Forum:What's good and bad about uncyclopedia....

Forums: Index > BHOP > What's good and bad about uncyclopedia....

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5901 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Good

Some (very occasionally) very funny articles

Bad

All of the featured articles - seriously, I don't know why, but almost all the featured articles are not very good. I log onto this site most days, and, unsurprisingly, click on that days featured article. I can't remember the last time that I actually laughed even once - I'm not joking. I've read somewhere that for an article to get featured it needs to be seriously whored. The thing is, they seem to be either of mediocre standard, or they are hugely contrived "clever-clever" (but not really very clever at all) articles that are not written in an encyclopedic way whatsoever. Not that I care that much, but this site does seem a bit cliquey at times...

good

Uncyclopdeia gives me an outlet to write some quite funny (in my somewhat-less-than-humble opinion) shit

bad

no fucker seems to read it, and if they do, they don't come and tell me how great it is. I know this isn't a "blog" where people are supposed to comment on things, but I like some of my better stuff, and nobody cares, but it would be nice to know that somebody cares, if not everybody. What's up with that, yo?

good

Being able to get my stuff pee-reviewed

bad

having to wait over a week to get that review, despite doing the decent thing and reviewing a couple of other articles to speed things up.

• runs out room and waits for general slaggings and pisstaking to ensure...Step13 21:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There's good and bad in most things, and you need to take the rough with the smoothe. There are sometimes weeks go by before a featured article raises more than a few titters for me. But thats often down to things like taste, cultural references, etc. Humour is a funny business. With regards to cliques, as long as the voting on VFH and VFP is restricted to the same group of key contributors then that's what will happen naturally.

Whoring can be a bit extreme at times, but mostly its not as bad as most people think, usually restricted to "look at my article" comments on IRC. As for the rest, we all only hope people read our contributions, find them amusing, and shower us with kudos. At least I hope that's kudos. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

If you think a page of yours is good and it has been reviewed, you can feel free to self-nom it on VFH, and the community can have its way with it. As for the featured pages, humor(humour for you, no?) is subjective, so not everything will be funny to you that is funny to other people. Some of my favorite pages are You Are Dead, UnScripts:Grass in the Mist, Literary dedications, UnBooks:Gallows Humor, and Stephen Hawking ran over my cat, but you might think that all of those are complete shit. Oh, and pee reviews take forever because we are all lazy bastards. It's true. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:23, Oct 17

Well, really, what were you expecting? They can't all be knee slappers. Almost all sitcoms on TV are more contrived than ANY vfh article on this site. Maybe we should add a laugh track. --  Le Cejak • <-> 21:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

For all audios on the site containing a laugh track. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:35, Oct 17

I've found nearly every article on this site can look like utter shite if you're not in a good mood. If you are, though, it's really quite hilarious stuff. That's why I don't vote on VFH when my life is pissy. (Which is, theoretically, all the time. Teenagers' lives are supposed to be shit, no? That generalization doesn't seem to work for me, but I try.) A lot of humour is subtle; a lot of humor is blatant; I guess it really does come down to matters of taste, but try looking at an article you thought was shite in a better mood. I've had lots of articles transform from drivel to gold before my very eyes just 'cuz I had a better day. And Pee Reviews generally do take forever and a day unless you ask someone specifically to do it, but PEEING might help take care of that problem. (I just had an article reviewed in under 24 hours!) And lastly, Uncyclopedia is slow. As molasses. On a cold day. Moving uphill. It's just the way it is... and never stare at Recent Changes. It's like looking at the sun, you glance at it and then turn away. Don't even bother checking your watchlist more than once every two hours. But if you need something to distract yourself and can't find it outside of Uncyclopedia, then I'd suggest getting a life patrolling Newpages or doing template purges or the like. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 21:45 Oct 17, 2007

Thanks to all for your responses. I take your points, and they are (mostly) correct. Ledbaloon, I looked at your list of fav articles and hated them all - guess that just proves your point about humour (darn right humour for me!) being subjective. Skullthumper, you would seem to be right about pissy moods, as I am half way through a week off of work (which I only took because I had 18 days holiday accrued and less than 6 months left to do anything with...) and have nothing to do, no cash to do it with, and have fallen ill in that time period. As for patrolling - arrrghhhh!!! - why do people expect you to do boring stuff to improve uncyclopedia all the time? I got some guy to adopt me in the "adopt a noob" scheme and he suggested I get rid of red links. That's not fun, funny, cool or sexy. Which is why I have silently ignored him since then, coward that I am.... Step13 21:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't hafta. It was only a suggestion. There's enough of us losers to go 'round already. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 22:00 Oct 17, 2007

It's a good idea to get adopted. Ask the guy to review your stuff. --  Le Cejak • <-> 22:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered the possibility that you're just a crank? I find that my time here is far better spent after I realized that I'm an insufferable twat. Perhaps you'll have the same epiphany. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Good

My articles

Bad

Your articles. -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 22:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

All-too-true. Hail STM! --General Insineratehymn 22:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hail me! YAY! -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 00:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Mystery header

I think the last article i laughed at is one about pillow fighting Richardson j 22:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I seldom laugh when I read Uncyc. Not because articles are not funny, or well-written, but because of factors in my personal life...yes, horrible factors...it's hard, so hard, to go through life with...it makes me weep, I tell you...to live with the tragedy of...a permanent high-skidmark wedgie. So I don't feel much like laughing at anything I read. I fake it. And I think my wife is beginning to suspect. ----OEJ 00:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I usually only get a brief chuckle, but sometimes theres a hearty guffaw lurking in the page somewhere. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 00:46, Oct 19

Occasionally I break into a fit of uncontrollable giggles. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 00:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a true story. I was sitting in a Mexican fast-foot joint reading a book. And I began to laugh. Uncontrollably. Tears-on-the-cheeks laughter. The book was Anguished English -- examples of malapropisms, misspellings, and mangled prose gleaned mostly from student essays. Nothing on Uncyc has ever made me laugh like that. I've tried to write articles like that -- the "written by cretins" series -- but somehow they are just not as funny. Odd. I must be too stupid to write like an idiot. ----OEJ 00:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I know just what you mean. User:Kip the Dip/UnNews:Guy Gets Crazy was almost featurable based on the utter awfulness of whoever wrote it. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:12, Oct 19

Pillow fighting, you say? That was mostly TKF. Sounds to me if you want to improve Uncyclopedia, go hound TKF on his talk page to write more and stop being a murderous amphibian. Oh, and OEJ, sometimes it has to be the knowledge that someone was stupid enough to write whateveritis that makes one laugh out loud. It's one thing to do it purposely, another to do it accidentally. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 02:17 Oct 19, 2007

Heh! I just went back to one of the articles and found this comment:

"Bold text (sic) what the fuck! Did the author ride the short-bus to school? Perhaps attired in a rubber helmet to protect what little, or should I say, minute, [ as in small, not in time] grey-matter left?That is some seriously funny shit!Please don't tell me you teach history anywhere..."

So at least I earned the contempt of one reader. I feel so gratified. ----OEJ 21:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I must point out....

That I think, somehow, Cool-and-Sexy-Admins IP got an account. That's just me.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 02:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

NOOO! How can this be? IPs ARE NOT PEOPLE! – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 02:17 Oct 19, 2007

Eerie, init? It's like watching a rhino give birth; uncomfortable and arousing. Ignore that last part. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There now, birth is an important part of the circle of life. So is that erection you have right now. Don't be ashamed, just take a minute to grasp the sheer size of that simple event, the power that such a simple bodily function can have... Hey, now I can, be awed by nature, too! - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:06, Oct 19

And now, the obligatory link:

Uncyclopedia is the worst-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 02:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobody cares – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 02:18 Oct 19, 2007

HATE HAET HAT! --General Insineratehymn 02:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Etc. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia

Is great! I'm glad we have it! Anyway, even the crap articles are better than that other site! (you know which one) --Stikman! (talk) (Contribs) 21:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean eBay, right? Yeah....that site sucks. And those panties I sent off for never arrived. Damn you Modus..... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I told you, they were confiscated at the border for being too hot and disturbing. You got your money back, and an autographed picture of Moses. What more could you want? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I could really use a turkey sub... maybe one of those cool blue lava lamp things... and a lifetime supply of rubber bands. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 22:58 Oct 19, 2007

Damnit! You told me you had an autographed picture of Mooses! Instead, you sent me the autograph of Moses! I freaking want my money back! Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 01:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What's bad about uncyclopedia:

This forum. OOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHH!!!! /me revels in my own wit and badassery. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 23:35, Oct 19

Yea

that's

true

Richardson j 23:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)