Forum:Rate Uncyclopedia. A Self Evaluation.
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Rate Uncyclopedia. A Self Evaluation.
Note: This topic has been unedited for 6125 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.
Forget specifics for a moment and rate on a scale of one to ten where you think Uncyclopedia is now at in terms of quality entertainment.
1 being the shittest and 10 being omfgroflofdsfdoneoneone!
Why? Well in the wise words of mister Miagi:
Karate yes = GOOD Karate no = GOOD Karate maybe = SQUISH
Bullshit aside just drop your honest rating here. Base the rating on the whole of uncyclopedia combined and not on favourite or most hated parts. Thanks.
0
- Uncyclopedia is the worst. -- Hindleyite 21:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Uncyclopedia is a pile of rank shite. --SoonLayPale 21:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
1
2
3
- There is just so much crap on here. And don't get me started on the power-crazed 14yo admins. Aaadddaaammm 21:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
3.14159265358979
- Lies. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 02:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
4
- I see uncyc round about here. (+0.5) -
17:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
5
- Some very popular boring articles, some very deleted funny articles, some jackass admins, various ED rejects posting about some vaious MySpace rejects. But overall it's an entertaining site with some funny bits that gives me an excuse for sluffing off on my schoolwork. Mr. Briggs Inc. 20:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC) Eh?
- When ever I mention Uncyclopedia to people I get a blank stare. Then I get people to go to Uncyclopedia, and the next time I see them I ask what they thought. 50% of the time they hate it, 50% of the time they see that it has potential. The 50% who hate Uncyclopedia barely give Uncyclopedia a chance, and basicly rate it based on how funny the first article they searched for was. It's that 50% of people who hate Uncyclopedia that motivate me to pretend like I help around here, because when I first came to Uncyclopedia the first article I read was comic gold. --Sir Zombiebaron 00:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hitting "random page" sometimes hits comedy gold now. I like Uncyc, but my friends think I'm mad. Which I am. But that's neither here nor there.--Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 06:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I just got this from Special:Random. So, yeah, 4+1. --L 15:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- While the wiki has a lot of great stuff, we suffer from excessive amounts of crap, not enough admins to deal with it, and waaaay too much strictness on the banstick. --User:Nintendorulez 22:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- I see it around here. We have some really great stuff but some of it is ruined by people like this guy. Wildy
I'm jumping on the bandwagon 02:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC) - we let any old nutter off the street contribute to uncyc, so the quality will never be consistant. we need more admins and more users watching recent changes, we need to promote the site more to get more contributers, and we should probably stop badmouthing the admins, who keep the site from imploding, for no pay - jack mort | cunt | talk
- 10:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
6
- My ranking's actually around 2π. There's quite a bit of comedy gold on this site; you just need to look in the right places for it; and sometimes, those places are completely unexpected. Still, though, I think the learning curve on this site is extremely high, due in part to the
cabaloligarchy. (I would know.) So, in short, the site's funny, but could always use more cowbell. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC) - Slow shipping but product in good condition. —rc (t) 21:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Uncyclopedia is good people. And I guess there's probably a few good articles round here somewhere as well...
t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 22:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC) - On a good day, Uncyclopedia pleases me. On a bad day, Uncyclopedia irks me. But this is true of nearly all things, which means I should give Uncyclopedia a 5. However, I gave it an extra point because it is the only place on the internet where I can write "WEEBLE TWEEDLE OINK FNORD" and still be considered a worthy contributor. --The Acceptable
Cainad 
(Fnord) 00:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC) - Yeah... about here should do it. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 06:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- When it's good, it's really, really good. When it's bad, it's really, really bad. It's impossible to ask of consistency from a humor wiki, but I think we do a pretty good job of weeding out the poor stuff quickly and featuring only those articles of Top Shelf Humour. --
07:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC) - Eh. --Algorithm 08:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- The signal to noise ratio is pretty good, but there's always room for improvement. Less wikidrama, more collaborations and projects. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 18:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- There are many articles I do not read beyond the first paragraph, sometimes the first line: unconsolidated random humor, knee-jerk opposite-humor, and obvious clichés. However, a wiki is by definition a site enabling amateur writers like myself. Therefore the writing will not approach the sustained humor level of a pro like Twain, Wodehouse, Thurber, et al. Uncyc's good for what it is, but it is what it is as well.----OEJ 05:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's better than being tied to a camel and kicked in the head. --Sir Hardwick Fundlebuggy (Bleat) 12:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
7
- I think it's come a long way over the last year, but still doesn't have the signal to noise ratio I wish it did... especially on the incoming articles. But I'm waiting for the next Forest Fire Week, too. ~ T. (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I rate it a 7, mostly funny, but needs some work still on the quality part. I like random humor but it often gets VFD and removed and then replaced with a crap quality article that was not as funny as the one it replaced. Some people also try too hard with articles and end up with crap quality and I have to clean them up. No offense to anyone, just something I noticed. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 16:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hitting 'Random page' still brings up mediocre shite too often, but if you know where to look (good writers' user pages, the best-of pages, etc) then there's much more good stuff than you'll have time to read - David Gerard 01:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, and UnNews pushes the rating up. And another Forest Fire Week would be nice - David Gerard 01:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- What David Said. And although we have lots of users, very few are quality contributors, voters, maintainence people, etc. Good, but we still need some work. -- Sir C
Holla | CUN 06:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- The good stuff widely compensate the bad stuff. I guess what differs us from other humoristic wikis is our tendency towards more adult content (not in the XXX sense, but in the sense of more wit and good prose), our heavy moderation and also the voluntary demi-moderation by dedicated veterans. It's not and it will never be perfect, but still makes this a healthy and vivid environment. -- herr doktor needsAV2
[scream!] 17:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
8
- I give it an 8, there is funny around here, even the obviously dumb pages and stubs are humorous sometimes. Still, there's more crud than I'd care for, vandals, a forum that's not exactly fun to post in and share ideas with (tech issues, fuck uncyc, sig questions etc.) and I wish there was a larger active user pool than right now. Anyway, 8 is my overall rating.--Witt,
of 
UNion Entertain me* 23:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC) - See, I have a hard time thinking of any sites that are consistently funnier than Uncyclopedia. Or movies, for that matter. Or, really, much of anything. Oh great, now you've got me wondering if my rating is too low...--<<
>> 00:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC) - I give 8 because it could be a little better. However where humor is it usually is great or at least having good potential. --~
00:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC) - Evergrowing quality.---Asteroid B612
(aka Rataube) - Ñ 01:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC) - For all its faults and failings and all the great gouts of shite, it is still an extremely clever, funny site populated (in the main in terms of regulars, at least) by very smart, funny people. But while I say 8/10 compared to everything else on the web, it's probably 6 or 7 in terms of its own potential. -- Sir Armando Perentie KUN FP 10:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
9
I vote for nine because nobody else did and nine feels all lonely with no comments under it. Also Uncyclopedia is great, at least at the minute since I haven't quite finished finding all the old classics yet. -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 13:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
10
- Sikon 18:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Uncyclopedia is teh greetist! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!11 -- 21:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- It's got boobies.
Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 11/9 01:28 - Ditto Famine. --Sir gwax (talk)
17:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC) - The best thing on the internet/internets/interweb. Anyone who says any less deserves to have their tongue gouged out and shoved in their eye socket. And, yes, Famine, it's got boobies. This from a 13 year old (me, not Famine). For shame. This is probably the longest comment yet. -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 05:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
11
- top wiki,speedy loading,would edit again a++++++ 12:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- This one goes to eleven. --PantsMacKenzie 14:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's just great, quite frankly.--202.173.158.116 06:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
∞
- Uncyclopedia is the best --GOD! 21:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Agree. --Emmzee 01:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's fucking Uncyclopedia. --High General Grue 04:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- What's fucking Uncyclopedia? Whatever it is, tell it to stop, it's making a mess. -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 03:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- You are, now stop. --High General Grue 04:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- What's fucking Uncyclopedia? Whatever it is, tell it to stop, it's making a mess. -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 03:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
AAAAAAAAA!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! --AAAAAAAAA