Jatta Pake Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Fujis and I regularly talk about how we can make MMHQ better, and we've discussed ideas like a humor tag at length. Actually, we've discussed the Categories as a whole and if there were ways to make them better. In short, yes, there are many things we are planning to do to make MMHQ better. I took the day off today so I can address the long list of things that have been neglected on my part. I will provide a more detailed round up later this afternoon about some of the upcoming changes. In the meantime, please vote and let us know YOUR thoughts. (And thank you to all that have already responded!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fujis Posted November 9, 2006 Author Share Posted November 9, 2006 Ok so maybe I should have added humor tags It was 90% said in jest.... although it does accidentally prove the humor and subjectivity thing. It touched a nerve with you and I thought it was a funny aside. As for the hits thing yep it's irrelevent to me but was part of the joke, I know you're having a rough day but lightenup, you asked for our thoughts and we're giving them, I thought it would add some lightness to a fairly dark thread. T. Sorry I overreacted, I am taking this discussion personally since it is regarding my work. But a poignant example for the need for tags or clarification, nonetheless. I am not CC - I wouldn't be criticizing my own work and I would like to think that the HQ doesn't need publicity and if it did, we could come up with something better. Hopefully CC will follow the link from the HQ and join the discussion...but as JP said, thanks for all of your comments. This is all in the hopes that we can improve the HQ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadpool Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Man, this is long... To say my opinion simply, no. I've got a whole, long-winded explination, but there is others stuff here to read, so maybe I'll rant later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurch77 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 When in doubt if what you write will be considered funny ... post a picture of monkeys *********Humor Tag********* I'm Lurch, and I approve this post! *********Humor Tag********* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jatta Pake Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Just a quick follow-up to everyone: As many of you know, Fujis and I work on MMHQ purely out of our own passion for the hobby and desire to contribute to the community that has developed around the on-line collectors of Minimates. The website is a drain on my bank account, and Fujis receives no compensation for his valiant contribution in the form of ideas, articles, and other work. His work is not to be minimized, I consider him a partner and we collaborate on so many aspects of the blog that it is difficult to see where one starts and the other stops. Fujis has also become my editor, cleaning up my work and making it readable after I haphazardly post it! Although ads appear on the website, not a single one has generated any money. My hope was to eventually generate enough pesos to cover the monthly hosting fees, but for those who don't know how these things work, they don't generate any payouts until you earn a certain amount. By my calculations, I will receive a Google AdSense check in 2034 for $100.00. Whoopity do! But let me be clear, I never started MMHQ to make money and I always knew it would be a money drain. I don't care because I have so much fun doing it. I constantly set challenges for myselft to improve and I work hard to meet them. Same with Fujis. Although we strive hard to increase the traffic to the site, we do so because we want to share the goodness that is Minimates with the world. We do frequently try stunts to get ourselves out there - I like to think I helped spur the dialogue with the Stikfas world - but the goal is not to subtract from the Minimates world but to add to it. The Stikfas fans have definitely done that for me, their customizing artwork is simply amazing. I never realized how good they were until I delved deeper into that world. Also, Captain Concerned is not our invention. I should thank him for driving traffic to MMHQ, though, because our hits have jumped! Fujis and I are sensitive to what we put out on the blog. Our articles are never intended to confuse but given the global nature of the Internet, I am certain some things resonate in one place better than others. The problem is that when we stick to a fact only format, the work bores us and I assume some readers as well. A lot of people come to MMHQ for fact based news and we don't want to abuse that trust. But at the same time, we want to have fun and entertain. If you watch the local news broadcasts in Los Angeles, you will be hard pressed to seperate the news from the entertainment. The weather girls are half naked, the newscasts are full of idiotic commentary, and the line between fact and fiction is often blurred. I'm not saying this trend is good, but it is a trend my little part of the world. Unfortunately, I sometimes slip into that same Info-tainment sort of perspective that I know doesn't exist in more rational parts of the United States. I guess you can call it my cultural bias. Finally, this won't be the last word on the subject. Fujis and I love good feedback and we hate criticism. So we are working on a plan to eliminate the annoying features of MMHQ and make it a place you want to come to for fun stuff about Minimates. In the end we may not be able to please everyone, but I don't ever seeing MMHQ having "an end". It has always been a work in progress. Thank you all for enjoying the ride so far, and stay tuned for future improvements soon. Our one year anniversary approaches so I want to make sure we are good to go! (Did I say this would be a quick follow-up?) MONKEYS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newaddict Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I know this has been explored at length already, but I wanted to put forth my two cents since this was an interesting situation. I myself am undecided. I truthfully read the article and found it to be funny as I believe it was intended. However I also know that where ever you go and whatever you do, there will always be people who are critical of it. That's not always a bad thing, since everyone seems to realize that criticism, when constructive, can lead to new and better innovations and possibilities. That being said, I must also say that since 'mates are officially considered a "toy" and therefore theoretically for children, something like the article in question may be viewed by a less matured and sensible audience. So perhaps not so much a humor tag, but maybe an article rating in case there is some humor or commentary which may be seen as offensive to younger viewers? Like I said, this has been explored at length and probably will continue on after this point, but I would like to say that I found the article funny and will continue to visit MMHQ for some time to come. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Not sure exactly what is meant 'tag' in this instance, since it can be done in so many ways. If you mean to say that it would say 'humor' right in the title or thereabouts, that would be great, or some other very clear distinction. I almost think a 'humor' tag isn't enough; (depending on how it was done) the ones who would even notice such a tag are probably already able to figure it out themselves (admittedly, it takes me a couple of read-throughs to 'get it'). One other solution would be to fork the the blog between the news and the humor. There should be a method to aggregate the two into a single 'page' for those that want it all. Barring that, more clearly distinguishing the humor from the rest via a different color-scheme might help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadpool Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 I vote yes as well, I can tell most of the time but sometimes things seem obscure. I'll have to say that the article really seemed to be serious. And again, that's what I thought was funny about it. In my opinion, telling someone what they are about to read is "funny" makes it not. But thanks for all of your feedback guys, it's really appreciated. See, I agree with Fujis. If you add obvious humor, it takes away the fun of being written as humor, but presented seriously. Like the Zombie Survival Guide, a book all about surviving zombie attacks. And it stays dead serious the whole time. Not once does it say that zombies aren't real. That's what makes your articles good. Maybe simply a comment that says "HUMOROUS ARTICLE, DO NOT TAKE SERIOUSLY"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBT! Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 See, I agree with Fujis. If you add obvious humor, it takes away the fun of being written as humor, but presented seriously. Like the Zombie Survival Guide, a book all about surviving zombie attacks. And it stays dead serious the whole time. Not once does it say that zombies aren't real. That's what makes your articles good. Maybe simply a comment that says "HUMOROUS ARTICLE, DO NOT TAKE SERIOUSLY"? I disagree, someone picking up a book about zombies (BTW I own Z.S.G. great book) is coming in knowing that zombies arent real and there is nothing being presented at the same time that is really 'real'. However MMHQ is giving an mixture of fact and fiction, the issue arises when the lines are blurred and people cannot easily distinguish the two. I actually like Kirby's idea of seperating out the two into different sections. T. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadpool Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 See, I agree with Fujis. If you add obvious humor, it takes away the fun of being written as humor, but presented seriously. Like the Zombie Survival Guide, a book all about surviving zombie attacks. And it stays dead serious the whole time. Not once does it say that zombies aren't real. That's what makes your articles good. Maybe simply a comment that says "HUMOROUS ARTICLE, DO NOT TAKE SERIOUSLY"? I disagree, someone picking up a book about zombies (BTW I own Z.S.G. great book) is coming in knowing that zombies arent real and there is nothing being presented at the same time that is really 'real'. However MMHQ is giving an mixture of fact and fiction, the issue arises when the lines are blurred and people cannot easily distinguish the two. I actually like Kirby's idea of seperating out the two into different sections. T. Even then, if you read the article, all it says is they should try it. At worst, people think Fujis wants to see hot women with minimates, and I'm sure he does. Splitting the site would take away from the humor. I think a comment could do the trick, or maybe a small disclamer at the top of the page saying "Many articles are supposed to be humorous. Please do not take them too seriously." Would that work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fujis Posted November 10, 2006 Author Share Posted November 10, 2006 I disagree, someone picking up a book about zombies (BTW I own Z.S.G. great book) is coming in knowing that zombies arent real and there is nothing being presented at the same time that is really 'real'. However MMHQ is giving an mixture of fact and fiction, the issue arises when the lines are blurred and people cannot easily distinguish the two. I actually like Kirby's idea of seperating out the two into different sections. T. I like Kirby's idea as well although I disagree that we blur the lines between which articles are 'fact' and which articles are 'fiction'. The fact-based ones, as I mentioned, always have links either here or to other sites where the news broke or what have you as well as the relevant info, the 'fiction' articles or the ones that have no basis other than entertainment don't usually go anywhere, literally and figuratively. I have never misrepresented the 'facts' which I would consider to be things like release dates or other pertinent info. And again, if by the end of the article the started this whole debate you are unsure of whether I am serious or not - what does it matter? I have not mislead anyone into believing something that is untrue, I have simply taken a picture and written an article based on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadpool Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 I disagree, someone picking up a book about zombies (BTW I own Z.S.G. great book) is coming in knowing that zombies arent real and there is nothing being presented at the same time that is really 'real'. However MMHQ is giving an mixture of fact and fiction, the issue arises when the lines are blurred and people cannot easily distinguish the two. I actually like Kirby's idea of seperating out the two into different sections. T. I like Kirby's idea as well although I disagree that we blur the lines between which articles are 'fact' and which articles are 'fiction'. The fact-based ones, as I mentioned, always have links either here or to other sites where the news broke or what have you as well as the relevant info, the 'fiction' articles or the ones that have no basis other than entertainment don't usually go anywhere, literally and figuratively. I have never misrepresented the 'facts' which I would consider to be things like release dates or other pertinent info. And again, if by the end of the article the started this whole debate you are unsure of whether I am serious or not - what does it matter? I have not mislead anyone into believing something that is untrue, I have simply taken a picture and written an article based on it. Hey, I have another idea! Put a disclamer saying that all real news will have a link to where it came from! Whatever you do, I'm going to stop for a second and say two things. 1. Thanks for MMHQ. I love the site, and have never stopped to say that. 2. What happened to JP and Friends? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBT! Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Even then, if you read the article, all it says is they should try it. At worst, people think Fujis wants to see hot women with minimates, and I'm sure he does. Splitting the site would take away from the humor. I think a comment could do the trick, or maybe a small disclamer at the top of the page saying "Many articles are supposed to be humorous. Please do not take them too seriously." Would that work? Perhaps...The problem to me lies in mixing genres, infotainment was used to describe this ( BTW I despise that word). Every example of the humor that's presented seriously has been from a humor only source ( the zombie guide for example) or somewhere that does a much better job of seperating fact from fiction. You think it's ok but you're already in on the joke, how many new people come to the site without that preconception? I still feel 'if you were watching the news and they said the president has been shot, then you trust it's for real and not just the newsreaders having a bit of fun.' If however you were watching Sat nite live and they said the president has been shot then you know what to expect because of the context. I think most of us agree that the problem lies in simply letting people know if they are hearing news/fact or fiction, how that's done is symantics for MMHQ to sort out. T. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadpool Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Even then, if you read the article, all it says is they should try it. At worst, people think Fujis wants to see hot women with minimates, and I'm sure he does. Splitting the site would take away from the humor. I think a comment could do the trick, or maybe a small disclamer at the top of the page saying "Many articles are supposed to be humorous. Please do not take them too seriously." Would that work? Perhaps...The problem to me lies in mixing genres, infotainment was used to describe this ( BTW I despise that word). Every example of the humor that's presented seriously has been from a humor only source ( the zombie guide for example) or somewhere that does a much better job of seperating fact from fiction. You think it's ok but you're already in on the joke, how many new people come to the site without that preconception? I still feel 'if you were watching the news and they said the president has been shot, then you trust it's for real and not just the newsreaders having a bit of fun.' If however you were watching Sat nite live and they said the president has been shot then you know what to expect because of the context. I think most of us agree that the problem lies in simply letting people know if they are hearing news/fact or fiction, how that's done is symantics for MMHQ to sort out. T. Lets be fair here though: The news rarely, if ever, has humourous(is that how you spell it in England? ) reports. MMHQ, on the other hand, has all sorts of funny stuff. While it's possible for a random Googler to find it and be a little confused, I think most people who read it have read a lot, and know what to expect. If AA's site were to have that article, than it would be confusing. Heck, if Danny's news page had it it'd be confusing. But the HQ has had humor, has it, and will continue to have it. It's just a matter of reading carefully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBT! Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Lets be fair here though: The news rarely, if ever, has humourous(is that how you spell it in England? ) reports. MMHQ, on the other hand, has all sorts of funny stuff. While it's possible for a random Googler to find it and be a little confused, I think most people who read it have read a lot, and know what to expect. If AA's site were to have that article, than it would be confusing. Heck, if Danny's news page had it it'd be confusing. But the HQ has had humor, has it, and will continue to have it. It's just a matter of reading carefully. But isn't that still the point, something well written shouldn't assume the reader is going to 'read carefully?' especially on the internet where, lets be honest we dont always get the sharpest tools. I'm not sure how I dragged myself into this debate but yes I'm kinda playing devils advocate a little. It seems to me that a 16 to 2 (+2 unsure)vote of "people who are in your 'in the know' group" saying the current way of doing it is confusing seems like a fairly clear indidcator that it's not working. I'm just trying to help understand why it's confusing. T. p.s. that's how we spell humourous in California, esp when we dont have a spell check and cant be assed to double check... If in doubt throw in lots of extra U's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadpool Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Lets be fair here though: The news rarely, if ever, has humourous(is that how you spell it in England? ) reports. MMHQ, on the other hand, has all sorts of funny stuff. While it's possible for a random Googler to find it and be a little confused, I think most people who read it have read a lot, and know what to expect. If AA's site were to have that article, than it would be confusing. Heck, if Danny's news page had it it'd be confusing. But the HQ has had humor, has it, and will continue to have it. It's just a matter of reading carefully. But isn't that still the point, something well written shouldn't assume the reader is going to 'read carefully?' especially on the internet where, lets be honest we dont always get the sharpest tools. I'm not sure how I dragged myself into this debate but yes I'm kinda playing devils advocate a little. It seems to me that a 16 to 2 (+2 unsure)vote of "people who are in your 'in the know' group" saying the current way of doing it is confusing seems like a fairly clear indidcator that it's not working. I'm just trying to help understand why it's confusing. T. p.s. that's how we spell humourous in California, esp when we dont have a spell check and cant be assed to double check... That's ok. I suppose I AM outnumbered. Anyway, it's up to JP and Fujis. See you later! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fujis Posted November 10, 2006 Author Share Posted November 10, 2006 I still feel 'if you were watching the news and they said the president has been shot, then you trust it's for real and not just the newsreaders having a bit of fun.' If however you were watching Sat nite live and they said the president has been shot then you know what to expect because of the context. This is a great analogy and if Timbo doesn't mind I'm going to steal it to explain my position. There are official websites like Art Asylum and Diamond Select Toys who report strictly on the news, and are completely boring and devoid of entertainment. And then there are fan-based websites, like MMHQ, that are like Saturday Night Live. Now I am not comparing the calibre of comedic writing, far from it, but it I believe it people understand the context in which we present material. Fan-based sites or blogs by their very nature are subjective and if and when they present actual news it should be abundantly clear. I thought I was making that distinction but again, as Timbo said, the results speak for themselves. Thank you all for your comments though, they have been helpful and informative. What I do find interesting is that Capt. Concerned who was so vocal in the comments section has fallen silent... And incidentally, JP1000 & Friends is returning very shortly. I think most of us agree that the problem lies in simply letting people know if they are hearing news/fact or fiction, how that's done is symantics for MMHQ to sort out. An excellent and succinct point. Hopefully we can sort it out quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reideen1313 Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Late to the party as usual... I voted yes, simply because of the fact that some of the articles have kept me gussing until the end - the Star Wars one in particular comes to mind. It was an extremely well written article with photo documentation and it totally pulled me in for a time. Not that this is a bad thing in any way mind you. I think it's a testament to your writing Fujis if even some of the people who should be 'in the know' are questioning some of your articles and believing/hoping they're true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdyCarter Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Thank you all for your comments though, they have been helpful and informative. What I do find interesting is that Capt. Concerned who was so vocal in the comments section has fallen silent... Fears my wrath.... we all know what nastyness I can do with just an IP, either that or they be really shy? I must say this poll results have surprised me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fujis Posted November 10, 2006 Author Share Posted November 10, 2006 I must say this poll results have surprised me. I am surprised as well but glad that we can make an easy change that will improve MMHQ's appeal. Thank you once again to everyone that participated in this discussion. JP and I have discussed everyone's suggestions and the solution that we have come to is the implementation of an 'EDITORIAL' tag or category. People's points about contextualizing the articles made me think about the subdivisions of a newspaper. And like Timbo said, if you read about the President being shot in the News section you'd be concerned (or maybe you wouldn't), but if you read that he had been shot in the Comics section you'd know it was a joke, or at least an attempt at one. Context is everything. By definition an 'Editorial' is an article in a publication which expresses the opinion of the editors or publishers. We feel that this describes our non fact-based work quite well. What do you guys think? Would that help clarify the situation and contexualize the articles in a manner that would be less confusing and perhaps more accessible to the casual reader? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdyCarter Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 By definition an 'Editorial' is an article in a publication which expresses the opinion of the editors or publishers. We feel that this describes our non fact-based work quite well. What do you guys think? Would that help clarify the situation and contexualize the articles in a manner that would be less confusing and perhaps more accessible to the casual reader? As long as if people debate your opinion they aren't told its a joke then yes, I kinda cant see how the articles would be any less confusing if they were editorials but thats just me, anyways as millions of people have said, its your site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jatta Pake Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 I will tell anyone who debates me that THEY are the joke. -Overlord Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marquis de Carabas Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 I voted yes, purely based on the fact that some people don't pick up easily on an intended tone, or a subtle sense of sarcasm. I am fairly astute at picking up on these, but others are not... and chaos ensues. thus, I vote "yes" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cappy Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 Okay, first off, I have not read this whole thread, so eager am I to voice this: Whatever you do, Fujis, do NOT change your writing style. I like it. In fact, I've learned to assume everything you write is tongue-in-cheek, so I didn't even vote because I assumed it was a gag poll. :eek: Now, two follow-up points: 1) If you tag your work (which you're not going to change) as "humor", that's okay, but don't let it interfere with the articles. I can see how it would be a benefit to you: such a clarification lets a certain percentage of your readership get over that stumbling block and enjoy the text. And please something a bit more sophisticated that "laugh now" tags. Maybe categorize them as "The World According to Fujis" or some such. 2) There are some carefully thought-out critiques in this thread. If you ever feel the need to improve a bit, it's worth considering them. Since you do this as a hobby, there's nothing wrong with the writing you're already putting out and no need requirement to improve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.