Can I suggest, Mr Editor and Mr Admin, on behalf of all those getting zero stars, it would be useful feedback if the site also displayed 'number of hits' for each submission, then those who have written articles will better understand whether their titles are failing and they have zero readers, or they have X number of unamused readers.
Quick links: NewsBiscuit Home • Chat Room • Writers' Room • Top Ten
Site Improvements
(83 posts) (28 voices)
-
Backup Brian
offlineMemberIsn't it obvious when you get no stars? If you write funny things you will generally get them. No stars = not funny.
Site Improvement : Don't post any old shite. Only post it if you think it's very good, then the board doesn't get clogged up with no star rubbish and everyone is happier. Good stuff says on page one for longer and is read more,attracts more stars.
Self discipline is the answer, not counting beans differently.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Bourbon
offlineMemberDear Running track manufacturer,
Over the past three weeks, I have been racing against Usain Bolt on one of you tracks. We raced over 100 and 200 meters, four times a day. I lost EVERY SINGLE RACE.
I have looked at all the possibilities and have come to the conclusion it must be the track. Please could you update your tracks so that I will beat him. If I still don't beat him, it will still be your fault.
Yours,
Big 'little legs' Ben
Posted 11 months ago # -
charlies_hat
offlineMemberI get stars for funny things, and no stars for unfunny things. Seems fair.
The really shit stuff I think of never gets stars because I bin it.
Posted 11 months ago # -
J Vine
offlineMemberBig Ben thinks the site needs improving, Les from Harold, and the rest of the internet thinks he's posting shit, and needs to work harder on his submissions. Join us after the next record to let me know what you think. Actually don't bother, it's pretty obvious when you think about it. In fact not everything needs to be decided by phone in. Lets make today's phone in, could I be doing something more useful with my time, other than playing devils avocado on a daytime radio chat/music show? Up next, The Waterboys and Trumpets...
Posted 11 months ago # -
Titus
offlineMemberOddly enough, I get contributions used on the ticker which have received few stars and little if any posted response. So for me the site works fine and my vanity is satisfied.
However I think there is a genuine issue. Several people's posts get just one star, so it is clear that at least one person (but it may be lots - impossible to know) thinks the contribution was sufficiently dire to it make worth posting to say so.
However many posts get no response and no stars. It is not possible to know whether this is because no-one has even bothered to read them, or whether lots of people have read them and are indifferent about the contributions, or whether lots of people have read them and think they are so absolutely awful that they don't even deserve one star.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Bourbon
offlineMemberNo stars = didn't read much of it
one star = it's shit/racist/sexist/trying to be edgy but failing.I have taken the liberty of posting some feedback on your Kylie piece that may help you
http://newsbiscuit.com/forum/topic.php?id=58605Posted 11 months ago # -
Titus
offlineMemberSo one star is worse than no stars?
How many stars is equivalent to no stars? Two stars?
It's odd that we often see 5 stars, 4 stars, 1 star or no stars at all, but rarely see 3 stars and almost never see 2 stars.
Perhaps some astonomy enthusiast could explain this phenomenon.
(Posted by SadBiscuit posing as Titus)
Posted 11 months ago # -
5 stars means it's funny. Or the writer has given himself five stars for luck. (This is usually considered bad form - see below)
4 stars means it's funny, but the person giving the stars is still trying to communicate nuance through the number of stars awarded. This is a long discredited approach to scoring, because you're effectively diluting your own opinion. To redress this, as the writer, you should give yourself 5 stars, because the reader obviously didn't know this system. That's why you see a lot of 4.5 star subs.
3 stars is seen quite often - it means the original poster gave himself 5, then the next person to read it gave it 1.
That could be because it wasn't funny, or it was meant as a slap for giving yourself 5 stars. Giving yourself 5 stars is considered bad form except:-
a) When someone has given you 4 stars in error (see above)
b) A couple of readers have already given you 5 stars (so it's funny, right?) but you need to get the number of scorers up to the necessary five to qualify for the Top Ten board.2 stars means the original poster then logged in under his alternate name, gave it 5 again, but then another 5 readers/alternate log-ins of the first reader gave it 1 star.
1 star means it's racist or has dead children in it.
0 stars means it has been missed by every single visitor to the site, or more likely it has been read but it is neither funny or offensive. You can bump it with something honest like "Did you all miss this one?? LOL", or you can let it sink and move on. Other tactics include
a) wait till the edit window is closed and then suddenly remember a spelling mistake or factual error you need to comment on.
b) add a comment about it probably being a bit difficult to understand unless you are familiar with the works of Gerard Manley Hopkins, then add a link to a website with the poem that the sub was based on. (Guaranteed 1 star)
c) log in under an alternate name and say it's a "defo FP", give it five etc..then don't forget to thank yourself 6 hours later for another free bump. (Will be spotted and rewarded with 1 star).
d) give it one star and put an insulting tag on it, hoping that other people will give it sympathy stars, free bumps. Then change your vote from 1 to 5 to make it look like you've got a real groundswell of support behind your gag. Leave the tag, though.
e) Do a minor rewrite and re-post it, with a comment of "I've made a few tweaks and I think it works better now."
f) Repost it a year later without any rewrites.
g) If the edit window is still open, change the title to "Sorry", and leave a comment that you had to "pull" this one, as another site wanted to use it.
h) Conclude that the system is flawed and suggest a better way for the site to give you feedback.Posted 11 months ago # -
Tripod
offlineMemberThere's no financial reward for writing a sub here, so we all need to find our own motivation for making the effort to write something funny. And, God knows, 75% of subs demonstrate just how hard that is, by not raising a laugh.
Some good subs get no response; some unfunny stuff gets stars and a place on the ticker or NiB. But, on the whole, when they're 'playing the game', most Biscuiteers reward funny subs with stars and let the dross sail by, without comment.
It would be good if everyone could refrain from pressing the 'send post' button until they've re-read their subs and, if necessary, put some jokes in. Then, if it's still not funny, press the delete button instead.
And if you have to write "I'll get my coat" at the end, that's an admission that the joke is so old and familiar that it's already been round the internet three times.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Bourbon
offlineMember75% isn't funny because its lazy or rushed. I think it's a little embarrassing that only 75% is funny. If people wrote one piece a day with thought then the percentage of good subs would rise. It has been low before but it has also been much higher. Instead of writing a sub at 9 one at 12 one at 3 then a rushed effort at 5, it's better to right a first draft at 9, look at it again at 12 adding the bits you thought of when working, have another peak at 3 cutting the bits that when read back aren't funny an add those other funny bits you thought of whilst on the loo. if by this point its not quite working save it and come back another day to try again. finally pop back at 5 to add finishing touches and the amazing headline that came to you and copy and paste it. Press send.
Suddenly you will have the best piece you could have that others will like. It would possibly have grown from 100 words to a full FP piece. The more you do it the easier it will become and the quicker you'll drop the rubbish stuff. Soon people may even be pleased to see your name in the board and look forward to reading it.
Blaming no stars in the voting system is silly. It because people aren't inspired to give 5 stars. Make them laugh and you will get stars and comments
Posted 11 months ago # -
Des Custard
offlineMemberGolgo - that is so consistently perfect (especially the 4* explanation) that if you posted it as a sub I would give it five stars. But then I might be accused of cronyism and someone would give it 2 stars, yielding a rare 3.5 star rating.
Posted 11 months ago # -
A piece of friendly advice Ben; you haven’t quite got to grips with the format of what a headline should look like. The headline needs to contain the essence of the joke. The best stories have a headline that could stand alone as a one-liner and the rest of the sub then builds on the headline.
You seem to have posted quite a lot of subs that haven’t been met with an overwhelmingly positive reception, so there’s a chance that people will see a headline that doesn’t include a joke, see your name against it, and not bother reading it, hence no stars. The headline needs to draw them in and make them want to read the rest.
And 1 star is definitely worse than no stars. I quite often read subs without logging in so I can’t give stars. I will then only log in if something is good and warrants stars, or so bad it is worth making the effort to log in just to give it 1 star.
The stars are completely irrelevant for what gets used though anyway. Plenty of stuff makes the FP without any stars or comments. The Mike Tyson piece was left to sink without trace on the board but was used on the FP, ended up so popular it kept crashing the site, and I would guess is quite possibly the most read story the site has ever had.
Posted 11 months ago # -
10 stars for Golgo's explanation.
For a few months after joining NB, I assumed that references to people awarding themselves 5 stars were to people who had used a friend / alternate log in to award stars.
I totally didn't realise you could do it yourself (still talking about stars here).
Posted 11 months ago # -
Lucy4
offlineMemberScoring with pretty yellow stars is close to meaningless without knowing how many have made the huge effort to decide between the 5 options and click the mouse. I'd guess that the majority of 5 stars on here are from one vote and I can't believe that anyone would want 5 stars if they were from that slut Sugartits.
As for the several who give themselves 5 stars. That's the equivalent of watching Julia Bradbury panting up a Lakeland fell on the telly while sitting on the sofa, scoffing a packet of bourbons and shaking your pedometer to get it up to the 10,000 steps.Posted 11 months ago # -
The All New Jeni B
offlineMemberAnd perspiration?
Posted 11 months ago # -
charlies_hat
offlineMemberWhen I went Julia Bradbury Panting all I got was arrested. I had to walk for ages to get to her house.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Brenda SugarTits69
offlineMember@Lucy4 : Oh, so having spontaneous group love-making sessions with strangers on a regular basis makes you a slut now does it?
I suppose you'd rather I went around wearing a burqa, because that's effectively what you're saying.It reminds me of the time I was in Saudi Arabia back in my oil refinery engineering days. I was in the lobby of my hotel, reading through the English-language newspapers, when a woman in a black burqa walked by, brushing gently against my arm.
The stroke of the fine fabric on my skin sent tingles through my body, as I looked up and my eyes met hers, poking out above her niqab. I could tell she was my type...
etc...
Posted 11 months ago # -
beau-jolly
offlineMember@ Rikkor. I laughed aloud. I think I'm finally getting it.
I actually wrote something (about beer duty) a few days ago. It sank without a trace and I was seriously tempted to bump it just in case it was good but everyone had missed it. In retrospect it was shite, slightly racist (if you count Welsh) and had two poorly delivered punch lines. I think people were being very kind in ignoring it. (I thought the first line was pretty fair though and based on fact -ish)
@ Golgo.
You missed out this:
0 stars
i) Put a link to it (like this) on a thread in the chat room hoping people will revisit it.Posted 11 months ago # -
The All New Jeni B
offlineMemberBj - sneaky.
Posted 11 months ago # -
Lucy4
offlineMemberSugartits, I never called you a slut. Hang on, yes I did. Oh well, no offence.
I wouldn't suggest for a moment that you hide your voluptuous frame beneath the amorphous covering of a burqa though I feel sure you would look just as gorgeous if you decided to wear a black plastic bin liner over your head. By way of an olive branch here's a friendly word of advice, my dear: chocolates look by far the tastier for being in a pretty box. Have you got a pretty box my lovie?
I do so hate it when folk are being judgmental and we working girls should stick together. We are just ordinary working girls after all, are we not. Me with my selfless dedication to the orphans and you with whatever it is you get up to after dark.
We must get together for coffee and an exchange of knitting patterns one of these days.
Posted 11 months ago # -
beau-jolly
offlineMemberand whoever just slipped it 5 stars. Well thanks you so much! Now I look like a right cnut. I'll have to repeatedly 1 star myself.
Posted 11 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.