Quoting:


I could always create a password requried voting system, in addition to the unregistered vote system, and give more weight to those votes. It may not prevent people from creating multiple accounts, but it would certainly make it harder.
End Quote

Quoting:
...doing it by quantity is going to continue to encourage quantity.
End Quote

That pretty much summons up the problem. There are so many new parodies coming in each day that one haven´t got the time to read them all, and I can only try to imagine what it must be like for Chucky, having to go through them all.

As for where the line to the Top Submitters Club should be and how their part of the authors list should be displayed, maybe that should be discussed as two separate things. Since I started this debate I think it´s my responsibility to try to untangle them. :)

First the line being 25 or 100: Maybe it´s not a big problem, but the phenomenon of rushing it to 25 does exist. I did it myself once I had passed 17-18, others have admitted that they did it, and it seems to me that there´s a couple of names in hot persuit practically every week. (Some are good, some are less good, but either way it becomes part of the quantity submission thingie). Though the way I see it (and I may be wrong on this, despite my quote on the left I´m ready to admit that) there´s a big difference between 25 and 100. I don´t think any newbie would rush it to 100. If they tried, it would most likely (and increasingly) lower the quality of their parodies so much that once they got up to 100 noone would bother to read´em or vote anymore. It would be contraproductive.

As for the displayed order among the writers in the Top Submitters Club: Tong and Higgins are both excellent writers then they go for quality, but having the two of them on constant top is, in my opinion, as boring to watch as golf was during the two first years of  Tiger Wood´s dominance. Heck, it might even be as bad for THEIR OWN ratings as it is for the homefront popularity of Bush and Blair to be on top of the ”Most important persons in Iraq” list. ;-)

Maybe my idea about having them displayed as equals with ”100+” or ”>100” instead of their quantity achievement could be combined with Claude´s about having the order among them varied randomly. At least until a ”quality” way to do it comes up. I initially thought that their number of parodies within the Marathon list for overall could be used as such, but you´re probably right about that still being an incentive for quantity rather than quality. Maybe a lesser incentive than the current one though?

Quoting:

First the line being 25 or 100: Maybe it´s not a big problem, but the phenomenon of rushing it to 25 does exist. I did it myself once I had passed 17-18, others have admitted that they did it, and it seems to me that there´s a couple of names in hot persuit practically every week. (Some are good, some are less good, but either way it becomes part of the quantity submission thingie). Though the way I see it (and I may be wrong on this, despite my quote on the left I´m ready to admit that) there´s a big difference between 25 and 100. I don´t think any newbie would rush it to 100. If they tried, it would most likely (and increasingly) lower the quality of their parodies so much that once they got up to 100 noone would bother to read´em or vote anymore. It would be contraproductive.

End Quote

My .02 (some of it repeated from Claude's monkey house)

Whatever it is that makes some individuals see that line as a goal or challenge exists in those individuals, not in the position or existence of the line, itself.  Moving the line will not alter how they see it.  Even removing it will serve only to shift their focus to other goals of a similar nature -- most parodies about toe jam or to "Sk8er Boi" (anything but that!)  or most on the new parodies list each day, etc.  

All writers set seemingly silly little goals and challenges for themselves.  I like to call mine "writing exercises" because it sounds more professional than calling them "Fred."  Too, writers are compelled to write, we are, thus, prolific by nature.  100 parodies is a lot if you're in some measure of writer's block, busy writing other things or just plain busy.  But, when you're on a roll, 100 is a breeze and not only is some of your best stuff likely to come out of that "roll," the more you write, the more you *sharpen* your writing claws.  (That's assuming we're not talking about someone who's just joining the club long enough to get in the yearbook, so to speak.)

Yes, 100 would be a daunting goal for some.  It could even be discouraging to a select few newbies who think it's important to reach the line and decide not to submit, at all, because they believe they'll never be top submitters.  

But, for those who feel they must cross that line and are determined to do so, 100 is just as easily reached as 25.  Goals of submitting 25 in a week might become goals of submitting 100 in a month.   Five parodies per day for five days might become five per day for twenty.  Neither of those goals is unrealistic or difficult to achieve, given the free time and inclination to pursue them.  In fact, five pages of submission-quality new material a day is a typical writer's discipline and a good habit for novice writers to establish.  

As to quality, you can't ensure professional quality without discouraging writers (particularly novice writers) from submitting on the hopes of receiving helpful advice and critique from fellow writers... that's more valuable than triple fives, any day, in my book.   Those few who submit the absolute worst stuff, (assuming they aren't very young school children,)  aren't "top submitters" and probably know their submissions suck and don't care if they get a hundred triple ones votes or just their own triple 5s vote.  Their motivations for submitting differ greatly from mine or yours.  

As for the authors list, itself, somebody's name has to be listed first and some method of sorting has to be chosen.  I don't see that Will Tong has been "hogging" the top spot on that list any more than Aaron A. Aarons has been hogging the first residential listing in the local phone book.   If Chucky had chosen to list names alphabetically, there'd probably be more author names beginning with whichever keyboard character has the lowest value.  If he listed by number of votes or voting averages, we'd get more ones guys and voter fraud.  Etc.  

Again, the above is just my .02  
 

Quoting:
That's not to say that the people who churn out dozens of parodies a day suck or anything.  Just our preference is not to half-@$$ it and sacrifice quality for quantity.
End Quote

That's my view, too: I've got a couple of dozen (probably more) part-complete parodies which I haven't had enough good ideas to put in them, or there'd be gaping holes in.. it's easy enough to fill enough matching words to pretty much any song if you want to churn them out quickly, but creativity is finite, and much more limited than word-mangling.

There's quite a few new authors who started with some fairly poor attempts, but have improved an awesome amount - you can't discourage someone from writing because their first one, two or even ten parodies are not up to scratch (even if you can get an objective view of what constitutes "up to scratch").

I think Melhi put it very well with regard to parody authors aiming for whatever target is set, either by themselves or site-related ones like the 25-parody bar.

On reflection, one statistic that might be interesting is a "votes per hit" percentage - if a page is visited 00s of times, but only gets a few votes; or if everyone who looks at the page votes on it... now that would be a difficult target to hit intentionally

Phil

Quoting:
Five parodies per day for five days might become five per day for twenty.  Neither of those goals is unrealistic or difficult to achieve, given the free time and inclination to pursue them.  In fact, five pages of submission-quality new material a day is a typical writer's discipline and a good habit for novice writers to establish.End Quote

Let it never be said that I don´t give kudos to a well phrased argument from someone who doesn´t agree with me. ;)

I also agree with the argument that some of ones best work can come out of a on-the-roll-phase. Been there, done that, hopefully doing it again someday. However, I have also learnt to restrain myself during those periods. What should go public and what should not is best left to decide later. ::)

But yours and my personal experiences are beside the point. Anyone will agree with us that feedback is valuable, both for those who are newbies and for those who have been writing stuff for years.

In theory, it wouldn´t be a problem with more than 10 000 new parodies a day, if Chucky had an unlimited amount of time to go through them, and if every submitting author felt that they were getting the kind of feedback they´d benefit from. I´m quite happy with my deal and the way my votes are slowly increasing, but since everyone apparently isn´t, I think these issues are worth to bring up. There might be a super-duper solution idea out there, just waiting for a chance to jump into someone´s head and via their fingers make its way here.

BTW: You may call your writing exercises ”Writing exercises” and not ”Fred”. But I call those of mine for ”Justin”… ”Justin Case”.  ;)

Quoting:


Let it never be said that I don´t give kudos to a well phrased argument from someone who doesn´t agree with me. ;)

I also agree with the argument that some of ones best work can come out of a on-the-roll-phase. Been there, done that, hopefully doing it again someday. However, I have also learnt to restrain myself during those periods. What should go public and what should not is best left to decide later. ::)


End Quote

No counterpoint from me, this time -- I couldn't agree with you more!  (On all points in your response, not just those quoted, above.)   I thought your point was equally well-stated, btw.

Quoting:

In theory, it wouldn´t be a problem with more than 10 000 new parodies a day,

End Quote

10,000?!   Yipes!  That's a scary thought even to someone who is NOT forced to read all of them!!   :)   Let's hope, for Chucky's sake, that it never gets to that point, eh?  

Quoting:
You know man, I can't agree with you more.  Quantity over quality SUCKS.  I'm all about the quality issue man.  I mean, some people like Guy DiRito do a great job at doing a truckload of good parodies at once, but William Tong has ceased to amaze me a long time ago, and not just because he can't think of a single damn thing to write about besides the Republican regime.  You know, if you're going to put out a parody for people to read, at least make some effort to make it halfway decent.  You know who you people are...cough cough...TJ Spindler...cough cough.  I'm glad that somebody brought up this point, it's certainly worth talking about.
End Quote

Quoting:

What are you trying to prove here man?  I know all of your parodies aren't exactly the same.  But don't deny that you keep writing about George W. Bush OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again.  If I had to write about the same person 50 million times I probably would have strangled myself to death by now with my shoelaces.  If you're going to be such a big man on campus about your work, why don't you actually authorize comments for once and let people say what they think of your songs, so I don't have to speak for all of them?  Hah, a pathetic partisan attempt.  Maybe a little partisan, but not pathetic.  We're not all political enthusiasts you know.  We appreciate reading something else for a change besides "Bush is an idiot."  Look at Weird Al.  His success is measured by his range and his comedy.  He can write about almost anything, and he never repeats the same subject.  I doubt I could say the same for you, based on the work I've read of yours.
 
End Quote

Will's latest few parodies deal with the RIAA, and do have comments enabled.  The reason Will doesn't enable comments on his political parodies, is because we all know the kind of comments he will get, which are going to mostly be attack style comments.

and in Will's defence, he stated that he's written about other leading Republican figures, and you stated once again that all he writes about is George Bush.. since Will has been submitting here longer than the current Bush is in power, (and writing even longer than that), it's quite unlikely that all he writes about is about the Bush's..

and to everyone in general.. let's not get too argumentive in the this thread..  plus this is off topic for this particular thread anyways...

Quoting:
Sorry Tong, looks like you've got us Jared's mixed up.  I, Jared with a last name, never posted a parody about you or anybody else on this site.  That was probably "Jared."  (Not me, Jared Lerner).  As for your comment....

The "Republican regime"?  That's a pathetic, partisan attempt to minimize an entire genera of satire and parody.  A Bush parody is not the same as a Cheney parody, nor the same as a Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter parody

What are you trying to prove here man?  I know all of your parodies aren't exactly the same.  But don't deny that you keep writing about George W. Bush OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again.  If I had to write about the same person 50 million times I probably would have strangled myself to death by now with my shoelaces.  If you're going to be such a big man on campus about your work, why don't you actually authorize comments for once and let people say what they think of your songs, so I don't have to speak for all of them?  Hah, a pathetic partisan attempt.  Maybe a little partisan, but not pathetic.  We're not all political enthusiasts you know.  We appreciate reading something else for a change besides "Bush is an idiot."  Look at Weird Al.  His success is measured by his range and his comedy.  He can write about almost anything, and he never repeats the same subject.  I doubt I could say the same for you, based on the work I've read of yours.
 
End Quote