Forum:On this day...

Forums: Index > Village Dump > On this day...

Note: This topic has been unedited for 3320 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

On another forum, Nikau mentioned that the front page doesn't really highlight our best content. I also noted that the On this day... section of the mainpage pretty much sucks. It's mostly outdated, full of redlinks, random, and not that funny. Plus, creating 365 individual day entries full of one-liners and making all of them good is almost impossible (and a waste of time in a way since people see a new entry everyday, unlike featured articles which can easily be searched for). I think we should work to create a set of 30 or so newly written entries that we can recycle each month plus entries for specific holidays (like Christmas and Easter, etc). We could also use this as a means of highlighted featured content on the mainpage and linking to more quality articles. Wondering what the community thinks of this. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 21:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea.   ŤäŁķ ¿Ș₮áłĶ?฿¡฿↓¡ography 21:58 9.17.14

Sounds very nice. -- IFYMB! Talk to me baby! 21:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Anton (talk) 19:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

anniversaries project

i, too noticed this in 2009. it made me sad to see all of the cruft that was listed on our front page. and said cruft was likely the only thing 50% of first-time visitors read. thus, i started my own personal anniversaries project. I have improved nearly 80 of the 366 entries to what I consider to be an acceptable level of funny. i followed these criteria:

• a theme for the day (e.g. international roadkill day, take your goldfish to work day) that may or may not influence the entries
• 5-7 entries linking to featured articles, so that the 'on this day' and the 'did you know' end at the same place and everything looks nice
• a humorous image related to one of the entries

as this is mostly boring work, i haven't plowed through and completed it. if anyone would like to give feedback on the project or participate, that would be swell. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 01:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer if we had only three entries - rule of three - on each (unless its actually funny to have more, brief ones) and all three link directly to Featured articles and are connected themselves through a common theme. So 3 full paragraphs, maybe about real world events, or maybe about an article that satirizes an event. This will take forever, but 5 people doing 5 will fix almost a month. If we can do that we can add it to the ones Gerry did and gradually expand beyond 100 or so good ones on rotation. Big dates like Feb 14 & Sep 11 would need to be fixed up and excluded from rotation except on the one day. --Nikau (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does five a day. I think five is a perfect number. Three is a bit to short imo, especially considering each entry is a sentence long. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 02:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm definitely on board with this. Once we get the exact criteria sorted I wouldn't mind contributing. The cruft on the main page is long overdo for an overhaul. (Also AWESOME to see both gerrycheevers and Xamralco back, hi guys!) -RAHB 08:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

hey, rahb! great to be back. and great to see forums about making uncyclopedia better instead of how it's headed for an inevitable fiery doom. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 22:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, we were while the content warning existed, it was worse than any ads could ever be and we earned nothing from it. Unfortunately the servers are often very poor and we're running at a loss according to Uncyclopedia:Donate. Interestingly we earned $2.30 from advertising in 2014 according to that. Is there a sneaky ad somewhere? --Nikau (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

What needs doing?

I'm currently making some images that should fit the width of the text box on the main page, and gutting the Uncycloversity page as a test. Anyone know how to constrain the image size so it fits and expands where necessary? --Nikau (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I think we need some goals at this point. Using Cracked and The Onion as guides for popularity, what we need is better linking from the front page to featured articles'.

1. 1 We need to divide all the features, primarily those from 2006-2012, into their categories (probably already done) and then put them in some nice looking portals so they are one click away from the main page. I should be able to click the Arts portal link and find every arts related feature in one click.
2. 2 Without breaking the Wikipedia formatting too much, we can probably do with more pictures on the front page that make it look more interesting. Pictures can actually link directly to an article, so a few more with inventive one liners beneath?
3. 3 Clickbait rules the world. We need to resurrect the articles with catchy or hilarious titles and use them on the front page. --Nikau (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

"Need" is a very strong word. We aren't Cracked, and we aren't the Onion. I'm all for giving the site a spit-shine and giving readers better access to our higher quality content, but we're not selling a product here, we are displaying our writing for those who wish to look at it. The day I start titling my article with clickbait is the day I start smoking a comically-oversized cigar and calling everyone "Johnson". -RAHB 22:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Even You'll Never Look at RAHB the Same Way Again After Reading These Forty-Nine Shocking Facts About Him!!!? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Modusoperandi responded to a forum comment and YOU WON'T BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENED NEXT SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 03:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey! I remember you from Twenty Uncyclopedian Wardrobe Malfunctions!!!. That was a lot a underboob, for a man. Or a woman. Or Μαστός, the Greek Goddess of Boobs. Furry, too, like a pillow made out of Wookiee. What I'm saying is that, even for the internet, it was gross. Like the pick-up lines at a proctologist's convention. Or so I've heard. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

...i missed you too? SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 22:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that portals should display all of the features related to the topic, not just random articles, which might or might not be well-written. And I think what Nikau meant wasn't that we weren't advertising our good writers - it's that we weren't advertising enough. By the way, why aren't we selling a product? Right now, "selling" implies more presenting something in a desirable way, than giving something out for money (or something else). Oh, and don't you think that readers will be more willing to donate money to us, if they liked the way we looked, not just our content? That is selling all right. Anton (talk) 19:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

That's the idea. The product we're selling is Uncyclopedia; the community and the ability to write whatever humor you like basically unhindered. The problem is the main page has mostly been random cruft (DYK and On this day...), much unchanged since 2005. There's no need for clickbait titles per se, but we need people to click on whatever to get to our best content and a sentence long riff about God, Obama, Bush and Oprah that links nowhere, or even to AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, doesn't really help. --Nikau (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Well yeah, I'm with you on that then. -RAHB 10:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good guys. I definitely think less is more. Nikau, I like your idea abotu clickbait. I am trying to get people to add stuff to Did you know? so it basically becomes a bunch of links to our best articles, rather than just random ones. Leverage (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)