Tuesday, August 08, 2006

If You're Not First, You're Last

Greetings. Our close friend Tear Jerker was unable to make it to the party today, so I'm pinch-hitting.

Our subject today is Emetic Sage. At first glance, the template is a standard, modified Blogger template, but it has a clean look and doesn't irritate the eyes. Grey background, a nice burgandy header, white text area with black text. It's centered, it doesn't have a shit-ton of links or buttons in the sidebar, it's very simplistic in terms of presentation. So, a star for a nice clean look, and rolled up archives.

He has a rating system for his posts, which I assume will either attract readers to them based on subject matter, or ward them off from potentially problematic topics. At any rate, his top post today is a story that I would assume is about one of his readers. It's a long read but worth the time if you don't mind the subject matter. He writes well and one can tell he put some thought into this one because as one reads it, the realization hits that this could have been shared privately between author and subject. It's also quite long, and lately, we're finding that longer posts can be....unnerving. Readers attention spans aren't what they used to be, dammit. Despite that, it's a good read. His posts further down the page are a mish-mash, but again, generally well-written and gramatically correct. He explains his rating system in a way that it's definitely understandable to the average Joe who stops by.

I have to say, it's refreshing to see someone not so caught up in the current template-mania that seems to pervade Blog-world these days. He seems like a simple fellow, so the presentation fits him. Clearly, he's an Anchorman fan, so another star for me.

Goddamit, I need a shitty blog to review soon. I'm getting too....nice....lately.
for being a nice, well-organized, well-written blog.

And one of these for posts that are a bit too long, and because I'm cranky for once again getting something to substantial to review. Aren't there any 14 year olds on MySpace with something horrible to review? I mean, come on.


  1. I'll work on giving you less good stuff.

    Personally, I rather enjoy template mania because it gives me something to do other than what I should do.

    I think the rating system is purdy cool, but I think the key to what the letters mean should be a bit more obvious.

    I love the clickable menus. LOVE!

    I didn't read it. If I'm going to be reading something that long, it better be required by my job.

  2. God, he's really a good writer. Thanks for introducing me to him. :)

  3. I don't have a problem with template-mania at all, mind you. It's just nice occasionally to see something plain that brings you back because of the writing.

    He's a bit verbose, no doubt, but eh, so are others and I read them religously (cough, cough).

    TearJerker owes me for this, though.

  4. Verbose isn't so bad *cough cough* but when posts take up the equivalent of a mini novel on my screen, I'm less than interested in reading.

    Okay! TOUCHE! I give. I'm lazy.

  5. you guys are funny. if you don't like reading blogs, why bother reviewing them?

  6. It's not that I don't like reading blogs, it's that anything that takes mental capcity and an attention span to read just reminds me of school.

    Which I'm still in.

    Which I haven't had a break from since 2003.

    I read, but when you read over 300 pages a night, you start to skim, which then turns to eyeballing the page for things that look important.

    Education Rocks!

  7. then if i may do you guys the self-same service of "fucking tearing you apart", your site leaves a little to be desired.

    your template is fairly basic, but different enough to catch the eye. your url is pretty clever and amusing. the avatars are cool as well, however it would be interesting for them to link directly to their respective blogs, or some biographical info, so we can see the qualifications of those who are doing the reviewing.

    the purpose of your site appears to be the reviewing of submitted blogs, yet rarely do you actually read the blogs you purport to review. if you're in school, or lazy, or don't like to read but enjoy cool flashing colors, or would rather tear apart stupid myspace kids, then maybe an activity that actually takes some mental effort and thought isn't up your respective alleys.

    thank god for touble in shangri la.

    hope this comment wasn't too long!

  8. You know, I read the comment above... and the comments before it... And I read this persons blog yesterday.

    But then, I'm a book reader. I read A LOT. SO it stands to reason that while I'm not HOT about the template, I really enjoy the content.

    In my world if you're going to be writing, and writing in length I think your template should be fairly un-flashy so that it doesn't take away from the point and flow of the lingual contribution the blogger is vomitting. I mean that in a good way, of course.

    I would have to say that even though Im not hot on the template, I really like the content...

    I dunno... I appreciate your review of our review site though Mr. Emetic and I think you'd be happy to know that indeed I read every blog I review... the first 6 or so entries, plus a dip into each month of archives and choose one to get an overall taste of the blog in a whole.

    Or in a hole, depending on the quality.

    I'm qualified to review only because I'm a 14 year old myspace kid who surfs and reads only the bestest shit under my parents url tracking server radar.

    and i met a neat man willing to take me far far away from here. I'm meeting him in two days and I'm printing out your blog so I can have drive time reading material.

  9. Template wise, we're working on it.

    Biographical information gets a little tough when we all are trying to keep some semblance of anonymity. All of us do have blogs (most rather successful blogs that have large readerships), but you're right. We should have some kind of explanation of our qualifications--whatever qualifications there are for blogging.

    Mostly, this site is temporary, seeing as we don't have this huge list of submissions, as of yet. So, it's kind of in it's grass roots state.

    We read the blogs. The point is to read the content. If I were to get a blog with a lot of content, I would read it. I have read it, and I comment accordingly.

    But writing is hard to comment on because there's this distinct element of personality, and themselves in writing. People are more willing to laugh off some shot at their template than they are to shrug off something they put a lot of effort into and pride themselves on. It's the writing that gets readers, it's the writing that keeps people coming back, it's the writing that makes a blog. You rip that to pieces and you have someone who is stripped of what they legitimately thought they brought to the table.

    So yes, I personally do walk on eggshells regarding the writing element of my reviews, because I know how much stock and faith people put in their abilities. If there aren't glaring mistakes or blatant incoherence, then it's doing well enough.


    Maybe I'm too hippie in my thinking.

  10. maybe i over-reacted in my "review". i'm just not a huge fan of hip flippance. slagging something off because it's "too long" says nothing about the content or quality of what you're reviewing; it says more about you -- that you operate on the level of evening news sound bites. if the post sucked, say "it sucked, i couldn't read on".

    you guys are a crew of people, that's your strength; why not review what each of you does best? apparantly angel dust is a reader; let angel dust review blogs with lots of big and nasty words. for those of you that like blogs that are the visual analog of an acid trip, go for it, man. set up some triage, funnel blogs to the appropriate reviewer.

    when i read a review of something, i'm more inclined to take it seriously if the person reviewing it has a sense of what they're talking about. don't get me wrong, i don't need validation from anyone. i'm not whining that no one likes me. i would rather have had you guys savage my writing, something i put "a lot of effort and pride" into, than give a milquetoast-ish review and comments that showed an amount of research that a third-grader might have done on a particularly hated book report.

    gee, here i go again.

  11. Oh, for the love of God. First off, I reviewed the damn thing and told you what I thought. You want to call me fucking milquetoast, feel free, that's your prerogative. However, I told you what I thought. Not everyone wants to read 2500 word fantasy erotica posts. Not everyone wants to read 2500 word posts, period. However, the content is good. I read the entire "story" that you wrote, which, while not my thing per se, was well written and clearly intended for one specific person. The template is plain, but I liked that you rolled things up so as to not clutter the sidebar. There isn't a whole lot more to say, Sage. It's not like this blog is going to set the world on fire with it's content, despite the fact that it is well-written. We're not ITalk2Much. We'll tell you when we DO actually like something. I didn't hate your blog, but I'm not adding you to my blogroll either. If you feel like the review sucked, move on. Christ, I can't even give a guy compliments anymore without him bitching at me.

  12. Had I reviewed your blog and said "post is too long, I'm lazy" then fine, you're justified.

    I didn't review your blog. I simply commented that the post was too long and I didn't read it. It was a comment, not my review of your blog.

    Were I to review your blog, I would have read everything shown on the initial page, and I probably would have commented that the post was a bit long and may have been broken up into mulitple posts.

    I still think a giant post is daunting, and anyone other than steadfast readers will likely be put-off from bothering to read what you wrote.

    I didn't review your blog, and the person who did review your blog did, in fact, read what you wrote. If you don't like the review you got, that is completely your perogative, but you can't fault us for something you tacitly consented to because it didn't meet some pre-ordained level of scrutiny you had hoped for.

    Nowhere do we say that all six of us will read your blog with a fine tooth comb and comment at a level of expertise that apparently running a free review site that asks people to submit requires.

    Boo-hoo, sorry we're a disappointment to you, but we never made any assurances or promises of validating your blog existence or "researching" at a level fit for a PhD.

  13. Oh, and I do have a blog, which is linked to my profile. So, if you have any issues with me, as it seems you do based on your clinging to the fact I didn't "read" your post, feel free to take things up there.

  14. Can I just say, that well... there's nothing that hasn't been said here... Atomic and Kat shot it pretty straight.

    At the same time, I think the guy has a point about giving a reader the longer blogs with writing, and I'll be happy to tackle that...

    BUTT! the problem lies with the fact that each reviewer should also get variety... so some of us get long and some get short depending.. I think that's for the best too cause then I wont get bored with reading wordy blogs and comparing them against each other... which can often happen.

    I mean, sometimes I get these really great blogs to review with nothing but one liners... and while I think the content of those one liners is great... I get bored easily.. so though the work shines and the overall concept of their blog is HIP HOP HAPPENIN...

    I may *yawn* or tell them to post more... Isn't this the same concept? I mean... I think so.

  15. Basically, to tailor things I would have to read every blog before I decide who gets them, which I think kind of defeats the purpose of variation in reviews and having reviewers to begin with. The only other way is to have you guys peruse the list of submissions and then tell me which ones you want, which kind of defeats the purpose of "first come first serve," and may cause tension (oh no!) becaues mulitple people want to review a blog.

    Blah di fuckin' dah. Randomness reigns.

    Long posts don't make a blog good, purdy pictures don't either. So you get what you get and you write what you want. It's a review, not a culmination and synopsis of a fucking online journal.

    Now, back to the fun and lightheartedness of it all. Ho-hum.

  16. you can review mine...site critic thought it was too pink.

    LOL...so if you wanna slam my blog, feel free... ;-)

  17. This is late, but...

    in reference to Emetic's blog...

    I thought the review was more than fair. Yes, some of the writing is VERY good. But, just damn. The "erotic" story nearly lost me. It went on far too long, with too little point. It could easily have been 1/3 as long and accomplished 3 times as much by being heavily edited.

    I'm verbose as hell and I love to read, but sheesh. That was bloody pointless. I read the entire thing and afterwards, I was like..."WTF"...that was a huge waste of time.

    ES does better on his short stuff. Just my opinion.

    Yes, he IS a good writer, but that doesn't mean that the feedback wasn't appropriate.

  18. p.s. The saga of Sage & Fresh is...

    *rolls eyes*

    cheesy as hell.


Grow a pair.