Forum:Why is VFH doing so well?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Why is VFH doing so well?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5510 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

You might have noticed but VFH is probably doing better now than it has done for a while... Currently we have an article with (apparently) 30 votes, one with 17, two on 14.5 one on 12... Looks like the days of worrying about having to feature with less than 10 votes are behind us. You also might have noticed that we are getting a lot more voting from our friends the IPs. I think this might be because there is now a link to VFH on Uncyclopedia:What You Can Do. Now, I'm assuming that we all think that getting more voting from IPs is a good thing, but I thought I would mention it... Also, it's possibly a good idea to add something onto {{Votevfh}} about IPs only getting half a vote. Although it's written elsewhere I guess most of them don't bother to read the instructions. I would include a picture of my trousers, but it appears we are having a problem with that... MrN 19:43, Sep 23

VFH is doing well because I put it in the sitenotice. I know, I'm great. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 20:24, Sep 23

How do you do it, Led? How do you manage to be so great all the time? --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 20:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, man, I just, you know, am. Wow, that was deep. Man am I great. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 20:28, Sep 23

Ummm, I think you may be confused as to the actual definition of "great". -OptyC Sucks! CUN20:33, 23 Sep

Well, let's just check my dictionary, here... "Great - /ɡɹeɪt/ adj 1. : Pertaining to TheLedBalloon 2. Pertaining to the actions of TheLedBalloon" ...Well, looks like the book speaks for itself... - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:10, Sep 23

Dude, that's the UnDictionary. :P -OptyC Sucks! CUN21:39, 23 Sep

Actually, yeah, the IP voting is a little frustrating. I realize this might be a lot to ask for, but is there any way a script could be written to make it so that IP votes are only attributed as half? It'd save time. --Mr. Monkey Pant-hoot here. 20:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Way ahead of you, as far as the voting script is concerned anyway. Or it should, I never actually checked it worked (update: yeah, works). Not much that can be done when they edit the page itself though. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 00:52, 24 Sep 2008

Actually

...according to my research I have found a direct correlation between how well VFH is doing and the number of my articles currently doing well on VFH. Coincidence? I think not.... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

You're confusing correlation with causation. It's really because I went on vacation. Plus, I ate my lucky pickle. Polski Ogorki is latin for "the pickle of luck". Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 07:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, here is a question about IPs and VFH...

Has anyone ever seen a VFH nom by an IP which resulted in an article getting featured? I'm not sure I have... I wonder if it's possible to stop IPs from creating VFH nominations, but still allowing them to vote... MrN 01:41, Sep 24

Actually, yeah. The one thing I have noticed about the "successful" VFH is that it's frequently inundated by IP noms that quickly fall off or manage to stay on due to popularity (see COD4). Maybe we should just allow votes. We'd also have fewer "broken" nominations that way. --Mr. Monkey Pant-hoot here. 02:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia:VFH/Thomas_Hardy. That's the only one, though. And no, it wouldn't be possible to stop IPs nominating without semiprotecting the entire Uncyclopedia: namespace. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 02:14, 24 Sep 2008

Could we not modify the code which is used when the button is pressed, or not display the create box if the user is an IP? Obviously an IP could still create a nom page if they knew how, but I assume most noms are done by pressing the button. Oh, Uncyclopedia:VFH/Thomas_Hardy was Fundelbuggy in disguise I assume... MrN 02:19, Sep 24

Only if the button was added or removed by javascript, and that seems a bit unnecessary. IPs are people too, and it's not really hurting anything by them being able to nominate stuff. Oh and I thought it might be him too, but one post was signed "frenchfried", so I dunno. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 02:25, 24 Sep 2008

An important function of VFH in the case of IP noms might be to give the nominator an understanding of what is expected of FP articles. In other words, when a person (presumably) new to the site nominates something that's not up to snuff and receives constructive feedback explaining why it's not going to succeed on VFH, that is a first step in getting the person to either write better stuff or not nominate inappropriate stuff. Without feedback there is no behavior change. So rejoice for bad VFH nominations! They are an essential part of the great terrestrial Word Cycle, in which nouns and verbs and adjectives produced in the oceans evaporate, drift over Uncyclopedia, and drizzle down upon readers like drops of mucus from a million runny noses. Yes, Pee Review is the primary mechanism for critiquing articles -- but the VFH vote can be a supporting, or suppurating, means to the same end. It is a reality check for those who aspire to writhe well. ----OEJ 13:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, its not a question of helping IPs they are tactfully put, the scumbag dregs of our community, They will read good articles and join if the quality of our articles is top notch. the real test of the content is not so much the landslide votes between friends on the site, but whether people outside of the commuity will like the articles we write. In short it may be an idea to try and write better articles rather than to encourage random people visiting the site — Sir Sycamore (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Or a VFH nomination from an IP or some annoying user could be met with unbridled apathy, with no one giving reasons for votes one way or another, leaving the nominator as confused as before, if not more. Both are possibilities in this system. --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 13:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, perhaps more on principle than on evidence. But I still disagree. Philosophically I prefer to assume that a given IP is not a scumbag dreg until he, she, or it proves itself to be one. As noted, IPs have virtually never produced a VFH article. What it more relevant is a hypothetical statistic: the number of IPs who might, with coaching and encouragement, make decent writers for Uncyc. I prefer to hope that one or two of them will succeed and become bright, shining lumps of phlegm in the Uncyc galaxy. To respond to another comment, Syndrome is right: those who give no reason for against votes can make rejections on VFH confusing. But that is not the fault of the nominator. It is not the fault of the article's author. It is the fault of the VFH voters. If one were to say that IPs should be disbarred from nominating articles because those who vote on VFH may fail to give effective feedback it would be like whipping the dog because the cat puked in Granny's oatmeal. And on another topic, vote rigging, Famine showed us the Way: use Famine's Iron Fist of admindom. Admins have the brains to evaluate whether a vote is being railroaded. Actually, they're pretty smart, most of 'em. If there is doubt, someone can message those who are regular VFH voters and ask for a special evaluation session. If, in that situation, the Uncyc cognoscenti vote down an article, then screw the IP and newby votes, screw the numbers: it is dead. But MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT: I may sound serious as a giraffe with gout, but in fact I am arguing mostly because I'm bored and a little tipsy. So don't nobody be offended, please. ----OEJ 04:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

i fear the day when we feature something like Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare because 40 IPs came out of nowhere to vote on it. especially since 35 of them would probably be the same kid on every computer in his school. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 14:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is linked from a popular CoD forum. It has a big "vote for this article!" template at the top of it. Why wouldn't they vote for it? • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:31, 25 Sep 2008

Why don't we just ban IP's from VFH? Chocolate Rain 01:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No. IPs are what saved us from lack of votes of VFH, silly. Weren't you paying attention? --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 03:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I seriously have to pee

Jesus Christ. It's like my kidneys have expanded to unbelievably epic proportions. The ratio of the size of my kidneys to my size is .75:1. In other words, my kidneys currently contain 57.142% of my entire body weight. When I actually close the Windows calculator and get up and go to the kitchen and take that glorious piss, it will blast me through the front door like a tiny, tiny Mexican with a fire hose. Fuck. This is seriously getting critical. In closing, I have one question: why isn't anybody helping me? I thought you were my friends. Inebriated 06:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

you're OEJ, aren't you? SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 13:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE:VFH isn't doing so well anymore

I feel the strange urge to say Hooray! 84.194.239.240 14:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Look here he is! It's Mr/Mrs IP! Dam you and your low quality VFH nominations! MrN 11:19, Sep 27

Hey, I nominated Interpretive Death, and those other nominations, well I was just feeling like nominating stuff that stands no chance of featuring out of sympathy, melancholy or parody. 84.194.239.240 17:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess 84 points up an interesting psycholgobuglical nuance: IPs can be more nuanced than you might guess. ----OEJ 00:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, my view is that we should consider (somehow) trying to reduce the number of IP noms. Perhaps by making the nomination page work differently depending on if you are an IP or a registered user. If an IP wants to nom they can always register, if they are not bothered enough to register I suspect they are probably not going to make a good nom... The problem I'm seeing is that we are wasting a lot of our valuable VFH voting effort by down voting poor noms. So long as the sitenotice remains in place, I guess we are going to keep getting poor noms... If what we need is more VFH noms, I would prefer to see the self nomination rules relaxed. OEJ: I (think I) totally get where you are coming from with your views about the usefulness of VFH in teaching people what's likely to be featured, but I guess that people are probably not going to suddenly start offering more useful criticism. I wish they would, but I just don't see it happening... Maybe Pee Review needs to be mentioned a bit more on VFH? MrN 11:15, Sep 29

I don't like IPs nominating stuff, I don't paticulalry like the arrogance of self nominating, I reckon we should not change anything, unless its to get rid of that messeage at the top of the screen. — Sir Sycamore (talk) 11:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Well, I don't like your hair. It's too...combovery. Creepy. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 19:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Let the IPs nom whatever they want. If it sucks, it'll just die after a few days, and I don't see how a few lousy nominations have any sort of negative effect on the much more abundant feature-worthy ones. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 19:17, Sep 29

Can we get rid of the site notice now?

It's been up there plenty long enough and the quality of nommed articles is getting pretty damn low. We've probably attracted some new users to stick around VFH for a while. It would be nice if we could give them quality articles to vote on. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  11:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed that it's mostly IPs nomming now? JudgeZarbi TALK 12:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hence, the lower article quality. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  12:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Stupid IPs. That is why I sometimes really fucking hate IPs, when they nom shit on VFH. JudgeZarbi TALK 12:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Why all of this prejudice against IPs? I think you all need to look in the mirror and realize that yes, before registering here you were an IP too. I myself am proud of my IP heritage, and thus am signing this post logged out. (Isn't my IP pretty? Just look at all of those twos.) This was So So, and I'm not ashamed of once being an IP. --60.62.22.222 12:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Note 1: I registered before I ever edited with my IP. Note 2: It's not prejudice, only saying IPs have been nomming un-VFH worthy stuff on VFH recently. JudgeZarbi TALK 12:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)