Comments on: Is it OK to post a yearly best/worst of every year?

Is it OK to post a yearly best/worst of every year?

edgeways — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:33:45 -0800

Just a general question, not a call out per se.
Are annual events ok to post to each time they occur?
Question prompted by the latest 50 loathsome New Yorkers thread. I flagged and mentioned it in the thread as being a double from last year, then Arch Stanton mentioned it was run here in 2003 as well.
Does this mean I can repost Geek Prom, because, you know, its next year already. (don't worry it will not be a FPP, just making a point)

By: puke & cry

puke & cry — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:39:46 -0800

it's different this time, right? Besides, someone's going to post it anyway.

By: Plutor

Plutor — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:43:24 -0800

Damnit, I wish it had been a year since the last time this was asked. Then it would be so deliciously ironic. As it is, this is an unwarranted dupe, based on our rigid unyeilding rules. Delete!

By: edgeways

edgeways — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:44:41 -0800

fine, fine delete. Whatever.

sorry its = it is

By: Plutor

Plutor — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:46:26 -0800

I was being sarcastic about the call for deletion. Mostly.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:57:38 -0800

For stuff that is worthy of a post, it's ok. That one bad writing contest gets posted here every year (something like button-something) and I think it's just fine.

By: fire&wings

fire&wings — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:04:52 -0800

The fact that the post is of regional relevance is more depressing than the fact is has been posted yearly. No wait, it gets exponentially more depressing. Can anyone link to their local newspaper's latest boring website story via a single link post? I'm not complaining actually, it's easier just not to read it.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:10:23 -0800

It's not a regional, boring thing. It's a humorous look at fairly major celebrities in the most famous city in the world.

By: Stan Chin

Stan Chin — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:20:08 -0800

My god you people are getting dumber.

By: sachinag

sachinag — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:20:33 -0800

I say Paris is more famous, if only because there's a Paris, IL and Paris, TX (among others). Although I suppose that would make Sandwich, IL a pretty famous city. I hear that word a lot.

As a recovering NYer, it's certainly regional and the NYPress does a damn fine job of making it boring.

By: fire&wings

fire&wings — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:24:02 -0800

Fairly major American celebrities in what Americans probably consider the most famous city in the world. It was regional and boring to me. However I understand that I am in the minority and posts like this are fine as long as people from New York outnumber others.

By: anapestic

anapestic — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:30:29 -0800

It's not a regional, boring thing. It's a humorous look at fairly major celebrities in the most famous city in the world.

I don't see how those two characterizations are in any way, shape or form mutually exclusive. Also, calling at least half of the people on that list "fairly major celebrities" is a huge stretch for people not living in New York.

By: HuronBob

HuronBob — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:30:43 -0800

I read it, I'm not from New York...by the end, I couldn't care less...

I vote boring as well...

By: Secret Life of Gravy

Secret Life of Gravy — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:34:01 -0800

I'm not from NY--I've never even visited NY--But I still read the entire thing. There were some amusing bits and some bits were informative. But what do I know? I'm not from NY!

By: fixedgear

fixedgear — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:36:22 -0800

It's not a regional, boring thing. It's a humorous look at fairly major celebrities in the most famous city in the world.

Really? The Olsen twins and Mr. Kim, the video store owner? Their recognizability factor(s) must be off the charts.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:37:52 -0800

The pitchfork 50 worst albums of the year that comes out every year is something I'd rank in the same genre of the new york list. Funny and interesting to me, maybe lame and pointless to you, but perfectly fine to post on mefi if someone likes it enough to post about it.

By: fire&wings

fire&wings — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:48:24 -0800

Aren't things that are posted despite being lame, irrelevant and pointless to some people, and posted for no reason other than the poster likes it enough to post it, GYOFB material?

By: mischief

mischief — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:53:13 -0800

"Mr. Kim, the video store owner?"

Was he on Seinfeld?

By: Doug

Doug — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:49:51 -0800

fire&wings: So you're saying that every post has to appeal to all 20k+ users?

By: gleuschk

gleuschk — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:55:18 -0800

Bulwer-Lytton.

By: scarabic

scarabic — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:59:07 -0800

What are the factors in such a judgment call?

1) How much the content changes each year
2) How interesting it is as a concept, in the first place
3) How exposed it is overall

Something that's well-written / well-shot / well-populated every year to the point where people wait on the edge of their seats for the new iteration = yes.

Something refreshingly novel that breaks the mold or embodies excellence each and every year = yes.

Something that takes place every year but somehow hasn't quite penetrated the popular consciousness and isn't going to be picked up by lots of news/blogosphere sources = yes.

Something that doesn't offer much that's new each year, and is a one-joke haha in the first place, and that's gotten a lot of play = no.

This has been discussed in the past, edgeways, but don't trip. It's a good question and perhaps worth bringing up from time to time. Plutor saw an easy opening and took it, but sweat not. The way this site is sucking up the clueless, we need to have every discussion quarterly anyway.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:33:03 -0800

I, for one, am waiting breathlessly for non-U.S. members to start posting "50 most loathsome" lists from newspapers in their biggest cities.

Seriously.

*turns blue*

By: Mean Mr. Bucket

Mean Mr. Bucket — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 20:52:28 -0800

Well, I didn't know. I didn't know!

By: vacapinta

vacapinta — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 22:37:47 -0800

What are the factors in such a judgment call?

1) How much the content changes each year
2) How interesting it is as a concept, in the first place
3) How exposed it is overall

If it qualifies and has been linked before, is it then ok to remind people a year later by posting your own site?

See Here.

By: Sangermaine

Sangermaine — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 00:38:13 -0800

I think the claim can be safely made that New York is the most famous city in the world. Simply from America's enormous cultural influence via movies, TV, etc, New York is probably more famous than any other. I would bet money that New York's skyline is recognizable by more people around the world than any other city, for the same reasons.

By: the cuban

the cuban — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 03:32:24 -0800

...the most famous city in the world.

What are the criteria for judging this competition?

By: mischief

mischief — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 06:23:47 -0800

We thought Paris was the most famous city.

By: nixerman

nixerman — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 06:50:56 -0800

Paris isn't nearly as famous as NYC. You can blame Hollywood for that.

The story was entertaining.

You guys really need to lighten up.

By: mischief

mischief — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 07:51:33 -0800

"Paris isn't nearly as famous as NYC."

We are doubtful.

By: timeistight

timeistight — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 09:23:46 -0800

...the most famous city in the world.

I think he's using "world" the way baseball uses it: The United States plus Toronto.

By: sachinag

sachinag — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 10:18:39 -0800

Could be worse. Could be used the way the NFL uses it. Or the WWE. (Do they even have a European title anymore?)

By: dhoyt

dhoyt — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 10:22:18 -0800

How'd they limit it to just 50?

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 12:40:04 -0800

And even for the people who are known outside of NYC, their reasons for being on the list only have relevance within a tiny geographic area.

There is just something really interesting about the psychology of people from NYC that they think the rest of the world really cares what their shit smells like.

By: dg

dg — Fri, 01 Apr 2005 18:07:16 -0800

I would bet money that New York's skyline is recognizable by more people around the world than any other city

How much money? What about London, Hong Kong, Sydney, Paris ...

Of course, if we are talking about the world as 'merkins seem to view it (comprising the US and countries with borders contiguous, providing they are friendly to the US this week), perhaps you are right. If you mean the actual world, I suspect that you are mistaken. Don't forget that a sizeable proportion of people have never seen the skyline of New York in real life or by any other means - or did you only count people with TVs?

*quits while he is only slightly behind*