3/13/06

RateItAll Rising

The graph below is compliments of Alexa and shows what RateItAll's traffic looks like over the past few years.



Our growth has been steady - I think, because the more people that use the site, the better it gets.

But with growth also comes problems. While there are more quality posts, there is also more noise.

So the question becomes, how do we make it easier for our members to find the good stuff?

Well we're working on a bunch of new features to make this happen, with our recommendation engine at the heart of it all. My hope is that by giving people the power to choose their own trusted networks, we are in essence giving them a filter to isolate the opinions that they find most valuable and entertaining.

When the redesign launches (targeting April 1), I think you'll see the recommendation engine play a more prominent role on the site.

Going forward, we will look to roll in better and more sophisticated tools to facilitate introductions with folks whose opinions you might value. Stay tuned.

45 comments:

  1. Not to dwell on the negative or anything, but out of curiousity, I wonder what happened in mid-2005 where there is a notable dip?

    ReplyDelete
  2. For about 45 days, one of the major search engines "lost" RateItAll. We were making some changes to the site that I think affected their ability to spider us.

    To use a real world analogy, it was as if the highway that ran by our house suddenly shut down.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The graph is at best uninformative and at worst misleading.

    There is nothing to base the track on other than search engine activity. There is enormous fluctuation and over the course of FOUR YEARS is reach has grown.

    But how does that reach compare to other sites that began at the same time? Other sites in the same arena?

    And when one considers the general growth of the internet itself it can't be said with any certainty that it is impressive or noteworthy.

    Many may also remember quite well the IT balloon that grew at a DRAMATIC rate only to burst suddenly.

    I'd say the graph proves nothing other than an effort to counter my views that a lack of quality will ultimately doom the site.

    Which brings me to this post by Vudija:

    "I've noticed that a lot of the hilarious RIA reviewers took on the Top 20 faster than the other not always as funny people. Some people have a knack for being funny, and some people don't. If it works for you, I don't see the harm in using the ability to make people laugh towards your own advantage. Besides, RIA was far too serious before some of these people began posting :) It's made it a lot more interesting..."

    First of all that is insulting. There was plenty of humor on RIA long before nitwits like Numbah came along to post any juvenile piece of crap imaginable or irishgit came along to post 50% sarcastic nonsense.

    I have read through Vudijas old posts and those were usually filled with something worth reading and of value.

    Compare that to her buddy chat posts that appear quite often directed at other reviewers.

    Humor is also rated #1 as "reasons for using RIA". And though the site professes to be a bastion of "Consumer Opinion" where does "Get consumer opinion" rate on that same list? SECOND TO LAST.

    So RIA can try to sell the humor but it certainly can't sell the "value". For every quality post RIA can present here I can post 10-20 that are meaningless crap.

    And no graph of activity is going to change the fact that if even RIA users don't respect the site then who else will?

    And keep that in mind each and every time Irishgit denounces the quality of the site and its users. He is quick to say it is beneath but he keeps coming back. Of course he wants everone to believe he isn't there for the helpfuls but the fact is that is exactly why he is there.

    That and to have people pay homage to what a masterful mind he is.

    Make no mistake though... RIA has serious quality issues. If anyone disagrees there are countless examples of crap that waste peoples time.

    At least Magellan finally said something regarding the fact that Genghis the Hun basically just "Restates" a list item by using its definition instead of actually providing a commentary to support his rating.

    The guy is completely clueless and his efforts to be a site whore and helpful hog are so obvious even the site admin has taken notice.

    Now if only the site admin would ridicule Numbah for doing nothing more than mocking everything.

    My god. Numbah got 6 helpfuls in less than two days for replying to a post that was a reply to a post and he NEVER addressed the topic at hand.

    While Castlebee got 6 helpuls in SIX YEARS having posted a brilliant two paragraph post on the same topic (Chicago Illinois).

    This goes to the heart of the issue and even the site admin knows damn well I am right on this issue. Even if he doesn't take Numbah to task directly.

    Greta users like Castlebee who put in effort are ignored. So keep that in mind Vudija when you mention humor. Castlebee happens to be just as funny as Numbah but she makes an effort with her posts.

    Why not get a clue and go check out a user who is truly a reason to visit the site such as her instead of some nimrod like Numbah.

    ReplyDelete
  4. PB, what's your point? What are you trying to do?

    ReplyDelete
  5. My point?

    I make many.

    Most of them are self explanatory. Playing ignorant won't alter my path.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ok, glad we cleared that up. :)

    no seriously... i sort of thought we had things worked out. i tried to work with you on setting things up the way you wanted for your exit. did i screw something up?

    you clearly think the site is lousy. that's fine. i knew that already.

    but what are you after by spending so much time pointing out how lousy it is?

    why not start your own site? you seem to have a lot of good ideas.

    anyway, i do read your comments as i find them interesting.

    i wish you wouldn't personally attack so many people, but i'm not going to delete your comments, as i know you'll just continue to repost until I have to shut off comments. and i hate shutting off comments - it sort of goes against the whole point of the site, right?

    anyway, if nothing more, i would imagine that your comments here are a great way to drive traffic to your own blog... i still think you'd feel better about it if you build something independent from RIA, but it's obviously your call.

    i bet you could do it. hell, i'd be really interested by what you could come up with.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Frankly Site Admin I find it distasteful to say the least that you are so engrossed with hits and promotion of the site you would allow a complete dipshit like Numbah to move so far forward.

    Exactly how much respect do you have for Castlebee and the actual users who give sh*t and try to make an effort?

    The same as that idiot?

    The simple fact is the site needs Numbah. If 100 Numbahs joined the site it would get countless hits. Sure, the site would be filled with complete crap but it would make a great deal more money than a site filled with 100 Castlebee's.

    Over the course of time it is the Castlebee type reviewer that will make the site worthwhile to visit and keep it productive. Over the course of time all a site filled with Numbahs will do is fizzle out when all avenues of stupidity have been exhausted.

    The paradox is that the ONLY way to even say the site has quality at all is to have Castlebee types. But users like her are not rewarded for their effort.

    You and I BOTH know this. SHE knows this. And Numbah KNOWS it too.

    But the pretence that the site cares about quality is laughable. The idea it "cares" about users is insulting. The site only cares about hits.

    And the adsense issue will only stand to PROMOTE morons posting more crap. Since it offers a return on their stupidity.

    The part I dislike LEAST is the subterfuge and nonsense where the site tries to pretend that quality matters or that users such as Castlebee do.

    Oh really?

    Then why the free for all on weblists? And don't give me this "Who am I to judge" b*llsh*t.

    As the site owner it is your right (and in my view OBLIGATION) to do just that. IF and I mean IF you cared about the quality of the site you would not allow the weblists to run amok.

    Care for me to list examples?

    How much space does this server have? So don't play dumb with me. I liked the site very much and tried very hard to promote it once.

    That was when I actually thought you gave a shit about effort.

    It is obvious now that money is all that matters. Quick money. EXTREME efforts have been made not to upset users. Especially in regard to helpful losses. Shall I list all the ways the site has bent over backwards to keep its users happy?

    And as I once helped promote the site as was my right as a user and free person of the world, I have chosen not to let the sites BS spread without some amount of truth being tossed in.

    Kamylienne has made excuses for the BS too. Both of you. Hell, ALL of RIA can try to take up the challenege to show me some integrity and "quality". Whether it be user lists, user comments or anything else.

    I would bury you all with the examples of complete crap that waste peoples time.

    Crap you and everyone else knows exists but refuse to deal with.

    For you it is an issue of money. While I dislike that and find your commentary on Enron hypocritical it is the american way. What I really can't stand is when the site tries to portray itself as anything other than a medium designed to make money. By any means necessary. Be it a dumb*ss list or dumb*ss comment/user.

    But ask that other hypocrit Irishgit about it. Your sites #1 ranked helpful user and most well known personas about quality and the like.

    He mocks the site as does soon to be #2 most helpful Numbah.

    Don't give me this crap about what is my point.

    Many see my point and I hope many more do in the time to come.

    Several well known users admit the overall atmosphere is juvenile. Many left the site. Their leaving meant nothing however because the hits and revenue were replaced 10 fold.

    You want to make some changes to the site that will improve quality and eliminate SOME BS?

    Make ALL RATINGS viewable. Regardless of a comment being attached.

    Show them all. Sure, that may expose a few liars but people won't be able to alter ratings of other user or on any list OPENLY. They will be forced to use aliases.

    Hell. That would work in your favor ultimately since it would force all the frauds to get multiple accounts. Right now only a certain percetnage do that. My estimate is half.

    Immediately eliminate the helpful list. COMPLETELY.

    See how often all the jokesters and fools visit and comment then.

    But those are two easy changes to accomplish. The key drawback is that since the goal is not quality or integrity but hits/revenue... Such actions are suicidal.

    And yes, we ALMOST had things worked out but I reassess my life and my direction often. I simply can't stand contradiction and hypocrasy.

    RIA is filled with it.

    I look at users such as Molfan, Castlebee, and even CTVFan... Users who try. Users who seem honest and make an effort. Users who are COMPLETELY irrelevant to the site.

    Explain to them how you stand by and let a "grrr" post by Numbah get 7 helpfuls in two days while their efforted posts are all but ignored.

    Explain to them why Numbah can reply to a reply to a comment and NEVER mention the actual item at hand (Chicago IL) but get 6 helpfuls in LESS THAN 2 days while Castlebee posts a 2 paragraph beautifully written post that gets 6 helpfuls in 4 years.

    Go ahead. Explain to them why the site allows it to work that way. Explain to them how the site cares about quality and effort when that occurs.

    The fact is the site stands by knowing it is a farce because money is at stake. The site relies on the fact users such as Castlebee and Molfan don't actually care about the helpfuls. The site relies on that in the hopes that they stay to provide some amount of dignity and quality.

    And take me for an example. As a courtesy I left my lists. I didn't have much say in the matter but I understand how things work. Still, look at how vastly things were tipped with the loss of a single user. And with GoneAway going soon after look at what happened with two.

    And I provided enormous content and quality.

    Which is exactly why I urge users such as Molfan, Castlebee, TBoneYa and the like to leave. Get purged.

    It is a farce. All the site deserves now are the Numbahs of the world. Users who are only capable of sarcasm and mockery.

    But go ahead and explain how a user like Castlebee matters and how the site cares to have them.

    What is her "trusted" network number? What is her helpful total?

    Do the users of RIA respect such users or do they just care to carry on with their BS antics?

    Would Castlebee be missed? Yeah right. The users would not miss her if she was purged. She would be all but forgotten in a matter of months if not sooner. The site would miss her ONLY because she provided enough quality to counter 50-100 idiots like Numbah.

    So the site would miss that. Don't tell me the site cares about quality when NOTHING has ever been done to ensure it.

    And the ones who benefit? Fools like Numbah. The ones who are victimized? Those like Castlebee.

    RIA should institute a REALISTIC helpful system. To showcase the Castlebee types. Users who make an effort to produce quality.

    But in the end the site has dug its hole and it won't happen.

    But feel free to tell Castlebee and the others differently.

    But let's not forget that as with all other users Magellan rates damn near EVERY user 4-5 stars on the helpful list.

    It is all a farce. And in time no one will think of it any other way.

    Hell, if two of the top three most helpful users ALREADY view in that way then what other outcome could there be?

    2 years ago I thought the goal was to avoid the site becoming a farce. A complete joke. That is obviously not a concern or issue of any kind.

    And the fact is I can illustrate exactly what I mean in so many ways I will never run out of examples.

    My hope is the site eventually does try to seek quality and reward effort. That the site does eventually shun the stupidity of users like Numbah. I won't hold my breath because money is STRONG motivation to the contrary.

    It takes COURAGE to seek quality. It takes hard work and EFFORT.

    In my mind it is it's own reward. And hoepfully money goes along with it.

    So does RIA want to be the WAL-MART of consumer opinions? A site mocked as insanely stupid but one that makes a boatload of money or does it prefer to be a Bloomingdales? A site where quality and effort mean something?

    I could also use the Microsoft analogy. The choice is your to seek purely the bottom line dollar or to search out some quality and reward effort.

    Adsense rewards ANYTHING. As do weblists.

    And look at the symmetry. Irishgit mocks Wal-mart and he mocks RIA. On that he is correct. Neither care about anything but the money. The crystal-meth addict who buys $100 at the pharmacy is just as good a customer if not better than the nice lady who comes in to buy $50 in groceries.

    The choice has always been yours as to what type of site you have and how it is viewed.

    I am sure you will run it as you wish. And for me... So long as I see it as a farce I won't just sit back and watch. I will try to illustrate the idiocy. I will effort to point out that even if the site mentions "quality" is is a joke.

    And if I ever see a realistic attempt to promote "effort being rewarded on the site" I may just vomit.

    But go ahead and explain these issues to the Castlebee's of the site.

    I'd love to hear that line of BS.

    ReplyDelete
  8. wow, that's a lot of commentary. couple of quick points:

    - yes, making money is important to me and this company. no apologies there, we're a business. but to call us (me) focused on the quick buck is preposterous. did you know RIA has been scraping along since 1999 and came within a phone call of having its plug pulled? i've paid a tremendous personal price to keep this business afloat (and if you don't believe me, you should check out my credit card bills). why did i do it? because i believe in RIA, and i think it can be something extraordinary. a snapshot of the opinions of the world. a publishing tool for all. that's why i work 14 hours a day, and at a fraction of the salary i was making in my last job. so save the quick buck spiel, it's a dirty lie.

    - yes, we bend over backwards to take care of our regular visitors

    - yes, we you and i have a major conflict of opinion regarding who should determine quality. i think the community plus some degree of editorial judgment should decide what is valuable, you think the community is idiotic, and that only i should decide.

    - your arguments hinge on the premise that everyone on the site is as obsessed as helpful votes as you are. I don't think that's accurate. believe it or not, some don't take the site as seriously as you do, they just pop on to pass the time. and that's ok, i think.

    - over the long haul, people creating interesting, well thought out content will earn more money via the RateItAll Economy than those creating less interesting content. i guarantee it. For example, a long, well thought out review of a travel destination will earn more traffic, more links, and more eyeballs than a three word review. and if you disagree with me, you've missed the entire infrastructure of the web. Search engines reward quality, inbound links, content - they don't reward three word blurbs.

    - i believe that the RateItAll Economy is an important alternative "currency" to helpful votes. it's a real currency. you can use your eanrings through the program to buy stuff. and i'm hopeful that those folks who participate on RateItAll because of the underlying incentive system (whether it be helpful votes, dollars, trusted networks, etc.) will start being more concerned about creating content that attracts more visitors (read: quality), then optimizing their stuff to generate the most helpful votes the fastest. I know I will.

    - I don't think it's fair to personally harass other reviewers on the site. I created the incentive systems that people may or may not be chasing. If you believe that the accumulation of helpful votes is the primary driver of folks' behavior on the site (which it would seem in spectacular terms that you do), then folks who optimize their behavior to attract helpful votes are acting precisely rationally. they're not evil, lazy, or whorish. they are rational. so don't blame them. blame me. don't hate the player, hate the game. and i built the game, so it's on me.

    - and again, i would recommend you start your own site. you've thought enough about this stuff, and in more depth than many I know in the industry, to be able to build something powerful. why not do it? focus your energy on building a community as opposed to tearing one down. i know it's easier to sit on the sidelines and shout about all the mistakes I'm making... why not jump in the game? i'd be happy to help where i can - steer you towards developers, resources, etc. just give me the word.

    ReplyDelete
  9. LOL. My comments don't hinge on helpfuls at all.

    My comments hinge on quality.

    Helpfuls is a means to an end the site provides.

    You can't argue the quality issue because it is a fight you know you will lose.

    I am more than willing to point out the lack of it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Alrighty.

    While I know this spat’s between PBeavr & RIA’s Admin, it just wouldn’t be me if I didn’t dole out any and all half-assed opinions that pop in my head, welcome or not. And this one’s probably not going to be too welcome.

    Yes, since weblists came around, I’ve noticed a huge change in the climate of RIA; some say it’s good, others who have been around longer typically don’t care much for it. And yeah, I do agree with PB that the BS level has hit peaks of complete retardation (some of which I recognize that I’ve been a part of, but I’ll get to that later; and, some may argue that the “peak” is more of a plateau, depending on your personal tolerance levels). But, from what I gather in real life, “quality” is very rarely sought after nor rewarded. It’s a sad observation that the general populous goes for the lowest common denominator. Sorry if it makes me sound like a total snob; admittedly, I do laugh at cheap jokes and I’m known for making comments of a crass kind of humor (moreso in real life than on RIA), so I don’t exempt myself from this. RIA’s not exactly the bastion of intellectualism, but nor do I expect it to be.

    Does “credit’ go where credit’s due? Of course not, at least not in most people’s eyes. But it really depends on what you give credit for. Why do people choose a comment or a reviewer to be “helpful” or “trustworthy”? Because it’s funny? Informative? Similar to your own ideas? Honest? Or do you just like the guy (in the real world or otherwise)? I’ve got my guidelines, everyone else has others. Does that make mine “right” and theirs “wrong”? Well, no. I might think my long-winded comment on some movie is of better “quality” than a two-word joke, but most people aren’t going to take the time to read long reviews, and will skip over anything that’s more than two sentences long. Technically, the long-winded comment can’t be too “helpful” if no one reads it, and might even give someone enough cause to click “unhelpful” just due to length. I’m not innocent of similar thinking, though: though I don’t often bother with the helpful/unhelpful buttons, I’ve probably passed over hundreds of great reviews just because I don’t give a crap about sports, much less comments about ‘em.

    I’m sure most people would rank reviewers MUCH differently than displayed on the various reviewer lists. But I just don’t see the point in complaining about the “injustices” of the system in place. We all know the flaws. The list can say whatever it wants, but quality isn’t judged by where you rank. Take it with a grain of salt. If you know this is unfair, it should be enough to know that you still appreciate what matters to you regardless. It’s not like there’s a prize involved by being on top, no one’s losing out on anything here. And seriously, is anyone going to brag about their top ranking on some WEBSITE?

    Accumulation of “helpful” points is basically a combination of how long you’ve been on the site, how many comments you make, where you make ‘em, and how many friends you have. I wouldn’t be anywhere near the top ten if it weren’t for the fact that I’ve been on this site for a few YEARS. And I’m not too proud to say that I’ve made some pretty shitty comments over the years that have still gotten helpfuls that it definitely shouldn’t have. Being in the top ten or twenty really doesn’t mean squat.

    I’ve been skeptical about RIA’s apparent identity crisis, the Jekyll-and-Hyde of it being a Consumer Review site versus a Message Board. I’m not sure if it can be successful at playing both roles, but I’ve been wrong before (who’dve thought that something as ridiculous as Beanie Babies would’ve caught on?). If it goes into a realm that I don’t like, then I’ll go, no big deal. Things change, it happens. It sucks, but oh well.

    I don’t consider this making “excuses” for the BS on the site. If that’s the way you or anyone else sees it, that’s your call, whatever. My thing is, BS exists, but I sure as hell am not going to lose any sleep over it. As long as I can weed out the bad and know a good review when I see it, that’s enough for me.

    ReplyDelete
  11. There's a lot of great points in here.

    Last month about 800K different people visited the site with the option of posting. I think it's unrealistic that any one person is going to find the comments of so many different people of high quality.

    The bigger RIA gets, the more noise there is going to be.

    My personal feeling is that we need to vastly improve filters that allow people to find the stuff they like - stuff like the Recommendation Engine that lets each of us filter the RIA database by the network of reviewers who we "trust." And if you want to use the trust network as a popularity contest (ie trust everybody in the hopes that they trust you back,) that's perfectly acceptable. It just means that your filter won't work very well.

    But for those that want to actually zero in on stuff that they have a higher probability of appreciating, they can do that too.

    Other stuff in the pipeline is tools to facilite the introductions of likeminded reviewers. Like Kamy, are you interested in movies and animals, but not so much in sports? Well here's 1000 other people that share those general preferences. Maybe you'd like to include some of them in your filter, to increase the chances of an enjoyable experience on RIA.

    So separating the signal from the noise is a monumental challenge.

    If the presence of noise frustrates you, you might be better off staying away from community Web sites where ANYBODY can publish. The WSJ or NYT are of notoriously good quality throughout, and might be good options if you find yourself obsessing about what you consider low quality media on community sites.

    And if you've noticed problems with the helpful vote system, join the freaking club. I've written exhaustively on the subject, as have many others. Fortunately, most folks I know don't define themselves (or the site), based on how many helpful votes a given person has.

    "Wisdom of the Crowd" type sites are surging right now folks. Some say they're going to be the savior of the Web, others say they will result in a dumbing down of all media. My personal take is that it's going to be somewhere in between, but things like filters and customization tools will be key in allowing each consumer of media/information to find exactly what they like.

    So lets take the extreme example of PB. He doesn't like the posts of the vast majority of RIA reviewers with the exception of a few folks like Castlebee. Using the tools available on the site, he could build a trusted network of just Castlebee, and filter out all the other stuff so it doesn't bug him so much. In this way he'd only see quality posts (as determined by PB), and wouldn't be set off by short, chatty comments. In this perfect world, maybe everyone would be a little more productive :)

    Anyway, thanks for all the great feedback and comments. It's interesting times on the Web right now, and I think RIA is a microcosm of a lot of the growing pains that are happening as more and more sites move towards giving publish power to their members.

    ReplyDelete
  12. “But, from what I gather in real life, “quality” is very rarely sought after nor rewarded. It’s a sad observation that the general populous goes for the lowest common denominator.”

    If you are going to participate in a site you should at least desire that site not go for the lowest common denominator. And given the previous paragraph before the quote that is EXACTLY what you think is happening. But I am a bad guy for pointing it out and criticizing right?

    “RIA’s not exactly the bastion of intellectualism, but nor do I expect it to be.”

    Interesting. Where exactly did I say the site should be or could be a bastion of intellectualism? My point was that an effort should be made to have quality and to seek quality. But it is always nice when people try to put words into my mouth or argue against points I have never made.

    The issue is not striving to be a beacon of quality, integrity and value. The issue is EFFORT. The issue is at least TRYING to provide quality and reward effort. But explain to me where any of that effort is. Go ahead. I can’t wait to hear of this mythical land.

    “I’ve got my guidelines, everyone else has others. Does that make mine “right” and theirs “wrong”? Well, no.”

    I have said before and I will say again that reasonable people can all agree on reasonable conclusions. Are there some people an areas of the world that will say slapping a women is perfectly acceptable? Are there people who will say in some areas that beating a child till it bleeds is alright?

    Sure. But will REASONABLE PEOPLE come to that conclusion? Once again we have the “one mans poison is another mans salve” argument that I have never argued. This is not an issue of MY VIEW. I would gladly take any reasonable group of peoples stand. And given that Kamylienne has all but agreed on several key points I made it indicates to me she is somewhat reasonable as well. Perhaps more accommodating but oh well.

    “But I just don’t see the point in complaining about the “injustices” of the system in place.”

    And so begins the hypocritical section… Complaint is the only way to implement change. Whether it is Luther banging on a door and posting something or a high schooler challenging the “school rules”. Even the peanut man selling his wares on street corners though he has no license. Why shouldn’t I complain if I see injustice? But let’s move on and expose more of the hypocrasy and focus on it…


    “And seriously, is anyone going to brag about their top ranking on some WEBSITE?”

    Inner pride means a great deal to some people. Who exactly said people would OPENLY brag about their rank? Hmm? Who? Does that alter the fact that inside they have some pride or some concern?


    “I’ve been skeptical about RIA’s apparent identity crisis, the Jekyll-and-Hyde of it being a Consumer Review site versus a Message Board.”

    Ah. More truth comes out. At least now it is in the public venue. Yes. RIA has such a crisis/issue. And MANY others have mentioned it. Still, the mentions were almost exclusively private. Amazing. My criticisms were designed for exactly that. To bring into the open issues facing the site. Isn’t it fascinating that my “pointless complaining” actually had some amount of the desired effect. Fascinating…

    “My thing is, BS exists, but I sure as hell am not going to lose any sleep over it.”

    Ah. I LOVE this one. So the assertion here is that I lose sleep over it eh? Well is that it? Well Kamylienne I happen to have visited your BLOG. You don’t lose sleep over those idiots you post on in the “Stupidity on the net” commentary do you?

    I thought not. But can you even recognize how hypocritical it is to say I lose sleep over my criticism but you do not. Or are you making some grand assumption that, sue to my passion and time spent, I am more petty? Go ahead. Explain that one. Or could you at least provide me the same courtesy you would provide yourself… The fact you post blog entries on morons multiple times does not mean you lost sleep over them. You simply took issue with them. And did your “complaining” on that blog amount to anything. Was it pointless? Perhaps. But so what. You felt a desire to post it and in the end having posted it you did have a point… You DISLIKE it enough to mention it.

    So if that user remains active on that site will it matter to you? Will you lose sleep. Probably not. Yet here you are criticizing me hypocritically and not accepting that I might just being doing the same damn thing.

    And you have mentioned race and ethnicity several times. Quite passionately I might add. Did you lose sleep over that? I doubt it. But it struck a cord and you let go full force. But I can’t do that? Am I not allowed the same ability to voice displeasure?

    And tell me why it is you will rag on “Stupidity on the net” on your BLOG and even admit here that RIA is filled wit hit but never use or mention that stupidity of RIA?

    Why?

    Hmm?

    Surely you should have some amount of concern MORESO with stupidity on a site you are a moderator and active participant than on some board. So why is it the stupidity you admit exists on many levels AND I QUOTE:

    “the BS level has hit peaks of complete retardation”

    Why is it you will point out stupidity on the net, make that quote regarding a site you a re a MODERATOR for but you do not point out such stupidity. Why not take an active role. You took an active role against some moron on a board. Why play the excuse making game for RIA?

    It is hypocritical.

    “As long as I can weed out the bad and know a good review when I see it, that’s enough for me.”

    That doesn’t wash. You can recognize good apples from bad in a grocery store but if you visited a store that routinely had 100 bad apples for ever good one what would you do? That’s right. Find a new store or at least stop buying apples.

    And each day you and everyone else are forced to sift through mountains of BS. But it’s okay. You can weed out the bad apples right? Ignoring them is the best way to go. Screw making an effort to limit the bad apples. No. Let’s just make a way to ignore them and as they fester what difference will it make.

    Hoorah.

    And here I thought people should take some pride in a site they frequent. People should post on their blogs and elsewhere about lack of quality. About stupidity. Amazingly SOME people do just that in their blogs.

    Too bad they are hypocritical and won’t mention it on a blog that they are more active on or about a website they frequent more. But that isn’t hypocritical. Is it?

    ReplyDelete
  13. You tout numbers but many don't understand how the internet works. I DO.

    While I wouldn't concede the 800K as a legitimate number you are just talking shit anyway.

    hannahs harem.

    A nice place to but silks probably gets 250K. Does she capitalize on it? No because her site is driven by sales of the actual products so the fact that 250K visited looking for porn or something other than silks means nothing if on;y 20 actually went through and purchased something.

    Play games with someone else.

    You are only making my point for me...

    Hits equals money. The site doesn't make money by selling quality comments. it makes money by hits.

    And a 10 year sifting through the site for one nifty list or one glimpse of porn or aduilt material may result in 200+ hits in one day.

    Is that worth recognizing or touting? Of course not. But Irishgit gets that too. Any dipsh*t with a computer can generate hits.

    So make my points for me a little better next time.

    The site needs hits to make money. it is the root of why crap is allowed and in fact encouraged. it is why Castlebee would never be missed nor would I.

    LOL. I have to enjoy things when some dumb*ss tries to counter my criticisms by actually focusing on them and enhancing them.

    Quite amusing.

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  15. *reposted due to half-asleep typo


    To Pbeavr:

    Much of what your commentary is about is assuming that my entire focus is complaining about you; actually, fact of the matter is, it’s not just about YOUR criticisms. While it was spurred on by your comment that I have “made excuses for the BS” on RIA (your opinion, but I happen to disagree) the piece is about RIA & any fallacies that I see that surround it in general, and why I don’t really see any real reason to raise a fuss about it. I’m writing about why I do what I do. I’m not telling anyone what to think, I’m telling you where I stand. I’ve received a few personal messages from various folks who complained about my attitude as a RIA “Moderator” and this half-assed code of conduct they assume comes with it. And what they think I ought to do about it. And on and on. Yeah. This one’s for them, too. So before you think I’m putting “words in your mouth”, consider that there is more than one mouth that this one’s coming from.

    Where you and I clearly diverge is the root of the problem; you feel that it’s in RIA Admin’s handling of the quality, I feel that it’s in the raters themselves and how it affects the system. If site Admin wants to change it, they’ll do it. I don’t fault RIA for what raters find to be “interesting” or “important”.

    There is one actual RIA-system issue that I find to be a real issue, but mind-bogglingly this was missed. What part of the “consumer site vs. message board” issue coming from me is NEWS? Seriously, I have mentioned this up and down and beaten this horse dead on every single applicable list item/whatever I’ve come across. I know that a lot of my reviews are boring, but come on, this is something that should be fairly obvious! I really don’t know what could be any more clear!


    For Everyone:

    And, since my Blog somehow comes into question, trust me, as half-assed as RIA can get on whatever, generally it’s a rather boring and mindless type of inanity that, well, is just isn’t anything worth writing about. When it does strike me as stupid enough to write about (and, RIA comments have been parts of my rants; generally, the most ridiculous comments on RIA are about race), trust me, I’ll hit it (and, trust me, I’ve made my rants QUITE public on RIA, but my Blog contains very elongated versions) But, there are more “refined” sources of stupidity all over the net (yes, ladies and gentlemen, I do look at other websites once in a while . . . . and there’s a reason that I keep coming back). I haven’t found a worse place (yet) than the Netscape Message Boards. And I hardly think that making fun of some idiot on a message board is “taking an active role” in anything; I’m not going to Netscape and telling them to remove the guy, I’m just thoroughly entertaining myself, much in the way of taking clippings from a newspaper for the laughs of a stupid blurb on it. Is it mean-spirited or anything? That’s up to you. The Blog I have is set up for my entertainment.

    I might find the Netscape boards to be painfully stupid for the most part (there are some decent postings, I’ll give it that, it’s just severely outweighed by the rather extreme characters on their site. And if you think RIA’s characters are extreme, you really have no idea how completely nutty it can be elsewhere. RIA’s no where close to being the scary-crazy kind site; at worst, it’s still the giggly-high-schooly kind of bad.), but the quality of Netscape is theirs to control. As for RIA, it’s up to them to decide what kind of site they want to run. If it gets to the point where I don’t like it anymore, I can go elsewhere (as I have with Netscape. That was a rather brief run in, I might add.)

    And being a “moderator” shouldn’t make a difference in what I do or say as a reviewer, nor does it mean that I have any stock in how RIA is run. As a moderator, I was only put on so that I could add stuff myself; there’s nothing in the “job description”, as far as I know, about monitoring comments, or even monitoring my own. Some have noted that I don’t take “RIA seriously”. Yeah, I’m on RIA a lot, but why would I have to take it “seriously”? Why would I have to change it? Lawrence doesn’t know me, why would he have to take any of my suggestions any differently than anyone else’s? I shouldn’t, he shouldn’t, and RIA shouldn’t. Yeah, he’s a good guy, it’ll be nice to see the site succeed, but it doesn’t have to succeed the way I envision it. Nor do I feel a need to take an “active role” in changing anything about RIA. I don’t find it “hypocritical” to not want to change RIA; RIA’s not the problem I see, the problems lie in what individual raters post. To PBeavr, you may feel that RIA can get rid of that issue; I don’t see how RIA can enforce that.

    And, finally, for those who do find themselves sensitive about placement on whatever lists (and, yeah, go ahead, send me the mail): Many have posted already that they really don’t care about where they are on that list. Maybe this is mean, but it’s gotta be said: if you KNOW that these rankings are meaningless, why let it get to you? Why should someone else’s opinion matter if you know, in your heart, what you’re made of? It’s about WHAT you write, not what others think about it. Most people who write great stuff on the site don’t have tags that say “top whatever”. You know what you’re made of. The people that read your stuff know, too. That’s all that should matter.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I make no assumptions. I post replies to the besy of my ability to perceive intent. Nice try though.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I was not free to write on RIA. If the site admin denies that well...

    hehehe.

    Kamylienne you are a smart woman. Smart enough to realize the truth about your hypocrasy.

    Yes. It was active to post on that forum user. It wasn't agressive. I never sought removal of a single RIA user and in fact fought for several to stay.

    I have voiced my opinions here and declared that those with any self respect should leave. I haven't demanded they leave.

    but let's get to this "divergence"...

    Which makes more common sense...

    Chatising an all-powerful ruler of a domain to implement controls (my view) so that order, quality and effort are present.

    Or YOUR view... Hold the pigs in the pen responsible for cleaning their own mess up.

    You are far too bright a person to buy the crap you are spewing.

    Live in reality. If you let the inmates run the asylum it will be a madhouse.

    And my point to you is very simple. I am fully aware that you will get quite passionate with those who might call into question your race or other deeply personal factors.

    I am not asking for the equivlent level of passion on RIA and its issues.

    But to you, posting "concerns" over the direction and the consumer driven versus board issue is actually speaking out. Give me a break.

    You don't have to go apesh*t as you have on race issues but your critiques of the site dual persona have been almost benign and murmured. I read them. I still read RIA. Quite frequently.

    But as far as divergence of our views...

    You go ahead and try to explain how those with NO CONTROL of a site and the very pigs causing it to fester should be the ones placed with responsibility for cleaning it up.

    Explain how that makes sense when the farmer (site admin) is the one who can hose them down, eliminate the bad ones and actually implement rules, changes, and order.

    You make no sense.

    If a kennel has a female dog in heat and surrounded by 15 males your view is to just let them sort it all out and find some order and responsibility.

    My view is you don't wait for the sh*t to hit the fan and chaos to ensue. As an owner of the kennel you have an obligation to provide order and control.

    But I can't wait to hear you explain how the users should be the ones responsbile for quality and the like and how that makes any damn sense at all.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Oh.... Moderators.

    A clear example that you don't speak out all that much. To RIA or about RIA or its users. Sure, you are more reserved than myself but why not try crossing a line here or there and see how it goes over with the site admin. He'll snatch back your collar VERY quickly. And then he will give you the "perceived" moderator responsibility lecture.

    I was not the only one to receive it. Send me an email if you still have my address and I can provide details on the other instances NOT involving me.

    Just because YOU don't think it holds any special meaning doesn't mean that is actually the case. You just haven't caused any grief or enough frief to be informed that YES... There is a certain expectation of you as a moderator that goes beyond what you think. That would include how you post and what you post.

    And for myself...

    I was not only called a racist by a user and had my moderator tag used against me but the site admin asked I remove the more or less benign post.

    I was greatly offended at the time and more than a little pissed off that some nitwit one day poster (or alias) could reference one rather trite comment and get the site admin to not just lecture me but agree in some manner that the comment was racist.

    But you go ahead and believe there are no special things applied to use as a moderator. The education you stand to receive one day will be enlightening.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "at a fraction of the salary i was making in my last job. so save the quick buck spiel, it's a dirty lie."

    I have a little insight on just how laughable this quote is. I'll spare users the details and I disagree with repeating private information.

    Suffiec it to say that I never said the site admin stands to get rich.

    I said he counts on HITS.

    Most users of the internet don't understand the costs involved. Nor the dedications. I do admire the dedication.

    And since I understand the costs it makes it much more clear just how CRITICAL site hits are to maintaining it.

    It all goes back to the same thing. Don't hide. Now you are hiding behind this "higher cuase" ideal.

    Whatever. I have never said the goal is to get rich. I said the goals was hits. Hits equals money.

    A great amount of money? Not likely. But then I understand how the internet works and why a site such as RIA relies so heavily on hits.

    Remember folks... RIA sells NO PRODUCTS of any kind. Unless you count hte cafe express stuff. LOL (its another website).

    Any moron can realize that a site that is hits driven sells content. It sells ACTIVITY.

    So a user such as Numbah is much more valuable overall with his 6000 posts in 2 years and 100 weblists with 100 items than a user like Castlebee with 4000 posts in FIVE years and less than 80 lists.

    It is pure numbers.

    Site admin...

    Argue my points.

    The quick buck reference I make is to the ease by which a dumb user like Numbah can generate enormous content and hits. Not a reference to moeny enough to live in Beverly Hills.

    But just because you can't earn your way to millions through RIA doesn't mean your focus is not one thing: Hits and the money it generates.

    And all one needs to do is look at how RIA is used and implemented to see that hits are what it's all about.

    And why any dumb*ss list is GREAT for business.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "yes, we bend over backwards to take care of our regular visitors"

    Most sites do. But the insinuation here is that RIA is being the good guy in doing so.

    Whereas MANY sites bend over backwards for users AND CARE ABOUT QUALITY etc... RIA does not.

    It isn't that the site has bent over backwards. it is WHY it bent over backwards. And I have already illustrated many stupid reasons. I still have others to mention.

    The site would prefer users think they have their best interest at heart. But hits are what matters. The xamples of how true that is are inumerable.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "i think the community plus some degree of editorial judgment should decide what is valuable, you think the community is idiotic, and that only i should decide."

    First of all I already explained why the inmates cannot be allowe dto run the asylum and in my view only morons actually give that view credence. It makes so little sense I am surprised it is still being used as an excuse.

    And I dislike being misquoted.

    The idea is I simply find teh users idiots.

    No site admin. My view is that since no CONTROL measures are in place and those few that are in place are not enforced that more idiots are allowed in and the result is crap.

    CONTROL.

    The site admin has a a right and OBLIGATION to exert controls. If clear rules, guidlines and controls were in place users would likely follow them.

    But no rules are in place.

    For example...

    Roadways are governed by clear rules, guidelines, controls and even common courtesies. In most cases they are followed because those things are ENFORCED.

    Take away those rules etc... and what happens. Chaos.

    And I spent a LONG time saying OFTEN that the site admin is where CONTROL BEGINS. One man cannot police the site. They need help. And reasonable people can reach reasonable conclusions.

    But nothing to that effect was ever done.

    The site admin refused absolutely to control weblists AT ALL. Look at the weblists now. You want a REASONABLE view? I will be glad to give you 5 or more users to ask what they think of the overall quality of weblists.

    But do you really want to here their reasonable views?


    Numbah isn't reasonable. He is part of the crap. Irishgit isn't even reasonable. He stands to lose THOUSANDS of posts if even a small percentage of weblists were removed.

    So don't give me this "Only I decide crap".

    The site admin AS KAMYLIENNE mentioned is where CONTROL begins.

    The problem:

    The site admin didn't just NOT take control. They refused to take control. making many excuses. The most ludicrous and famous of which is "Who am I to judge quality".

    Betwenn myself, the site admin, Castlebee, Kamylienne, TBoneYa, Teaseress, and a few others of note... Had the site admin not been scared of the consequences and gotten off his ass to implement controls a great deal could have been avoided.

    Many fine users might have stayed and god knows how many would not have been turned off due to the excess crap that would not have been there otherwise.

    And that is what is so stupid. Even now the site admin whines the same line.

    Dude. get a fricking clue. You own the site. If you don't implement controls NOTHING will happen. I NEVER said you had to do it alone but YOU...

    Are you listening...

    YOU

    Have to begin to take control. You want help? Fine. You want a "concensus" opinion on controls and rules? Fine. But you are a raving lunatic if you think the users will govern themselves as you sit back and watch.

    And I know you are not that f*cking dense.

    Why you chickened out of instituting controls BEFORE all hell broke loose I am not sure. I think fear was a motivating factor. But cut the crap. Stop acting as if you are powerless or "not worthy".

    As the site admin you have to make the first step. You want 5 people or 10 people to help fine. You want someone to hod your hand when it begins... Great.

    But stop with this BS.

    Quality control is a MAJOR factor for ANYTHING consumer related.

    Now quit the nonsense and assess what the hell QUALITY CONTROL is in place at RIA.

    Once you have considered that you explain to me WHO IS RESPONSIBLE for implementing it. The users?

    Good god you aren't that stupid.

    I am a 10+ year veteran of custimer service. Quality control is serious business.

    It can make or brake a business and every business is responsible for implementing its own controls.

    The ydon't have the people calling it decide it.

    And if you can't grasp that concept you have not been in the real world. But I know better. And that is what I find so irritating. You know damn good and well what I am talking about and all this excuse making and BS is crap.

    We both know it.

    RIA has no quality control and ANY form of it begins with you.

    So even if you can't have the courage to implment some form of it at least have the courage to admit that YES, IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to get some started.

    No one else will and no one else can. Many might help if you tried but it all begins with you. Even Kamylienne said so.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Search engines reward quality, inbound links, content - they don't reward three word blurbs."

    You are not speaking to a novice.

    Try typing in "failure" with google.

    One word.

    The very nature of the web and search engines aren't just manipulated but are used as political weapons.

    I know full well how search engines work. More or less. And I know how content generates hits.

    You are playing a game now. Mostly speaking to users who lack full understanding.

    let me put this in simplified terms that anyone might grasp...


    RIA has two users. NEITHER ever posts a comment.

    EACH has 100 weblists and on each weblist are 10 items. Each item has 1 comment.

    That is 1000 comments. RIA gets hits based on those 1000 items.

    Does it matter if one list features great reviews on interesting items such as "Exercise Books" and the other features trite bullsh*t comments and nonsense on say "Hottest Porn Actress"?

    Nope.

    RIA desperately wants naive users to believe that the exercise list with its quality comments will out revenue and hits the Porn Actress list with BS comments.

    THAT IS NOT THE CASE.

    Search engines have almost no method of determining quality. So that is more or less silly.

    Inbound links?

    Which might have more? Let's say it is a dead heat. Both have the same number.

    Content?

    Ah ha. The issue here is what does it mean to have content? A lot of words? No. Content has more to do with subject matter.

    In other words... HOW MUCH INTEREST WILL IT GENERATE.

    Will the exercise books and its quality comments have more interest?

    Obviously not. Like it or not sex sells. And no amount of quality will change that.

    It is a harsh reality but one RIA counts on people nit understanding.

    far more users will click Porn actress, adult film stars, female porn, female sex actor and many other type searches than those that search for variations on exercise books.

    RIA knows this.

    It is about interest.

    In 2004 the most active lists? Politics. Were the comments quality? Sometimes but not usually.

    But in the course of ONE ELECTION YEAR a SINGLE LIST on George W Bush and his qualities for president (good or bad) generated more hits than all the laundry detergent lists, soaps, and exercise books COMBINED in their HISTORY.

    Play that game with someone else.

    And that goes back to my point. If some dumb*ss creates a POPULAR list it makes no difference if comments have quality or are three word blurbs.

    The hits from search engines or browsers who stumble on the site depend on the subject matter.

    And if stupid subject matter such as "Bush is an Idiot" or Kerry is a Traitor" is extremely popular THAT my friends is what it is all about.

    And all the double talk won't change it.

    The site admin full understands this even if they try to play games to the contrary.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "will start being more concerned about creating content that attracts more visitors (read: quality),"


    The point of this paragraph regarded Helpfuls being replaced as "currency" by real dollars through adsense etc...

    I just illsutrated the stupidity in my previous post.

    All this will do is encourage users to seek more popular lists. That doesn't mean they will be of higher quality. The assumption they will in fact be of higher quality is naive and downright stupid.

    At best it is wishful thinking. And I will showcase this over time when I am proven right that all it will lead to is even more crap.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "I don't think it's fair to personally harass other reviewers on the site. I created the incentive systems that people may or may not be chasing"

    AND

    "so don't blame them. blame me."

    Let's see...

    Who exactly do I hold responsible for the BS?

    Gee. My entire focus ultimately has been the dereliction of duty on the part of the site admin. Hell, I just spent 20 paragraphs detailing how quality control was never implemented in any form.

    Odd though.

    On one hand the site admin and kamylienne say to hold users accountable for quality issues and the like but now the site admin says blame me. Can you say contradiction.

    But let's get it straight. I speak my mind on everyone.

    Okay so you built a dangerous playground where parents can go and let their children play on slides made of jagged glass. Jump on pits of hot coals.

    Blame the creator of such a site? You bet?

    Fail to blame the idiots who use it anyway?

    Give me a break.

    Stop trying to protect the users.

    You may not have the courage to provide quality control but Numbah admits he is an idiot. he mocks it and the site. He mocks his own lists.

    I am interested in raising awareness. About you and the lack of quality control and about the downright insulting level of commentary on the site. That means I will take on all offenders.

    But nice try to deflect criticism. I am certainly interested to know how after all this time you didn't realize there is a pecking order and I view the site admin as top nut and most ridiculous.

    But I certainly won't stop there. And why should I?

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Last month about 800K different people"

    I reread that. 800,000 DIFFERENT people. Uh huh.

    I don't buy it. How can someone say that honestly. 800,000 separate IPs verified? And even if one buys that crap then how were they verified as PEOPLE...

    A post here already mentioned the ingenuity of one person to spam suggestions.

    How can the site admin claim with any legitimacy that 800,000 DIFFERENT PEOPLE

    PEOPLE

    Were visiting etc...

    Does that exclude BOTS? Does that exclude sniffers? Does that EXCLUDE all possible automated efforts?

    Come on RIA. Be honest.

    The US Census is methodical and accurate but makes many ommissions and has other issues.

    Do you expect to make such a statement and have it believed?

    800,000 verified actual different people huh.

    Why not be more honest. But this is yet another example of subterfuge.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Wow PB, you are so wrong about this stuff I don't even know where to begin.

    So you think I want to trick Weblist authors into making lists that generate less money? Do you understand the concept of a revenue share? The more money that Weblisters make, the more money that RateItAll makes.

    As a rule, forums and "chatty" web sites don't make any money on the Web. Niche and targeted sites covering things where people actually buy stuff - photography, travel, electronics, make big money.

    RateItAll makes the vast majority of its money from Products, Travel, and Cameras. Weblists make very little. Why? Because advertisers don't spend money advertising on lists like "What's the best spot for a tatoo" or "Songs I play on Guitar."

    Doesn't that make sense?

    You should do a little research before you spout on about this stuff... you have it almost completely backwards.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "advertisers"

    I am not interested in explaining all details of how and why various sites make money.

    Do massive sites such as EBay and the like make more money? Do lists that might link to products their have more potential?

    I am aware of these things. That doesn't alter the method by which RIA users are fodder in the campaign nor the fact that any dumb*ss can stand to make some dough or even more dough than a user interested in quality.

    Your premise is that quality and effort will be rewarded more than stupidity.

    That premise is wrong. In the same way morons still buy the "get rich quick" videos, dvds and tapes.

    Morons are morons and they are utilized to earn money in numerous ways.

    Site selling products don't care how a link, hit or search engine is involved. They don't care if the originating area is quality.

    You are talking BS.

    ReplyDelete
  28. If you want to make an issue of it then post earnings. Open the books. Alluding to whta makes RIA money and what doesn't or how users might best earn dough is total crap unless you do.

    You are the carnical salesman. They don't admit how even the most dumb fan is worth bucks. They don't tell their secrets or share their methods to bring in earnings.

    They certainly rely on visitors to be naive.

    And the VERY LAST PLACE any user of RIA should look for honest information on what will work or why is the site admin.

    is it in the admins best interest to tell admit the truth if that makes the site look bad?

    Ah...

    There you have the conflict of interest.

    And get it straight...

    RIA wants to make money. Does it care that of 1000 users that only 10% ever make anything worth mentioning if it makes what it needs or wants?

    By the same token would the site remain if 90% of those users made decent amounts while the site made nothing?

    The site has one goal and one goal only. Itself. The bone tossed to users is laughable and the last place to go for an honest assessment is the site.

    But do you REALLY want to open the integrity can of worms again so soon?

    I have so many examples left it is hilarious. I can restate some from the past too.

    Will users believe me or care? It doesn't matter. But let's not fool ourselves here. I have nothing to gain and everyone knows that. hell, some wonder why I continue.

    But they also know that you can't say the same.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "As a rule, forums and "chatty" web sites don't make any money on the Web"

    Who said those things make money?

    The fact the atmosphere at RIA appears to be one of a "forum" does not alter the type of site it tries to be.

    It is nothing more than a large resovoir for ads. There is a bit more to it but lists, items and the like are placeholders for ads and now adsense.

    Stop playing the BS games. Forums have almost no adverstising a very few links or banners. But that is not their purpose.

    Stop twisiting issues and trying to make points on arguments that don't even exist.

    ReplyDelete
  30. < hell, some wonder why I continue.

    I think you say it all right there, PB.

    And with that, I bid this discussion a fond adieu.

    If you want to read up on Internet economics, I recommend:

    www.webmasterworld.com

    You may also want to learn a little bit about google/adwords and google/adsense, as those programs are very important for understanding how content/media sites pay their bills.

    That should set you a little straighter on how sites make money on the Internet (hint: a "hit" does not equal money)

    Sadly, i think you've become what you loathe. You make some good points, but they're all so buried in the spite, and anger, and misconceptions, and nonsense, that it's tough to find the good stuff now.

    In the absence of a PB filter that might allow me to ignore all the rantings, I am going to excercise my right as a reader of your posts to no longer read them, as the signal to noise ratio has gotten so low.

    I'd wish you luck, but you've said some really nasty, hateful, untrue stuff about me today. So I'll pass on that high road, and leave it at that.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Weblists make very little."


    One last blast of the posted nonsense before bed...

    No sh*t sherlock.

    I have no doubt the revenue associated with weblists is currently low.

    Will it remain that way? We can debate that if you like.

    But look at that neat graph you provided touting RIA's growth. Did the ORIGINAL RIA skyrocket?

    Don't even go there. The answer is no.

    Over time RIA built enough content, associated enough places and got enough adverstising hits and the like to say it had grown and had "reach".

    Compared to the original areas of RIA weblists are in the infacny stage.

    So once again you are playing games. Does RIA Local make much money as yet? I doubt it. But weblists and Local are VERY NEW.

    Will they ever out revenue main?

    Even years down the road we will have ONE SOURCE for the true answer. The site admin. And we would be required to take his word for it.

    I don't take his word for it even now that weblists don't earn much revenue. Understanding the web and the newness of weblists means I would agree with that assessment at the current time. it doesn't mean I would take his word for it.

    And in two more years I would very disinclined to take it at face value.

    It takes time to generate adverstising and such.

    Is RIA efforting to have weblists and local earn more?

    You're damn right. And there is no fault in that. It is the american way. But the quality aspects are an entirely separate issue.

    And the eventual renveue... If RIA has its way all areas of the site will earn something. Which ultimately earns the most will only be known by those with a look at the books. So I wll form my own educated opinion over time on that.

    I am certainly not going to see the RIA books.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hit is a genernal term all users can understand. My words aren't for internet gurus. They are for RIA users and BLOG visitors.

    You don't actually think they read or would understand the terms used in such a book do you?

    Get real. I keep it simple and I keep it direct.

    You have tried the high road. You have tried the I am not worthy avenue.

    Now you want to insinuate I am clueless. heh. Go ahead.

    I don't claim to be an expert and don't want to be. I have a good basic understanding. Something you admitted many times on internet usage and the like.

    But since you lost respect for me the gloves are off eh.

    LOL.

    But you are no expert either. And assuming you read that economics book... I have news for you. It is one book and like all books that doesn't mean all it says is right. Or that those who don't bother to read it are less knowledgable.

    But nice try.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Sadly, i think you've become what you loathe. You make some good points, but they're all so buried in the spite, and anger, and misconceptions, and nonsense, that it's tough to find the good stuff now."

    LOL

    Whatever. Dismissal. I love it.

    Not reading anymore eh.

    I'll keep that in mind when you can't stand things anymore and either censor me, alter comment rules or the worst...

    Decide to reply.

    More power to you if you think I can be ignored. And big guy...

    I KNOW you will read it.

    Just as I knew Irishgit did.

    And though he pretended to have only read it "today" we both know better.

    He read it all along. He just finally had to say SOMETHING.

    But I'll remind you of the words when no option is left but to take action and/or respond.

    Said some nasty things?

    Hardly.

    I gave my view. You can't handle those views? Fine.

    You sent me an email and I replied. THAT EMAIL WAS NASTY.

    It was meant to be. You are the one who plays games and makes excuses. Not me.

    And though I tried to be respectful quite often it was you who used your power at the site to harrass me.

    You are also the one who created these issues and refused to deal with them.

    Not responding won't alter what I say or how often. And try to fool someone else. You will read it. If for no other reason that because you know I have insight. Like it or not. Agree with me or not. View me as a fool or sensible person... Much of what I say rings true and it will be read.

    And even if by some miracle you do avoid reading it you know others won't.

    And it is as much for them. Users of RIA or passers by alike that I speak to as well.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The high road.

    LOL.

    People can walk on their mythical highway all day long. The only one being completely honest here is me.

    I make no claims I only offer my views. People can take them at whatever value they see fit.

    I don't twist or otherwise bend things.

    People may not like it but that is the way it goes.

    I have no vested interest to protect and many more than you realize understand that. They understand who DOES have something to protect and like Bush and others they know that in prtecting something twists and bends will be presented.

    Does it make a person wrong? No.

    But it certainly gives pause to wonder if they are sincere or a complete set of ethics.

    ReplyDelete
  35. And yeah... The economics WEBSITE.

    I Know you wanted to just shout it...

    PBeavr you dumb*ss I mentioned a website not a book.

    So there. I did it for you.

    My point remains the same. One site means little. I may check it out though. Or should I?

    You wouldn't want me annoying them too. Or maybe you would since I might leave RIA alone. heh.

    ReplyDelete
  36. PBeavr: Just a quick couple of things.

    You left the site, so I'd greatly appreciate it if you left me out of your little rants *about* the site. Especially since, up until this point, you had no clue that I was aware of this site or that I actually visited or tried leaving the occassional comment. It reminds me of ranting done in your hopes that I'd never come here to defend myself. If you think it's so atrocious a place; quit visiting. You might as well bring your site back with the amount of time that you still apparently spend on it.

    As for my comment; I never implied that the site lacked all sense of humor. If you paid half as much attention to my activities, as you did to my actual comment you'd know where I was coming from. I took off over 6 months (maybe even closer to a year). Numbah, Ridge, Stark and some of the newer funny people weren't even there when I left. I've been on the site for 3 years now (inlcluding my hiatus). There's no denying that others were funny, outright or in subtle undertones. I was just pointing out, which you cannot deny, that more and more people are using humor to gain the much needed attention for those helpfuls and trusts.

    As for CastleBee: She's a brilliant reviewer and I have given her many helpfuls over the years. I never said she wasn't funny or even a great reviewer, quite the contrary actually. You need to stop putting words in my mouth and spend less time on the site that you apparently despise with passion.

    I'd suggest being less of a hypocrite, as well. Irish belittles the site, but stays: you do it to, just in a different fashion. You have to spend a great deal of time on RIA, skimming through anything that you could hold against certain users, so you have no room to talk about Irish's actions regarding this.

    On a 2 side-notes: Thanks for the compliment on my comments. I won't be commenting back to this: I don't feel like arguing with you.

    ReplyDelete
  37. To PBeavr:

    I’m still completely baffled at how you could POSSIBLY take me showcasing stupid posters, on my OWN Blog, as somehow taking an “active role” against the guy. Please. Taking an “active role” would involve me sending e-mails or actual letters TO THE COMPANY to complain about their stupid users. To paraphrase what I have told the reviewer to accused me of being “chickenshit” for “removing his review” (which is, again, something that is not a moderator ability): As far as I’m concerned, I’d much rather someone’s half-assed comment stay up, no matter how offensive and asinine it may be, and I’ll go so far as to stand up for their right to believe in their semi-retarded little worldview. But don’t be surprised if I call them on it for being an ass.

    I’m not going to blame Netscape for the comments that are posted on their site, no matter how insanely ridiculous it may be; nor will I blame RIA for the actions of a handful of posters.

    Here is where we again diverge: you think that Lawrence’s role is that of a farmer taking care of his hogs. If that were the case, then Lawrence would be poking pitchforks into our sides and herding us around. And, frankly, that seems pretty crappy to me. Here’s how I see it: As far as I’m concerned, RIA belongs to Lawrence. If the guy wants or doesn’t want to put whatever rules or controls in place, it’s up to him. Reviewers come on voluntarily to leave their two cents; if they don’t like the game, and the game rules don’t change, then go to another playground. RIA has no obligation to me, or you. If reviewers want to go off in a corner and play “Spin the bottle” with each other, then fine, I can say “you guys are lame” and go play kickball. Does the playground have rules? Well, yeah. “No running, no yelling, no fighting”. But the rules aren’t like “you can’t play spin the bottle”.

    And, yeah, I post stuff like “I’m not sure if I like the idea of the site turning into a message board”, and the reason I don’t choose to go all out over it is because IT’S NOT ALL THAT BIG OF A DEAL. In the scheme of things, in my life, if RIA implodes into a gooey pile of lovey-dovey sludge, I can just shrug and say “Well, that sucks”, and move on. And you’re damn right that I’ll go apeshit over someone who thinks it’s okay that my parents’ property is vandalized by the color of their skin because “they make us feel uncomfortable”. While this set of priorities may seem a little bizarre to you, “Race issues” in my book easily top “the focus of some website”. Simply put, there are way more important things to get upset about than some website. If you don’t have to defend your heritage from every douchebag that thinks he owns the Earth, and the focus of a random website is one of your top concerns, then seriously “good for you”. (While I’m on it, since this one clearly doesn’t go through many reviewer’s heads: People wonder why I don’t get too riled up over whatever issue they think is important; maybe because I’ve got a different set of priorities, and it’s not gonna match yours. Sorry if it’s not “entertaining” for everyone. Good thing I’m not here to entertain anyone. I understand that people have a different idea of what’s important, but I don’t think that they’re, as PBeavr puts it, “benign and murmured” because of it).


    You think I “make no sense”. Quite frankly, I don’t think it makes sense to constantly complain about some guy’s website, either. I understand bringing it up a few times, I understand ditching a site that you don’t like, hell, I understand making fun of it, but I don’t understand the constant barrage of “this site sucks”. But clearly your brand of logic is far different than mine.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I will include anyone I like in my rants.

    If you don't like it you have options.

    Mention me all you want but expect me to reply. heh.

    ReplyDelete
  39. "This site sucks"

    Sorry there Kamylienne.

    I don't say the site sucks. I say many aspects suck and the quality is low. Very low.

    But I always said I liked the site and found it interesting. Don't assign things to me that don't exist.

    The site needs to be managed. And a long-winded post by the site admin illustrating various models won't change that.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Also Vudija...

    I am aware of your BLOG and have read it. Decent enough poetry. I have read your comments and I was quite aware of you presence long ago.

    And that you mentioned leaving soon and would be gone a while.

    I make my points as I see fit. I am sure many don't like them. But that isn't going to prevent me from speaking.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Fair enough, then: to clarify, you don't say "this site sucks".

    You'll complain, at length, about the "lack of quality", about how the site is run, about people not being active about changing it.

    You don't understand why I simply don't find a good enough reason to give the kind of attention to the quality of a website that I would, say, pretty much ANYTHING. And I don't understand why you feel a need to complain about that same website to this extent, even long after you've left it. (And yeah, I thought it sucked when you left, but I figured at least you wouldn't be so frustrated about stuff like this, and maybe it'd be good for you. But it only increased your complaints.)

    And it's not like it's an occasional barb now and then, which at least would be understandable. Or a snide remark about different aspects of it, which at least would be something new and thus also understandable. It's just the same argument.

    For this, we're at an impasse. I won't understand your fixation on this any more than you will understand my apathy. That's all there is to it.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I promised not to argue the point, and I won't. But to be perfectly fair, and not outright assault you, as if I disagree...

    I actually have agreed with you on many key points, including some of the comments left on the site as of late. I have kept my mouth shut, as it's not that big of a deal (for my own life) in the grand scheme of things. For people who are interested more in the running of the site, than in actually participating in it, I see where this is a bigger issue though.

    I have also made note to watch some of the comments that have been posted lately. Some of them are from new reviewers who have yet to see the light; one of them was mentioned earlier after having some kind of "your momma/farm animal" fight with irish. Some of them have been from people that are heavyweights on the site, as well. Those were once good reviewers, and have since taken upon themselves to rate everything in sight, with one-liners that really aren't that great. These one-liners are usually definitions, and end up being rated helpful 3-4 times for no apparent reason. I understand the frustration over watching the site; when I was around 3 years ago, this wasn't happening that often (if really at all). The quality of SOME of the weblists and comments ARE going down, no one can really deny this-even *I* have gotten overly enthusiastic and created crap lists, even recently, I'm trying to break my habit I swear :). Some of the new users don't know how the site used to be; they come in and see how most everything is tolerated and think it's okay to be pointless.

    As for mentioning whomever you wish; that's your right...fine. Just don't proceed to put words in my mouth, it's just a respect thing. Quote me, comment about me, ask me questions; I don't mind any of that. I just didn't like the implication that I couldn't spot a worthy comment if it slapped me in the face, such as comments left by CastleBee. This is something else I will agree with you on. She puts a lot of effort into her comments, just to see rewad going to less than helpful reviewers who happen to have a large network on their side. CastleBee is in my trust, I believe she was even the first person I added when I came back from my hiatus. She and Kamy were the first 2 people that I looked for when I got back, as those were the 2 names that I remembered most from my early days (and for good reason). Even you were high up on my respect list; I believe you were pretty much gone when I got back though (when did you leave?)

    Last note: My poetry isn't for everyone :) but thanks for checking out my site and mentioning it here...

    ReplyDelete
  43. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  44. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Last 2 posts came out far too winded. Anyway, to be clear in shorter form.

    If I seem to speak ill of someone, without ever saying their name; just know, that I am never referring to anyone on my trust. I am annoyed with few, seriously active, reviewers and the 2 main ones have since been removed because I am finding them more and more pointless by the day. Numbah isn't one of them, as I have conversations with him enough to know that he isn't just about being the crazy, funny guy.

    ReplyDelete

Apture