Forum:"Not quite VFH"
This forum topic is totally not bitter ranting, you guys. For bitter ranting, try something like this. It's some good shit.
I've seen this cited as a reason for voting Against on articles multiple times. The against vote usually shimmies something like "It's a very funny article, with a wonderfully satirical take on the issue, but I just don't think it's VFH quality."
Now, I get that some articles are funny, but average, and thus don't represent the true spirit of Christmas Uncyclopedia, but citing this as the sole reason for voting against is something I dislike somewhat. It's a bit like that annoying kid in high school who justifies his opinions with his opinions, like so: "I think we should legalize marijuana because that's what I believe." VFH isn't a hall of timeless legend, it's just a place where good articles go to get out more than the tripe that escapes ICU and QVFD (keyword being more). If the only real reason for voting against on an article is "it just doesn't seem VFH-worthy", then simply abstain. S'what I do. Ж Kalir potentially sexier than you 01:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. When a page "just doesn't feel right there, even though it's humorous and does everything right," do two things. Consider that you're just being too picky, and really try to come up with a tangible reason with why it doesn't feel right there. Then, if you can't, consider changing your vote to an Abstain, or even a For. If you can, then list that.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 01:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- So you're saying that It's good, but not quite good enough is a bad reason to vote against? It seems like a perfectly workable reason to me. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 04:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- The problem I see with that reason is that we're measuring VFH as an arbitrary hallmark of greatness, when it doesn't really have to be. The article gets on the Main Page for a day, then goes off into a category full of other pages. Understandably, a page isn't right for VFH in a number of circumstances, but in those cases, the author would want to know why their work just isn't good enough. Your vote already says "I don't think it's VFH quality"; the comment should reflect why you think that, as opposed to echoing the vote itself. No I am not just saying what I said up there, does this rag smell like chloroform to you? Ж Kalir potentially sexier than you 15:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- "...we're measuring VFH as an arbitrary hallmark of greatness, when it doesn't really have to be."...but it is our popularity-induced hallmark of greatness. That's what it's supposed to be. It's for those few magical, perfect pages; the unicorns of Uncyclopedia. If a page nom'd there is missing something, I'll try to describe that something (generally in Pictionary format), but sometimes the page is just missing that zazz, that snappy pace, that smooth flow...that special something that separates the good from the great. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 15:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- What modus is talking about, of course, is commonly known to pseudo-scientists as "The X-Factor". It's commonly used when something needs to be explained without using any kind of logic or hard evidence. --
Kaizer the Bjorn takkun 
(nya nya) (1961 model!) Check out T61! 01:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- What modus is talking about, of course, is commonly known to pseudo-scientists as "The X-Factor". It's commonly used when something needs to be explained without using any kind of logic or hard evidence. --
- "...we're measuring VFH as an arbitrary hallmark of greatness, when it doesn't really have to be."...but it is our popularity-induced hallmark of greatness. That's what it's supposed to be. It's for those few magical, perfect pages; the unicorns of Uncyclopedia. If a page nom'd there is missing something, I'll try to describe that something (generally in Pictionary format), but sometimes the page is just missing that zazz, that snappy pace, that smooth flow...that special something that separates the good from the great. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 15:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, if all pages that are just "good" got featured, we'd have a way bigger selection of FAable material. To be featured, a page should be somewhere above average. Just how far above is up to the voter. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon
(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:54, Oct 22
- I agree with Led. We've had a few articles up there recently that are good, but not so good that they deserve featuring. Be honest, vote them down this time, vote them up if they come back improved. Keep the queue ticking over nicely, and hopefully feature the good stuff that deserves to be highlighted. --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 08:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think perhaps the problem is that VFH (as I believe it says itself) isn't for lengthy feedback. Sometimes what's wrong (or rather, what's not super-right) with a pretty good article is too complicated or too vague to go into at VFH. But if you don't believe it deserves featuring, you vote against, right? And if you're wrong, then enough other people will vote "for" to counterbalance. But of course, as Ljlego said, in these cases you've got to consider whether you're just being too picky. -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 09:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with Led. We've had a few articles up there recently that are good, but not so good that they deserve featuring. Be honest, vote them down this time, vote them up if they come back improved. Keep the queue ticking over nicely, and hopefully feature the good stuff that deserves to be highlighted. --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 08:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- The problem I see with that reason is that we're measuring VFH as an arbitrary hallmark of greatness, when it doesn't really have to be. The article gets on the Main Page for a day, then goes off into a category full of other pages. Understandably, a page isn't right for VFH in a number of circumstances, but in those cases, the author would want to know why their work just isn't good enough. Your vote already says "I don't think it's VFH quality"; the comment should reflect why you think that, as opposed to echoing the vote itself. No I am not just saying what I said up there, does this rag smell like chloroform to you? Ж Kalir potentially sexier than you 15:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
VFH is vox populi, not vox iudicum. A popularity contest. On the average, better-written pieces have a much better chance than poorly-written ones. But not always. Don't take VFH too seriously. ----OEJ 12:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- 'K. Say, do you like my new hat? Ж Kalir potentially sexier than you 15:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Don't take VFH too seriously, eh? *nominates Cunt cunt cunt cunt crap crap shit* -- Kip the Egg
Talk Works 18:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
