, very few mistakes, and the posts read just like they would if they were captions or short entries in a serious magazine.”

“The writing and her grammar are pretty good. Anything questionable is usually done to enhance the writing. Like ‘I ate m'hat’ or 'that weird feller who wears 'em roadkill on his hat.’ On this blog, her writing is her strength.”

“I love the writing. Very good.”

INTANGIBLES – 5.8
“Google ads!!! And the ‘we’ stuff in the title? Who is this ‘we’ she speaks of? Does she have people author her work for her?”

I just love the idea. The author has a great time writing the posts, and it shows. I know we reviewers don't really cover this, but the only real detractor besides the template is that the frequency of the posts can be very erratic, and there hasn't been a new post since April 19, 2006.

“I hate the Google ads, but there’s not too much else to complain about.”

“The request for photos for a book is kind of lame. This is probably more of a design problem, but it really looks bad. This is a great idea for a blog, but I don’t know if it’s a great idea for a book.”

FREQUENCY – 0.0
“No posts since April 19, 2006 warrants no points in this category.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 57% Yes
“No. It looks like the author doesn't post on a regular basis, which is a shame.”

“I'll probably stop back by once a week or so.”

“Not even if this was the only blog left on the Internet. I might be forced to watch (ack!) television instead!”

“I would if they hadn't stopped writing.”

“Yup! Clever”

“Definitely, as long as the author actually posts again.”

“I’ll say yes, just hoping she comes back.”

OVERALL – 74.4
“I tried to laugh. Really I did. I just didn't find it funny. Her heart was in the right place. Her funnybone, however, seems to be on hiatus. Maybe it's just me. She seems to have loyal followers. I just won't be one of them.”

“This is a very good, quality blog. I'd like to make it my regular read. It's a pity that it hasn't been updated in a while.”

Margaret Cho’s Blog

2006-08-02T11:08:00.000-07:00

Margaret Cho’s Blog is a long-time favorite of many bloggers, but new readers shouldn’t expect a rehash of her stand-up comedy routine.

“Margaret Cho is a comedienne, so you would think this blog would be funny. I agree with all of her political rants and everything, but this is really not a humorous blog. It’s more of an old-school Web log diary from someone who happens to be famous.”

CONTENT – 6.1
“Let me start by saying that I love Margaret Cho. She is a brilliant comedian and a wonderful advocate for the various causes she gets behind. Having said that … what the hell is up with her blog? This is a very different Margaret Cho than you see on Showtime or HBO. This is the MC that I tend to admire more than find amusement in. There is not too much in the way of funny going on in this blog. Most of her humor comes wrapped in a tortilla of political satire with a side order of equal rights instead of refried beans. But, because I love me some Margaret Cho, she can read the phonebook and I would be a fan.”

“I expected the blog to be funny, but it was more like the opposite. It was serious and kind of a downer.”

“She makes a living with her perceptions and her wit, what's not to like? I've been a fan of hers since her TV show.”

“Her posts are interesting, but not really funny in and of themselves.”

“Margaret Cho is funny, but this blog is not. The humor content is no better than a 3. It’s more of a fan site.”

“Vinegary, bawdy, earthy and real is how I'd qualify this.”

“This is a good, professional blog, just not something I'm interested in.”

DESIGN – 6.1
“Professional, pink, yet unquestionably Margaret Cho’s blog.”

“A bit messy, with a three-column layout that doesn't divide the page in an equitable fashion. Not bad though.”

“It's OK, and not too bad on the eyes, but it's too crowded in the sidebars. In fact the right sidebar is almost as big as the main content column in the middle.”

“I’m beginning to believe that three-column designs just look cluttered. This is a perfect example. The colors are kind of weird too.

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 7.1
“If nothing else, Margaret Cho is a brilliant writer. She has the ability to write the way she speaks and convey her messages in the most graceful ways.”

“Wide range of topics, mainly covering correspondence from her fans and issues they want to hear her write about.”

“She’s a good writer, but this is not really entertaining writing. Some posts are much better than others.”

INTANGIBLES – 5.7
“Not very interesting to me. Humorous posts are few and far between, and I'm necessarily enthralled to read everything Ms. Cho has an opinion about.”

“Hawking her wares. I know a bitch has to make a living, but it is too ‘up in your face’ for my taste.”

“She’s involved in the gay and lesbian community, but I've always wondered if she, herself, is gay. It doesn't make that big of a difference to me, but has she ever addressed this?”

“I am puzzled as to why she had to put a link to each and every post into ‘archives.’”

FREQUENCY – 3.0
“The frequency probably depends on her schedule, but she has averaged about 1-2 posts a week lately.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 23% Yes
“Yes, I would, but not for the laughs.”

“Nah, not a fan.”

“Prior to this, I have read her on occasion.”

“Definitely not.”

“I'll stop back by on sometimes, but it won't be a daily read.”

“No, not my cup of tea, although I respect the author's intent.”

OVERALL – 66.0
At least 90 percent of our reviewers gave Margaret Cho’s Blog either a 6 or a 10 for content. However, none of those people who gave it a 10 clearly stated they would read this blog on a regular basis. Lots of respect, but not a whole lot of love for Ms. Cho.

“It’s a random diary she obviously writes for herself. That’s great for her and her hardcore fans, but it probably doesn’t mean that much to anyone else.”

Bloggin’ Bizatch

2006-07-31T11:04:00.000-07:00

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

2006-07-28T20:06:00.000-07:00

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

2006-07-26T11:17:00.000-07:00

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

2006-07-24T10:45:00.000-07:00

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

2006-07-21T09:24:00.000-07:00

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

2006-07-19T11:50:00.000-07:00

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

2006-07-17T16:05:00.000-07:00

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

2006-07-14T13:17:00.000-07:00

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

2006-07-12T11:27:00.000-07:00

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

2006-07-10T05:25:00.000-07:00

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

2006-07-07T09:25:00.000-07:00

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

2006-07-05T10:07:00.000-07:00

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

2006-07-03T10:51:00.000-07:00

"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?"

Geese Aplenty

2006-06-30T08:34:00.000-07:00

Greg Howard’s Geese Aplenty managed better-than-average scores in every category, led by a high score for quality of writing.

“It is a decent blog with occasional very good posts. On the whole, I enjoy it.”

“Geese Aplenty is different from post to post. Some posts are random comedy pieces while others are more ‘clever, daddy-blogger-like.’ That’s not a bad thing, but you have to read on a regular basis to catch the vibe.”

CONTENT – 6.7
“Greg can be cute at times. He talks about everyday things and sometimes misses the mark with them. But, when he gets on a roll, he's hysterical. Post example? The reunion of the Breakfast Club post. I literally cried with laughter. I give him a ripe 7 for the hits. I'll ignore the misses.”

“Wide range of subjects, more or less relevant to the reader.”

“Cute, short posts about topics we can all relate to. I found myself reading several posts and chuckling out loud, while shaking my head in agreement.”

“Funny. Brief. Clever.”

DESIGN – 6.1
“Somehow I am developing an allergy to the great white space.”

“I'm not crazy about the template. Everything is shoved to the right and I am a left side sort of girl.”

“Clean design.”

“I would imagine some people are going to rip this design, but I don’t mind it. It’s simple. It’s tough to gripe about simple.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 8.4
“The quality of writing is fine, though sometimes, it is hard to keep track of Greg when he is talking in the third person. His narration is good. His spelling is fine. His punctuation? Not so much.”

“Funny stuff - especially the recent entry about blogs posting on Craigslist.”

“For some reason, Geese Aplenty reminds me of Defective Yeti. Both are good writers who seem to write for themselves more than to appease the fans. I like that.”

INTANGIBLES – 7.2
“I'd like to see more info on the front page - links, images, anything that would help me understand what makes the author tick, and possibly bond with him.”

“Lord, if I give Greg 10 cents a day for the rest of my life, will you somehow convince him to get rid of his Google ads that are at the immediate left of the beginning of his page? Please Lord. Answer my prayers.”

“No issues.”

“The Google ads don’t bother me that much. They’re much more tasteful than most blogs with ads.”

FREQUENCY - 5.0
“Greg posts two or three times a week.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 63% Yes
“I would come back to visit this blog.”

“Probably not.”

“I am already more or less doing that.”

“Nah. It’s OK, but not that great. Maybe some other time.”

“Sure.”

OVERALL – 76.6
“Overall, this site is pretty funny with excellent writing. The Breakfast Club post had me laughing out loud. The site design is very bland, however.”

Waiter Rant

2006-06-27T22:28:00.000-07:00

Waiter Rant managed one of our highest reviews to date, with an average score of 92.6.

"Waiter Rant is the Godfather of all anonymous bloggers. His blog is big-time, but the content just keeps getting better. I hope his growing popularity never forces him to change the content. His stories are priceless."

"If every blogger out there miraculously got book deals, there are only two bloggers’ books I would actually read. And one of them is Waiter Rant."

CONTENT - 8.6
"Regular, timely, engaging posts."

"Engaging. Being a foodie and dining out frequently, it's interesting to see the flip side of things."

"I started reading Waiter Rant a long time ago. Every once in awhile I return to it. It's sort of like an old familiar friend. See them once in awhile, you enjoy the time together. See them daily, you get sick of them fairly quickly. I like when Waiter Rant is relaying funny stories as opposed to sappy, sweet stories or the stories that teach us we should all gather around a campfire singing Kumbaya."

"This blog is blowing up. I heard a news story about it on XM, and friends keep emailing me the link. People just seem to love reading about life in the service industry."

"Waiter Rant isn’t always funny, but his stories about restaurant life are always entertaining."

DESIGN - 7.2
"I like his new design better than the old one, but it’s still not all that great. Kind of boring."

"Reads like a good menu. Nice and clean."

"The page loaded really slowly for me and the background looks a little shoddy (especially on the footer). I'm viewing this in Firefox, so I can't speak to its appearance in IE."

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR - 9.4
"Waiter is probably the finest writer of any writer on the Internet. Period."

"I have no qualms whatsoever with the quality of writing or grammar at Waiter Rant. It's actually a very well written blog as far as those qualities go."

"Very well written."

"The entries are unique and interesting."

INTANGIBLES - 7.1
"Seeing ads on the sides of stories is like seeing a fly in your soup or watching a waiter blow his nose and wipe it on the back of his hand. It makes me want to vomit. Here's a tip, Waiter. Lose the ads, the broken links, and the PayPal logo!"

"Took away points for design."

"The posts tend to be on the long side, but in this case I actually don't mind. The guy really tells a story well."

"The ads are a little annoying, but the tip jar is a nice touch. I might get one of his t-shirts one of these days."

FREQUENCY - 6.0
"Waiter averages about three posts a week."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY - 75% Yes
"I already do."

"I probably won't come back to read this blog. I had high expectations of this blog, but was a little let down. It's somewhat interesting, and there's some nice insight. But it's not really very entertaining or funny."

"Yes! My kinda blog."

"Nah. I prefer to dine alone."

"I stopped reading Waiter Rant once, but the more I read, the more I love it. I can’t imagine not reading every post these days."

OVERALL - 92.6
Waiter Rant managed to tie Blogography for the highest score for content (8.6), while shattering our old record for quality of writing/grammar (9.4). All of the other categories were better than average, but not high enough to overtake our Top-3 blogs.

"No matter whether you plan to read this blog often, at least take a minute to check out the advice on tipping. It's truly eye-opening."

Blogography

2006-06-26T05:29:00.000-07:00

It looks like we have a new sheriff in town ... and his name isn’t Reggie Hammond.

No. His name is David Simmer II.

Blogography set a new high mark with an average, cumulative score of 97.3.

Of course, in typical Bloglaughs fashion, while some of our reviewers loved Blogography ...

"Remember on Seinfeld when George had a ‘man crush’ on that guy from MTV Sports? That’s how I am with Dave. I want to turn my hat around backwards and be just like him. He’s such a cool guy. ... I realize I’ll always be more like George Costanza, but a guy can dream, can’t he?"

Others? Not so much ...

"This blog is probably great for people who like Family Circus or Garfield."

CONTENT - 8.6
"Dave doesn’t try to be funny. He doesn’t even consider his blog a humor blog. Of course, he wrote about that the other day and the post was fucking hilarious."

"I love Dave. I have loved him since the moment I discovered him from the bitches over at I Talk Too Much. He did their graphics and I fell in love from that point on. He is funny in a very humble and understated 'please love me' sort of way. Kind of reminds me of a little hound dog puppy that just wants to be cuddled ... just before he pees on you for shits and giggles."

"The posts are pretty tame. Reading this reminds me of listening to pop music. I don't find it interesting, but soccer moms might be entertained."

"Doesn’t everyone read Dave already? Dave is the best."

"Dave’s humor is subtle, understated, and perfect."

DESIGN - 8.7
"I swear, if this design isn’t a 10 I don’t know what is. Dave is the best page designer out there."

"He is an artist and so, his layout is impeccable. The color combo of black white and shades of purple are very complimentary. I love his use of text blocks for conversations. His graphics are bright and colorful without being overwhelming or overshadowing the content of his posts. I also adore the use of tabs at the top of his page to find content."

"Clean, reader-friendly, nothing to complain about."

"I don’t love this blog, but the design is great."

"Dave’s original graphics are nothing short of genius. There is no one who can compare."

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR - 8.9
"Dave’s artwork is the star, but his writing is very good."

"Impeccable."

"No issues."

"Dave says he only takes 10 minutes to write a blog entry with no graphics. When he draws a graphic to go with it, he says it only takes him 20-25 minutes. I hate him. I have stared at a computer screen for hours, only to come up with a whole lot of nothing. This 10-minute thing pisses me off!"

"Dave wrote an entry recently about putting quotation marks in the wrong place on purpose. I love Dave, but that post still bothers me."

INTANGIBLES - 8.9
"Oy, the ads. Ads everywhere. Fortunately, most of them are for his own product hocking. Since he's an artist, I am okay with that. He is a Mac head. For that, I am deducting a point simply because I can. Mac heads tend to be snobs. But, Dave's a cool snob. I will give him back that point because of his use of his own photographs as personalized emoticons. I like that. But I am taking back that same point, for his sidebar being longer than Ron Jeremy's schlong."

"No problems."

"I think I have four Blogography shirts right now, and I can’t wait until he comes out with some new ones. I don’t even mind when people ask me what ‘Bad Monkey’ means. It’s the price I pay to wear such a cool shirt."

"Perfect score. Nothing here pisses me off."

"He sells t-shirts, but that’s not so bad. It’s not like he’s whoring himself out for Google."

FREQUENCY - 10
"Dave posts everyday, sometimes more when he can’t sleep."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY - 88% Yes
"Already do!"

"I would definitely read this blog again. I think the writing is witty, funny, and very entertaining. I've come across the blog once before, and I thought it was great."

"Very Doubtful."

"I’ve been reading Blogography since the BoB awards. It’s the best all-around blog on the Internet."

OVERALL - 97.3
Aside from being our top-rated blog to date, Blogography set new high marks for content, intangibles, and read regularly. Blogography managed several perfect scores.

"I give Blogography perfect 10's all across. It's a flawless blog that never ceases to amuse me. Beautifully designed and written, I wish the entire world was as pleasant a place to visit!"

AnonymousCoworker

2006-06-23T10:40:00.000-07:00

I knew we were going to get some high scores for the next three reviews, but AnonymousCoworker moves into the No. 2 spot overall with an average score of 93.4.

“I love this blog. ACW is a real guy who writes funny stories about shit that happens to all of us. Well, some of us.”

CONTENT – 8.4
“Frequent, varied posts. I almost always laugh when I read his blog.”

“The Target story was classic! I enjoyed the sarcasm of a couple of the other posts.”

“I especially liked his post about the customer service desk at Target.”

“Funny and entertaining most of the time.”

“I love ACW. I crack up at the marvelous way he presents life. He has a great outlook. Even the most depressing antics are somehow humorous in his world.”

DESIGN – 7.6
“I love the layout. It's clean green and mean. Just the way it should be. He has a classic and clean look.”

“Get a different template!”

“The green and black things on both sides of the screen are annoying as heck. Was unable to leave a comment on a three-week-old post for some reason.”

“Straightforward, nothing crazy, but also allows the reader to get to the meat and potatoes of his posts.”

“Simple, clean, and no crap. I’m not crazy about the green, but he probably wouldn’t like my collection of sock monkeys. Viva la difference!”

“Very clean and easy to read.”

“Blog column is rather narrow but I love the color green, so an extra point for that.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 8.6
“His writing is always impeccable and his grammar is extraordinary. He even corrected street graffiti for lords sake! He hangs out with teacher types.”

“Well-written, entertaining stories virtually every day. He’s a pretty good writer.”

INTANGIBLES – 8.6
“Nice and clean, I have nothing to complain about.”

“I had to take a point off because of some weird bar across the top of the screen that seems to be an ad for Firefox.”

“Even though I know he’s right, the little pop-up about getting Firefox kind of pisses me off. Internet Explorer sucks ass, but I’m too lazy to switch. That’s my problem, not his. ACW loses one point in this category. He gets a 9.”

“Nothing distracting. Good.”

FREQUENCY – 9.0
“ACW posts most weekdays, but he has to skip a few days here and there.”

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

“Yes. I’ve been reading it since the Best of Blog nomination process. Good stuff.”

“Not only do I read him regularly, but he's on my blog’s side panel.”

“Eh. No.”

“Definitely something I would read at least three times a week.”

“Bookmarked it.”

OVERALL – 93.4
“The other day he was writing about sitting through a dreadful meeting and I would swear we were in the same meeting. If it weren’t for the several states between us, it would have freaked me out.”

Dead Guy. The Cartoon.

2006-06-22T10:01:00.000-07:00

Mixed reviews kept Dead Guy. The Cartoon from getting too high on our list, but it still made it into our Top-10.

“If you are not into satirical humor, there is no way in hell you will enjoy Dead Guy. Me personally? I think he is the funniest bitch alive. Seriously. Bar none. He is mindless humor that makes me giddy and on occasion, hurts my widdle head.”

“Kinda, sorta funny sometimes. It’s a good blog, but it definitely shouldn’t have won the Best of Blog competition.”

CONTENT – 7.6
“Quality humor there!”

“He covers a wide range of topics that are all of interest to me.”

“While I enjoy the occasional cartoon, this one didn't do much for me. It wasn't awful, but not my taste in humor.”

“Hey this stuff is funny!”

“Witty and hilarious Web comics.”

DESIGN – 7.8
“Gorgeous black and red death schematic happenin' here. Perfect for the death motif.”

“I don't like the black background.”

“Straightforward, too black. I almost thought it could have been a goth blog if I didn't read the content.”

“Easy on the eyes and easy to navigate.”

“I'm not crazy about the black, but I get it.”

“Could use a little nicer template, but still simple and easy to read.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 7.8
“If a picture is worth a thousand words, then Dead Guy has a lock on the blog world. The writing, what little there is, is always interesting and grammar is never an issue for dead things.”

“Amusing.”

“Not too bad, but you can’t compare this to someone who actually writes a blog everyday.”

“Always funny and clever. I actually don't see him making many mistakes if at all.”

INTANGIBLES – 8.7
“It’s a quick read without a lot of ads or blinky shit. That’s good.”

“They tried to hide, but I saw those ads!”

“Great Web comic, but apparently he's going on hiatus for a bit.”

“I hate the Google ads on top. The sidebar is enormous but he had the good sense to stick it under all of his cartoon goodness. I only remove half a point for that faux pas.

FREQUENCY – 2.0
“Dead Guy posted a new cartoon once a week prior to going on a recent hiatus.”

“If anyone gives him a low grade for frequency just because Dead Guy is a weekly cartoon, then I'm afraid I'll have to take it as a personal offense. Getting back into the office on Monday mornings, seeing the coworkers' faces and facing the same old workload is never easy. I used to hate Mondays with a passion. Thanks to Dead Guy, I now have something to look forward to on those days.”

[The score for frequency is a simple matter of mathematics. A weekly post should not get the same amount of points as someone who posts everyday. If it’s any solace, this category is only worth 5% of the final score. It must come into play, but shouldn’t be an overwhelming factor.]

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 61% Yes
“I'm bookmarking it ASAP.”

“There's no way that I can quit reading this blog regularly.”

“I'd check in sometimes, but wouldn't read it everyday.”

“He has a decent feed, so I’ll check it out for a while.”

“Hell, no!”

“Been there, done that, slept with the dead guy.”

OVERALL – 82.5
“I hope he definitely makes a return. He hasn't been gone long (since June 11, 2006), but if I go a couple weeks without reading one of his strips, I'll be upset.”

-- Best of Blogs Awards --

2006-06-21T18:55:00.000-07:00

The Best of Blogs Awards are difficult to write about.

On one hand, the "competition" became a contentious mess with dubious voting procedures and lots of middle school arguing.

On the other hand, no competition gave readers a greater opportunity to discover as many relatively unknown, but fantastic blogs.

The "Most Humorous Blog" category was won by Dead Guy. The Cartoon. AnonymousCoworker finished in second place with Blogography in third. Fat Eye For The Skinny Guy was initially awarded second place but a legitimate scoring error was discovered after the fact.

(Everyone makes mistakes and it was perhaps the most honorable thing the organizers did.)

Other finalists included: The Hot Librarian, Bifsniff Cartoons, Used Hack, Rockchild, Bloggin' Bizatch, and The Peevery.

When the finalists were announced, several commenters were upset that Karlababble was not included. Since Used Hack stopped blogging earlier this year, we have decided to add Karlababble to this discussion.

Unlike the 22 Bloggies semifinalists, we have decided to space out these reviews over the next few weeks instead of dumping all of them on you at once.

We'll review the first three blogs Thursday, Friday, and Monday, then settle into a once-a-week BoB review (every Monday) until all 10 blogs have been reviewed. It will take several weeks to have a BoB recap similar to the one below, but I think its important to highlight several types of blogs without getting bogged down with contests.

In the meantime, we will also take a look at some highly-rated blogs from Technorati, Yahoo, Top Blogs, past Bloggies nominees, and suggestions from our readers and reviewers.

(I had planned on also featuring some more blogs from the 2005 Weblog Awards humor/comics category, but the first and second place finishers -- also Bloggies nominees -- didn't fare so well with our reviewers. Most of the finalists are political blogs ... enough said.)

If you know of a blog you'd like to see reviewed, now is the time to send it in and get it on the list. It may take some time, but we'll consider any suggestions.

-- 2006 Bloggies Recap --

2006-06-19T22:52:00.000-07:00

All 22 nominees in the humor category for the 2006 Bloggies have been reviewed. Three of the five Bloggie finalists (in bold) made it into our Top-5:

Dooce (94.3)
Overheard in New York (81.7)
The Superficial (81.5)
Go Fug Yourself (89.8)
You Can't Make It Up (86.3)

Dooce has won several Bloggies in the past, and some bloggers are perhaps a little tired of her. I can understand why she wasn't nominated in this category. On a smaller scale, the same goes for Go Fug Yourself.

The two finalists who didn't make our Top-5, Fark and Stuff on My Cat, don't really appeal to everyone. You can read our reviews here and here.

CONTENT

Since 70 percent of our final score is based on content, it is no surprise the Top-5 blogs in this group are the same as the Top-5 overall. The lowest score for content was DUmmie FUnnies (4.5).

(BTW, all of these category scores are on a scale of 1-10. The overall scores are on a 100-point scale.)

DESIGN

All five of these blogs have very good designs for what they do. The highest scores in this category were professional, simple, and reader-friendly. The lowest score for design was Fafblog (3.3).

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR

Not much to complain about here. Most of these people write for a living. It shows. The lowest score for quality of writing/grammar was Stuff On My Cat (3.3).

INTANGIBLES

Popular blogs tend to have more annoying elements than other blogs. These five blogs kept these negatives at a bare minimum, or at least did it in a relatively tasteful manner. The lowest score for intangibles was TVgasm (4.1).

FREQUENCY
If these 22 very different, but popular blogs have anything in common it is frequency. Sixteen of these blogs post everyday, sometimes several times a day. Four more post about three times a week. Only one blog posts once a week (Mimi Smartypants) and one was on hiatus (Fafblog) at the time of the review. Fafblog rarely posted more than once a week anyway, so it was no surprise it managed no points in this category.

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY

On one hand, these are the five most-popular blogs we have reviewed. On the other hand, this category baffles me more than any other. I have had several reviewers give 10s in each of the previous categories only to say they wouldn't read a blog regularly. I'm still trying to figure that one out, but it's OK. The lowest score in this category was Fafblog with 0%.

OVERALL
The overall scores for these 22 blogs are listed in the sidebar. Eventually, I will only list the Top-50 blogs and some of these will fall off the list.

I will discuss the Best of Blogs Awards tomorrow, featuring the finalists in the humor category. Reviews will resume Thursday and Friday.

Gawker

2006-06-19T04:27:00.000-07:00

Gawker may be one of the most popular entertainment blogs in the world, but some of our reviewers felt it suffered from it’s regional appeal.

Of course, with about 300,000 visitors every day, some of our reviewers gave it the highest scores of any blog they’ve reviewed.

"Who hasn't read Gawker yet? It's right up there with Dooce."

"I've heard of this blog, but never bothered to read it. Now I know why ... it's a freaking mess."

CONTENT - 6.0
"Even for a person completely uninterested in celebrity gossip, such as myself, this blog proved to be a good read. It does not limit itself to purely gossip either. Some of the topics covered were of interest to me."

"Really boring."

"Not my kind of blog."

"For the most part you have to be from Manhattan to understand most of the posts."

"I have little to no interest in Manhattan or its gossip."

"They do as much linking to other gossip sites as they do writing something original. I really, really don’t care about anything happening in Manhattan either."

"I guess it might be mildly entertaining for residents of New York."

"This is, by far, the least humorous of all the gossip sites. No fun here, just news about things I can't stand."

DESIGN - 5.1
"The actual ‘blog’ part only takes up what, 1/3 of the screen? Maybe I have a setting wrong?"

"Professional."

"All those freaking links and smushed together sentences made my eyes burn. Not to mention it seemed that half the page was taken up by ads!"

"Good quality, easy to read and navigate."

"Horrible – difficult to read, tons of ads, arggghh!"

"It's OK, but a little busy when you first load it up. Too many large ads right at the top."

"Big shot blog design with no soul. Of course, you can probably buy one by clicking on one of the many ads."

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR - 7.5
"Professional writers, writing about things I don’t care about."

"Frequent posts, good use of grammar, timely."

"From the few sentences I could bring into focus, there didn't seem to be many errors."

"Had a hard time making myself read any of it because the overall look so did not appeal to me, but I didn’t notice anything wrong with the parts I read."

INTANGIBLES - 4.3
"Sidebar crap takes up too much room."

"I hate having to register to comment. The ads caused the main content to be smushed over to the left making it mostly intelligible. Please make better use of the white space!"

"Ads, extra clicks, ads, New York arrogance, ads, and some kind of bullshit that crashed my computer twice!!! Oh, did I mention the ads?"

FREQUENCY - 10
"Several posts every day."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY - 24% Yes
"Sure."

"Yes. Good quality, easy to read and navigate."

"Not really. Too cookie-cutterish. Too many folks are just regurgitating the latest and greatest celebutainment rather than coming up with something innovative, inventive, original and amusing."

"No. Too much trouble trying to determine what is a post and what is an ad."

"I can guarantee you I’ll never visit this site again on my own free will. Life is too short."

OVERALL - 67.9
Mixed reviews kept Gawker from scoring too high or too low. Quality writing and frequent posts couldn’t make up for mediocre content and below average scores for design and intangibles.

"All those readers cannot be wrong. Good blog."

"Hated it. They do have some cool t-shirts you can order. Just click on the ad."

JonnyB’s Private Secret Diary

2006-06-16T04:52:00.000-07:00

JonnyB’s Private Secret Diary gives us glimpse at life inside a cottage in rural Norfolk, England. This became of particular interest to a few of our reviewers.

“I gave this blog a bit of a break on the scoring because I think I’m missing something in the translation. As an American, I’m sure I’m not picking up on some of the humor. Of course, that being said, maybe it’s just not all that funny.”

“When I first dove in, I thought, ‘Oh my God, this is boring. I don’t know if I can even read enough of it to give this blog a fair review.’ It took me a minute to figure out that apparently this guy is from England or something. (Yeah, I'm a little slow like that.) Once I got that in my head and got used to the British lingo and so forth, well hell, then things were great! It’s actually funny!”

CONTENT – 6.1
“I found this blog to be incredibly boring. Excellent for my chronic insomnia, though. Am I missing the humor here?”

“Amusing personal anecdotes. Original, and mostly-engaging material.”

“Very good writing. My only complaint it, it is hard to pay attention when each post is essentially about the same couple and their house. Very entertaining nonetheless.”

“It wasn't bad, but no laugh out loud moments. It was like I was reading tidbits of a longer story.”

“I like the blogs about normal every day stupid things that everyone does but never actually discusses.”

DESIGN – 5.4
“Plain, uninspired and clean. I like that.”

“A little boring for my taste.”

“Not much of a design at all.”

“Uncluttered, straightforward, nothing fancy.”

“Boring! Apparently ‘plain white blogs’ is this week’s theme.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 7.3
“The writing is fine though someone needs to make better use of the spell check feature on his computer.”

“Good use of grammar, engages the reader.”

“Once I got past the Britishness, the writing and grammar were fine.”

INTANGIBLES – 7.5
“I have no issue with this blog at all, except for the fact that it is exceedingly dull. Ergo, I give it an 8.”

“No ads, but the design is so boring and the posts are kind of long.”

“I like it when the author takes time to introduce himself.”

“I'd like the entries to be titled.”

FREQUENCY – 6.0
“Pretty steady three times a week.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 40% Yes
“I’ve tried to read this blog regularly a couple of times, but I always give up. It’s just not for me. Sorry.”

“Perhaps once a week.”

“Very likely.”

“Hell, no!”

“I enjoyed this blog. Of course, 360,000 readers can't be wrong. Will definitely bookmark it.”

OVERALL – 69.8
Mixed reviews kept JonnyB’s Secret Private Diary from getting too far up the charts.

“This is supposed to be a pretty popular blog, but I just don’t get it.”

Defective Yeti

2006-06-14T06:42:00.000-07:00

Defective Yeti had a couple of big fans among our reviewers, and a couple of people who didn’t care for this blog at all. However, for the most part, our reviewers gave it favorable reviews across the board.

“Not every post is laugh-out-loud funny, but Matthew Baldwin writes a nice, clever blog. Very witty, clever stuff. He’s a professional writer and it comes across in his work here at Defective Yeti.”

CONTENT – 7.3
“Some interesting stories. I got a few chuckles here and there. Far from uproariously funny, but the content was thoughtful, bordering on insightful and amusing.”

“Clever, witty posts.”

“Dry.”

“Matt covers a wide range of subjects that are of interest to me. Hey, I'm a geek. Give me sci-fi and board games any day.”

“I got a big kick out of the post and an even bigger kick out of the comments. Some guy named Drax left a response in ‘Buckwheat speak’ that cracked my shit up.”

“Not particularly thrilling topics in and of themselves, but really funny.”

DESIGN – 6.5
“Simple and clean, the way I like it.”

“Huge masthead for ‘the little blog that couldn't.’”

“Nice and uncluttered. Easy to read.”

“Pretty boring. Very white.”

“The design isn’t all that great, but it’s far from the worst I’ve seen.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 8.7
“The writing is very good. Clear, concise and consistent. I like it.”

“Good use of grammar. Dry, unengaging posts.”

“I give it a 9 only because I'm afraid to give anyone a 10 for fear that I might have missed something really huge and will feel like an idiot when I read what everyone else said about it. It seems to me that this writer does well grammatically and writes in a fashion that is very readable. And funny.”

“Matthew is a writer’s writer. I wish he posted more often, but I understand most of us have to work for a living. Quality, quality stuff.”

INTANGIBLES – 6.9
“I hate Flickr ads in the sidebars of any blog. I also hate the ‘current’ thing.”

“Too stark. Long, rambling dry posts.”

FREQUENCY – 6.0
“He posts about three times a week.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 59% Yes
“Already do.”

“Nope!”

“Probably not. Too many long posts for my taste.”

“I’ve been reading this blog for about a year and a half.”

OVERALL – 81.1
High numbers for content and writing led the way to a pretty good average score for Defective Yeti.

“One of my favorite blogs. Smart, funny, thought provoking and highly recommended.”

TVgasm

2006-06-12T05:41:00.000-07:00

Some of our reviewers admitted not watching much television. However, those who watch some of the shows highlighted at TVgasm liked the site very much.

"Hilarious re-caps, better than the shows most of the time."

CONTENT - 7.4
"Shows like Laguna Beach and The Hills are perfect for this blog. In fact, the only reason I occasionally watch those shows is so I get the jokes when I read recaps like these."

"Sheer boredom. I am not a fan of television blogs. I have maybe four or five shows that I watch consistently. I don't like reading about television shows. It reminds me that I am wasting my life watching the four or five that I actually do care to see."

"Making fun of trash TV is too easy sometimes."

"Boring for me because I dont watch enough TV to know what this blog is talking about half the time. But to someone who is very "into" TV, I suspect it might be slightly interesting."

DESIGN - 5.9
"As my grandmother Mildred used to say..."Oy vey, vatta schtupin mess!" I have been on this site for less than 10 seconds and already, my eyes hurt."

"The design bothers me a little. I don’t know how to describe it, but I’m giving it a 6."

"Professional, direct, yet a bit too much stuff in side panels."

"Nothing exciting. I'm getting good at ignoring the stuff in the sidebars. Other than all that crap, the site is clean-looking enough, but kind of boring. White?"

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR - 8.5
"Fine and fine. Here, have an 8."

"Pretty good quality, sarcastic writing."

"Good use of grammar and engaging content."

"The writing itself is done fairly well even if it didn't say anything interesting."

INTANGIBLES - 4.1
"The site made me run some Active X control and crashed my Internet Explorer when I tried to bypass it. Major points off for crashing anything on my computer. Fuck you, Active X."

"One of my biggest peeves are films embedded into blogs. I also cannot stand the clutter, the ads that run all over the place and I don't like any blog that advertises MySpace. Feh."

"Lots of crap in the sidebars. I really don't like having to ‘jump’ to read the whole post."

"Ads, Active X bullshit, videos, extra clicks to read some entries, just too much senseless crap. This kind of stuff really hurt my overall opinion of this blog."

FREQUENCY - 10
"Two or three posts a day."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY - 54% Yes
"Sure. They have a new reader from now on."

"Only if my life depended on it."

"Already do."

"Probably not."

OVERALL - 81.6
"I don’t read everything because I don’t care about some of those shows, but the rest of it is great."

"I'm still pissed off at that Active X thing."

Go Fug Yourself

2006-06-09T05:05:00.002-07:00

The process at Go Fug Yourself is pretty simple:

Celebrities are pictured wearing ridiculous clothes.
Heather and Jessica make fun of them.

“It's cruelly minimalist, pictures of celebrities at their worst followed by brutal commentary. Fantastic!”

“I don’t give two shits about fashion, but this site is genuinely funny. The more you explore this site, the more you’ll love it.”

CONTENT - 8.0
“Clever, witty, vicious, bitchy, catty, and just plain wonderful.”

“Love the photos.”

“Great idea for a blog.”

DESIGN - 7.2
“I don’t mind the ads too much, but the design is a little too pedestrian for me.”

“Except for the annoying ad sidebar, it's a pretty clean design.”

“Straightforward, nothing fancy, yet nothing interfering with the fug.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR - 8.5
“Great comedic writing.”

“Engaging and regular posts.”

INTANGIBLES - 6.8
"Ads and no comments, both negatives and deserving of demerits.”

"The ads kind of annoy me more than some of the other gossip blogs just because the design is so simple. ... That didn't necessarily make sense, but I'm still giving it a 7."

FREQUENCY - 10
“At least one post every weekday, sometimes two.”

“They seem to update regularly, which is always a plus.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY - 75% Yes
“Doesn't everybody read it regularly already?”

“I already do. Very guilty pleasure.”

“Surprisingly, yes. I just knew I’d hate this blog, but I was wrong. Thanks for reviewing this one.”

OVERALL - 89.8
“I love this blog! The frightening photos of celebrities' styles gone wild, the catty/sarcastic comments most of which mirror my own thoughts, and mostly short posts. What's not to love? Well, the ads, of course.”

Defamer

2006-06-07T06:56:00.000-07:00

Defamer isn’t necessarily our reviewers’ favorite celebrity gossip blog, but it still managed to get pretty good reviews.

CONTENT - 7.5
“I'm sure it helps that I secretly like reading celebrity gossip. But it also helps that the writing on Defamer is so fucking funny.”

“Defamer might be the best gossip site out there, but I don’t think the content is nearly as funny as The Superficial.”

“I read several gossip blogs and this isn't one of my favorites.”

“Hard for me to judge, as celebrity gossip is not my thing at all.”

DESIGN - 8.3
“Professional, eye catching.”

“It's fairly clean, but there's something about it I don't like. I can't put my finger on it though.”

“The ads in the sidebar overlap the main post area and the header ad overlaps the sidebar. It's probably due to my combination of Firefox and low screen resolution but it looks sloppy.”

“Nice palette, tasteful design. This is a well-designed blog. I could not find anything wrong with it.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR - 7.9
“They have a professional staff of writers.”

“I noticed a few sparse grammar errors.”

INTANGIBLES - 7.1
“The ads don’t bother me all that much. It kind of goes with these sites.”

“I don't understand the need to register with the site in order to comment.”

FREQUENCY - 10
“Defamer features several posts each day.”

“They almost post too much. I never keep up.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY - 49% Yes
“Definitely.”

“Once a week.”

“I used to read it all the time.”

OVERALL - 84.2
“It’s a decent enough blog, but I’m just not all that excited about celebrity gossip. Other sites do a better job of making celebrity gossip funny.”

DUmmie FUnnies

2006-06-05T05:00:00.000-07:00

DUmmie FUnnies is supposedly a humorous retort to the daily news and discussions at Democratic Underground.

Most of our reviewers felt like they were "reading someone’s lame, unfunny, inside jokes."

CONTENT - 4.5
"I don't support the author's views, as far as I could understand them. It's all downhill from there."

"Face it. Republicans just aren’t funny."

"Dumb, yes. Funnie, no."

"Not a big fan of political blogs."

DESIGN - 4.8
"Poor choice of a Blogger template, in my opinion. I don't like the way the posts kind of float in mid-air in the middle of a vast white space."

"Boring. Yuck."

"I don’t like the bold font. It hurts my eyes."

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR - 4.8
"The writing isn’t necessarily horrible, but the random capitalization is just weird. I assume the mistakes are supposed to be the funny parts because I have yet to laugh at the actual content."

"Too verbose, posts take too long to get to the point."

"Hard to tell, although I did find a pesky grammatical error."

INTANGIBLES - 4.2
"Long posts, different colored type, odd spacing for an effect that doesn’t word, advertisements, and right-wing politics? A zero simply does not carry the emotion for how many pet peeves this blog hits for me."

"That font got really annoying and the long posts didn't help. I felt like I was reading about some inside joke that wouldn't be funny even in I bothered to figure out what was going on."

"What's with the freakishly long posts?"

FREQUENCY - 10
"PJ-Comix posts virtually every day."

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY - 10% Yes
"You’d have to actually pay me to visit this blog again."

"Not just no. Hell no!"

"If I were struggling with insomnia for a week and needed sleep? Yes."

"Dear God, I never thought I’d live to see the day where I actually wished I was forced to review another one of those fucking cute animal picture sites. I simply couldn’t imagine hating another blog as much as those. Thanks for lowering the bar."

OVERALL - 54.4
"You absolutely must enjoy reading political opinion to enjoy this blog. Even further, it seems you must be familiar with the latest opinions from the left so you can ‘get’ this blogger's retorts. Based on the name of the blog, I expected some humor, but it appears that this site is a pretty straightforward political blog written from a right-leaning perspective. Not funny and unoriginal."

Everything Is Wrong With Me

2006-06-02T09:34:00.000-07:00

While most of the ratings for Jason Mulgrew’s Everything is Wrong With Me were positive, most of the comments were somewhat negative. Tread lightly.

“I get the feeling this used to be a great blog and the guy just doesn’t care anymore. He’s been doing it for a long time and has plenty of other irons in the fire right now, so I don’t blame him. Still, there’s no reason this should be one of the most popular blogs on the Internet anymore.”

“This site does have it’s witty moments, but it just seems like he's hungover all the time. It was funny the first couple times, but it just borders on lame after a little bit. This blog, however, seems to represent Generation Y very well: intelligent, witty, but a little lazy, self-indulgent and undisciplined.”

CONTENT – 7.2
“It's funny and I like his stories, but sometimes I have to be in a certain mood to read him. Otherwise I could really care less.”

“Anything that can make me literally laugh out loud rates rather high for me. This line alone did it: ‘My balls basically stew for ten hours a day like two grapes in a hot bowl of oatmeal.’”

“Not particularly interesting to me. While it seems to be mainly posts about his general life, which is the content of many blogs I like, he does not write it in a particularly captivating way. Add in the bazillion references to drinking and porn, and I became quickly disinterested. Also he has a tendency to ramble, which would be okay if he was interesting.”

“I like this shit. Jason reminds me of my cousin who lives in Grandma’s basement.”

DESIGN – 7.3
“Needs a different template. Too blah looking.”

“Nothing spectacular, but clean and nice. Easy on the eyes and nothing too scary to take in.”

“Straightforward, no-frills.”

“Boring but clean. There are a lot of links in the sidebar but I didn't find them to be distracting or annoying; they were easy to ignore.”

QUALITY OF WRITING/GRAMMAR – 8.1
“The guy knows how to write, for sure.”

“I didn't notice any huge problems worth mentioning, but I felt that the writing was far from extraordinary.”

INTANGIBLES – 6.9
“The guy's been blogging for a long time. Anyone with a blog going back to 2004 is considered a veteran in my book.”

“I had to take one point off for the long posts, one point for the donation box, and one for the book deal/tv deal/ego trip crap in the sidebar.”

“I liked the fact there were no ads. It had a pretty clean look to it without being overly corporate. The blog didn't really do much for me though.”

FREQUENCY – 6.0
“Jason Mulgrew posts about three times a week.”

WOULD YOU READ THIS BLOG REGULARLY – 52% Yes
“I would read it regularly if I could remember. It's one of those blogs where you're sitting around one day and think, ‘Oh hey, I wonder what Jason has been up to these days,’ and then read it straight for six hours.”

“Perhaps. However, most of the blogs I read lately are rather amusing, yet the authors all have some type of problem or another where they all are on antidepressants/anti-anxiety meds, and well, that makes me depressed and anxious.”

OVERALL – 79.9
Everything Is Wrong With Me ended up being one our top-reviewed blogs, even though most of the comments were just little toxic.

“He seems to have an obsession with alcohol, porn, and his private parts. Did my husband write this blog? Maybe I'm a prude, or oversensitive to that kind of thing. I didn't find that it added anything to the blog. In fact it was a turnoff for me.”

“I’d like to party with that dude sometime.”

Pink Is The New Blog

2006-05-31T05:49:00.000-07:00

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

2006-05-29T12:24:00.000-07:00

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

2006-05-26T05:59:00.000-07:00

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

2006-05-24T05:24:00.000-07:00

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."