Forum:Alright Folks - Let's be Acknowledged for a Change

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 00:43, January 19, 2009 by RAHB (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Alright Folks - Let's be Acknowledged for a Change
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2053 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.
THE FOLLOWING HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH USERS LEAVING.
Any and all comments about certtain people leaving Uncyclopedia may be removed for being completely off-topic, because certain people can't get it through their thick skulls that this is about featuring articles. Please. Get it through your thick skulls.

First of all, nobody cares about people who are leaving. I don't care about Gert5 leaving or any of the people leaving Uncyclopedia. Can't any of you heartless people vote my articles for being featured and at least make me acknowledged? My articles haven't been featured and because of that, Uncyclopedia is going to die! AT LEAST TRY TO FIX MY ARTICLES AND HAVE THEM IN THE FEATURED LIST! GiratinaOriginForme |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Man on Fire CUN|IC Kill 800px-Flag of the Philippines svg | 03:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it didn't take long for us to find a replacement for Gert. I'm not sure I like the new version all that much though. -RAHB 03:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Symbol against vote Against.. Gert was better. Necropaxx (T) {~} 03:46, Jan 8
I don't know. I kind of like him. You do have to admit that he does smell an awful lot like Bob Newhart. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 05:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I was only here for a few months. It seems that every one was a replacement for people kicking themselves out of Uncyclopedia (rather than being banned from Uncycloepdia). Now, can I just get acknowledged? Uncyclopedia stared to collapse already with every article being voted against. It's time for people to vot all articles for feature! GiratinaOriginForme |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Man on Fire CUN|IC Kill 800px-Flag of the Philippines svg | 07:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Have you considered not being so needy? Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 08:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
We are featuring on per day, it doesn't matter if highest article gets +8 or +28 net for votes. --Mnbvcxz 05:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
+8? Really? I'd wait a day. Maybe two. Then I'd forget all about it. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 05:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I've think they featured articles as low as +8.5 before, as low as +10 recently. The average score actually went up since we went to featuring once per day. --Mnbvcxz 06:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What about this?


Will this do to change your mind? GiratinaOriginForme |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Man on Fire CUN|IC Kill 800px-Flag of the Philippines svg | 05:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • No. Uncyclopedians care not for the power of dance. Especially '80s dance. Necropaxx (T) {~} 20:09, Jan 10
Isn't the point of a featured article to be an article that stands out above all the others? If we feature all the articles then it will just be like it is now where almost everything is equal. Icons-flag-pi Pirate Lord__Sonic80 (Yell  •  Latest literary excretion) __ 21:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
"Every page can be featured! And when every page is featured, none will be." ~ Modrome 21:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps

What about having the requirement of an article to be in the main page be a score of +4 or higher? That way, articles can have a much higher chance of being featured. Currently, a score of +8 is required. If the requirement is lowered to +4, then at least it could be featured. But there are drawbacks. If 10 articles ended up into the featured category in one day, then one article have to wait for ten days to become featured. So instead, we should compromise on a requirement of a socre of +6. GiratinaOriginForme |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Man on Fire CUN|IC Kill 800px-Flag of the Philippines svg | 06:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Lower the (variable) standard? No. The mainpage is for the best. If it's not the best it shouldn't be there. Unless Savethemooses or I wrote it. Then it should be there. But those are the only two exceptions. Except for Procopius' stuff. But that's the only exception, with the exception, of course, the earlier exceptions. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 06:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
What the hell. Nobody wants to see shit on the front page. How about we raise the requirement to +10? IronLung 09:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
"Articles have a much higher chance of being featured". And that's a good thing because? Besides, I think the full version of that should be "Mediocre articles have a much higher chance of being featured", because that's what it means. Good articles should be featured, articles that struggle to attract votes shouldn't. Unless I find them funny and everyone else is wrong, but that goes without saying. --UU - natter UU Manhole 09:57, Jan 12
Articles can be featured with +8 score? Haven't seen it yet. I never found any set rules anywhere, which doesn't necessarily mean that they don't exist, but my observation was that double digits seemed to be the standard. Looking at the recently featured queue, I see 30 entries and only a couple 10's and 11's. I think that a little pressure to produce VFH quality articles is a good thing and daily features a good idea. Personally, I'm always spending time carefully studying what "sells" here and what gets pooh poohed. Spending time trying to lower the standard for a feature is wasted time, IMO.--DRStrangesig5 Sherman Fingertalk  10:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
According to my understanding, the highest scoring article gets featured, regardless of vote total. There were times when articles could fail with +15 or more, we recently had one fail at +10. I don't believe that overall score matters that much, its more a function of how picky and active the VFH voters are.

My main issue with how often we have a new feature, is that having an "article of the day" up for two days looks retarded/half-assed. Advertising the fact that the site is in decline to a casual reader is NOT going to help any. Although I support trying to get new articles featured, I'd rather have an old featured posted 6 days out of the week, then go back to only posting 3 1/2 new articles a week. Featured Articles are there mainly to show off new/casual readers the best we have to offer. --Mnbvcxz 14:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Just as a brief reminder - we are having problems with our host, and dwindiling participation and strike action is taking place. I am sorry you if you're a bit of a noob and want things to be working fine - we all do. That simply is not going to be possible for the time being. Things are being done to help with this, but stuff like VFH is not going to operate like a well oiled machine, neither is there an influx of writers that will give us the kind of features we want - I urge for little less pressure on something no one can do anything about:)--Sycamore (Talk) 14:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is that in reference to? --Mnbvcxz 14:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
It's not in reference to anyone in paticular, this Wikia problem affects the whole of the site and its users. There is not a miracle cure here, fighting to keep featuring like this will cause a dip in quality as there is less writing taking place - making things worse, which has been my aim to stop since this problem began.--Sycamore (Talk) 14:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright Folks - Let's be Re-Featured for a Change

Hence, that is why I support re-featuring old articles if we run out of new featurable ones. The VFH actually picked up when we went back to featuring once a day. Of course, some of that might be old quasi-featured articles coming out of the woodwork and some people getting a bit more generous with "for" votes. But, I think some of that is more actual voting. --Mnbvcxz 15:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think we started featuring every day again because the voting had increased, and not the other way around. All of this also happened over what was Christmas break for most people, which allowed for more writing time. IF VFH gets to such a bad point that we're in that kind of desperation for features, then I have no problem with posting an old feature up every now and then. As of right now, that's entirely unnecessary. -RAHB 23:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain the increase in activity was from going to a feature per day. Some of those who were in favor of doing a daily feature got more active on VFH. --Mnbvcxz 05:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Refeaturing my ass. Any jackass will try to re-feature an article is lame. Why not refeature crap work? GiratinaOriginForme |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Man on Fire CUN|IC Kill 800px-Flag of the Philippines svg | 09:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I, uh... I kind of blanked out there. IronLung 17:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I can vote Quasi-Feauted Articles. GiratinaOriginForme |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Man on Fire CUN|IC Kill 800px-Flag of the Philippines svg | 00:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I can talks a english. -RAHB 00:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects