Forum:This doesn't work... So what does?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > This doesn't work... So what does?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 3047 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

After a while of absence, what I see the most, coming back here and reading the forums, is the repeated idea: "This doesn't work." It seems to characterize every activity that is still possible on uncy. Deopping people doesn't work. Banning people doesn't work. Unbanning them doesn't work either. Stopping fun, by closing forums, and asking people to write doesn't work. Having fun on chatrooms or IRC doesn't work. It's not that I disagree with any points. In fact, I agree with all. But the question comes up: if all that doesn't work, what does?

Well, I tried to answer that question, but could only think of other things that didn't work and only wasted potential or actual writers' time and efforts... So I propose, instead of creating multiple forums to complain about different things, let's all complain about big this down here! How about every visitor leaves a few big things that he/she thinks don't work on uncy, that is are a waste of time, efforts and even money or that bring more problems than solutions. It'll be interesting if yoy could also leave a short explanation.

If you are not tired after that, I also propose we name all the things that do work and are necessary to be kept. And then... We can talk about possible solutions and reforms? Does that sound like an idea? --Anton

The goal of this forum, as I see it, is to bring everyone's attention to what users consider as the main problems, to see if it's possible to actually do something all together about all of them. This seems crazy, but I have a unique faith in that this can work somehow. Anton (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Things that do not work

• Competition with Wikia. We can't beat Wikia's search interest, unless we somehow manage to attract a great amount of attention to our site, suddenly outperforming a big company that has been trying to do that for years. Unless that happens, we are slowly dying in its shadows. --Anton

  Perhaps we should change the description for this site and even acknowledge that we are the alternative Uncyclopedia. Because people won't notice the difference on web address and typography alone. ~EveryOtherUsernameWasTaken(dtf?) 18:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

  Aha! What I am thinking is we don't even have to be an alternative Uncyclopedia. Once again, we can be a project so entirely different that visitors will not be able to confuse the two sites. For Spike, the forkers are just those who prefer "easy" writing over encyclopediness. We can turn this reputation to our advantage, by removing the encyclopedia format altogether, as we certainly have many writers who are amazing at freestyle comedy. Anton (talk) 21:01, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It is time to reboot this website with a different name and a different format. Things will not change...nor will it improve. ShabiDOO 00:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Wiki format. There are certainly great aspects about this, but it seems that lately the end has not been justifying the means. The idea that "everyone can edit" brings tons of spambots and vandals and reverting them is as painstaking, as it is ... useless, considering the amount of other garbage we keep. Coding is also complicated for new users and requires quite a bit of time to master. And finally, this is the primary reason why we currently have to compete with Wikia: two humour wikis, both named Uncyclopedia. I am not against the wiki format altogether, just saying that it is something to reconsider. --Anton

It is time to reboot this website with a different name and a different format. Things will not change...nor will it improve. ShabiDOO 00:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Blocks. How about banninng the act of banning? Just joking, but it really seems that bans bring nothing useful. I haven't seen many (if any) editors who have somehow been motivated to edit constructively this way. Ceasing to ban altogether does not seem a solution, but reforming the project so that bans are not needed anymore does. (And this coincides with the above) --Anton
• Content that is 90% identical to the Wikia one. This is a major problem, I find. The point is that we don't even need that content to function. There is so much garbage amongst it, and even for the articles that are good, I wonder if any beats the Wikia version of it (in terms of search interest). What is essential to keep, though, is the original material created by authors past the move. So I propose a kind of compromise: instead of choosing what articles to delete, how about making a list if articles to keep (a list of articles very important to our history and identity, such as the Top10s or the ones that got re-featured recently + all of the decent material not on Wikia) and removing all the rest? We can warn all authors who have ever been active on the en.uncy and they'll have the "exclusive" right save their work. Even if each on of them saves all his writing, in total, we'll still have a lot less than the 29 thousand something pages, out of which 99% nobody reads. --Anton
  • The reason nobody reads our articles is not because we lack readers, but because nobody cares about them. --Stranger195 (talk • contribs • guestbook • wt • aotm • unf) 14:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Things that do work

So I hear you all thinking: "Is it even possible to reform all this, while conserving our identity, as Uncyclopedia?" The answer is yes, so please, list below all the things that are essential to keep in order to save our identity! --Anton

• The name. It is not because we are called Uncyclopedia that we should compete with the other one. Two projects with the same names can co-exist with no damage to each other, if they are significantly different in their content, format and/or target audience. --Anton

  If the two sites are "significantly different in their content, format and/or target audience" then surely the reason they are in competition is the name? I'm not saying we should change it but it has got to be one of our biggest problems. ~EveryOtherUsernameWasTaken(dtf?) 18:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

  What I meant is that we are not sufficiently different in those aspects. I'll add a point to the "do not work" list. The name is important, but The Times does not compete with Time magazine, even though their names are identical (almost), precisely because they target very different audiences by their different objectives and format. Anton (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

  Sorry I misunderstood that. I've been thinking that the two sites ought to be more different in content, though you're right, they're pretty much the same. ~EveryOtherUsernameWasTaken(dtf?) 20:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Because Uncyc is inactive

We need to do more things now. MUN MyOwnBadSelf, The HMC Writer (talk - stalk - block) 07:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)