Re: To: Bash.org Staff
Posted by tim in The internet sucks! on October 16, 2006
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006, Tim, Guy who hates bash.org wrote: > > Could it be that my content was not up to bash.org standards, whatever > > they may be? Or could it possibly be that I was the only one in the vast > > emptiness of cyberspace who found it funny? Or maybe it's just the > > over-zealous moderators who take charge in approving or rejecting the > > content... It is unfortunate that something as trivial as a few rejected quotes would be such a point of contention. The truth of the matter is that bash.org receives a very large volume of very bad quotes. One, this increases the likelihood that your quote may not get the full attention of the moderator who happens to get your quote (in a batch of many). Two, it indicates that a *LOT* of submissions generally aren't funny to a wide audience. We routinely get a lot of material that simply doesn't qualify (cliche, regurgitation of past material, inside jokes, very niche humor, and shit that just isn't funny, played out, etc). > > that something as funny as a Monty Python reference had been rejected, Simple assocation or reference to Monty Python obviosuly wouldn't guarantee or qualify for inclusion -- if we approved every monty python joke the QDB qould get old very quickly indeed. > > offended at the thought of such mindless content taking priority over > > "techno-humor". > > well. Additionally, I would like to encourage you to submit your > > moderation guidelines to the public for open review, as it may > > potentially justify the rejection of my submitted comments. As you may have realized, there are no absolutes in our approval guidelines. If you do some digging, you may be able to find some documentation we have released regarding the suitability of quotes (reference: mod application). However, at best we only have very strong suggestions we give to our mod staff (no URL's, inside jokes, self or bash-referencing quotes, timestamps, etc.), but even none of that is absolute. As I have mentioned in past public postings, the mods we select generally have that undefineable gift at being able to select what is bash.org material, and what is not. Overall, we are extremely satisfied with the efforts of our moderators, and stand behind their decisions 100%. If you feel your quotes were of exceptional quailty, perhaps they were overlooked, and I suggest re-submitting them. (this does NOT mean flood the queue). > > My solution to this problem is simple. I will discontinue my use of your > > site, and I will encourage a certain few additional people to do so as Boycott because you didn't get approved? Don't be silly... /blaxthos

...and second message...

p.s. - i don't generally take the time to reply to every piece of mail we get (a LOT), but it seems you took a lot of time and put some effort into explaining your reasoning. While I'll be honest and say that the loss of one (or even a hundred) users isn't going to make a huge deal, I do appreciate your taking the time to express your dissatisfaction and thought it worthy of consideration and a decent response.
 
Comments

So basically, he doesn't give a crap and thinks I'm whining about nothing. Well, it may be one of the lesser important points in life, but I highly doubt I'm the only one who has experienced this. Nice to see that I'm (sorta) commended on my writing style. It actually only took me about 10 minutes to write.

  • Posted by tim (Guest) on October 16, 2006 at 06:51:52PM
Add a comment