Futurama Ranks

[on:]

Hey hey!

What do you think about those sites that rank Futurama sites?
I think they all suck ass.
For example: Planet Roadcrap used to rank sites in foreign laguages (I mean, not in english) without being able to read those languages (now they have people who CAN read those languages ranking those site).
So, how the hell could they say if a site was good or bad?

A few months ago (2 I think) The Futurama Elite dropped Futurama Chronicles from number 3 I think to number 6 or so, but they kept The Futurama Archive in number 2 or something like that. Anyone with a regular brain knows that the Chronicles is better than the "new" Archive.

The Futurama Oscars (in its old address) made an international section without even reviewing the sites themselves. The descriptions were variations of the ones at PR. And now they have Futurama Latinoamerica at the position number four. I like Futurama Latinoamerica, but, come on man! Are you high or what?
And how can an email and a message board be better than a website?
By email I mean the Futurama Fan-o-rama, which is great, but it's an email. And by message board I mean this MB.

As I said before, I think they all suck ass.

[Reply #1 on:]

Yeah, I work for The Oscars, and I don't agree with their line up either...I should have been there to kick the others in the arses. But I wasn't...
The official Fox site is better than Futuredrama...what are you thinking?

[Reply #2 on:]

yeah, yeah. i'll take all the blame. it was myb idea. (it was 2am in the morning for godsakes!!! i wasn't thinking

[Reply #3 on:]

You could have (bad word) waited until morning!

[Reply #4 on:]

 

Originally posted by Rubender:
Hey hey!

For example: Planet Roadcrap used to rank sites in foreign laguages (I mean, not in english) without being able to read those languages (now they have people who CAN read those languages ranking those site). So, how the hell could they say if a site was good or bad?

Well, I used altavista's translating program to make it English. The main reason I make other people do it is because of the different air dates in other countries. i mean, Spanish sites are going to behind, so, in comparison, they look not up-to-date. I figure someone from that country (not someone who speaks that language only) could do a much better job.

[Reply #5 on:]

   

Originally posted by jbird3000:

Well, I used altavista's translating program to make it English. The main reason I make other people do it is because of the different air dates in other countries. i mean, Spanish sites are going to behind, so, in comparison, they look not up-to-date. I figure someone from that country (not someone who speaks that language only) could do a much better job.

Yeah, and I think the way you do it now it's the right way to do it. I was talking about what you used to do, just as an example.

And Jwso, what a lame excuse!   

Stupid typos....

[This message has been edited by Rubender (edited June 06, 2000).]

[Reply #6 on:]

I will not rank sites then, the Futurama Archive deservers 3 position for what they did in the past. (It makes it much easier for me to not rank  )

[Reply #7 on:]

Lets all talk about my lame excuses later

[Reply #8 on:]

 

Originally posted by kazeri:
I will not rank sites then, the Futurama Archive deservers 3 position for what they did in the past. (It makes it much easier for me to not rank    )

Say what? say what?
Who says the Archives deserves to be in the top 200? They suck now, and it's sad but true.
I don't think a site deserves a good position for what they DID. No one said that.

BTW, what's your site?

[Reply #9 on:]

hey rubender. since your so keen on reviewing sites, (and i think that ur pretty good @ it too) make a new list of the sites that we have, and we'll rearange our list (if it's good) You can send it to jwso@toonsite.net if you wanna do this

[Reply #10 on:]

I can't say that I've always agreed with the rankings these sites give out.  But I do think The Futurama Booth had a good idea:  let the people that actually visit the sites vote on them.  Yes, I think that is a good idea.  A VERY good idea.
Why do I think it's good idea?  Because:
I'M NUMBER ONE!   I'M NUMBER ONE!
I'M NUMBER ONE!   I'M NUMBER ONE!

R Hawks
Futurama Fan Art

[Reply #11 on:]

Hmm, I don't usually visit sites like top fifty or roadcrap...er map... or whatever it is called and stuff like that because I like to think for myself and not be told what to like by people who don't even know what I like. I like that voters idea though, it would be more fair and unbiased like that. I don't know... That's my whackass opinion. 

[Reply #12 on:]

Theres hundred of automatic rank it script sites.

[Reply #13 on:]

I also think that the archive has no place in the top 3 of planet roadcrap as you are all calling it but I say 'live and let rank' it doesn't really matter because we all know that the archive is dead and most other sites are now better. We aren't stupid!

[Reply #14 on:]

 

Originally posted by caped-avenger:
I also think that the archive has no place in the top 3 of planet roadcrap as you are all calling it but I say 'live and let rank' it doesn't really matter because we all know that the archive is dead and most other sites are now better. We aren't stupid!

First off, I don't have top 3. I have categories, the best been Excellent, then Good, then Fair, then Awful.

The Futurama Archive hasn't been in Excellent for a few months now. It hasn't been in Good for about 2 months. Direct your posts to other sites, not Planet Roadcrap, as you affectionately call it.

I don't especially like the voting idea, because it's open to abuse and such. If you visitr toonseek, oyu can see that the voters keep Futurama Archive on top. I like it better "one man's opinion". Any good site will be somewhere near the top. Which is why I don't use numbers. It's too hard to compare, for example, a Fry site to a general site like CGEF.

Basically my ranks are for people not familiar with Futurama sites. Someone who knows their sites won't care what rank I give a site, they know what the sites's about. For that person, I have news and other crap.

[Reply #15 on:]

I apologize then jbird. But I was mistaken. I was actually talking about the futurama elite I guess I forgot the site name or confused the two. Also I did not create the roadcrap nickname. I have never been to either of the ranking sites so I could not criticize anyway.

[Reply #16 on:]

All us top sites are tryin' to do is promote sites to help people get hits, and make viewers get what they want.

We list the site in our opinion to help the people looking for something in particular find what they want faster.

This whole topic is realy pointless though, I'd like to see Rubender make a better topsitelist instead of tellin all us webmasters we suck.

[Reply #17 on:]

 

Originally posted by Futurama Uncovered:
I'd like to see Rubender make a better topsitelist instead of tellin all us webmasters we suck.

I couldn't agree more.  You dont see us going around saying Rubender's site, Futurama en Español, sucks.  I think we should congragulate other webmasters for what they HAVE done, not punish them for what they HAVEN'T.

And with what "Futurama Uncovered" said - links sites (ie Elite, Top 50, Oscars, Planet Roadmap) are trying to help other sites out too.  If you visit PR, you will notice there is a section called the Website Spotlight, where a new site each week or so is promoted, in the hopes to get it more visitors.  Boy, how can we be so cruel...


------------------
Aaron "I'm an expert on humans" D.
ICQ # 48180553
   futuramaguy@hotmail.com 

[This message has been edited by Z:o:i:d:b:e:r:G (edited June 10, 2000).]

[Reply #18 on:]

Well then why don't we get rid of sites like the top ten and stuff like that? Or at least not rank them like "good" "awful" and stuff like that. I don't know what was wrong with the voting idea, I think Barnabe just said it was a bad idea for an excuse to make people not go against PR. I think that voting would be a really good idea. I don't think it would be abused if people were really serious about it... Well when is that gonna happen though? Oh well... just take my advice and think for yourself.

[Reply #19 on:]

Why don't "we" get rid of the Top 10?  Who is "we"?  And there IS no top 10 that is actually maintained, there might be one thats abandoned, but not one that is updated.

I also think the voting thing was a poor idea.  The idea in itself is pretty good, but what always ends up happening with those types of things is someone will vote for their site or their favourite site 400 times, and others wont bother to vote, so it doesn't accurately reflect which sites are the best.

If you think its a good idea though, why dont you start a site like that, where people vote?

[Reply #20 on:]

I remeber when the now defunct Simpsons Top 50 had that miva ranking script and you selected out of ten for a few categorys or something, it got messed up because alot of people were voting bogusly. But i think if you have a required email field to make sure that the same person isn't voting on the same site over & over again the idea of a rnaking script would work.

[Reply #21 on:]

 

Originally posted by iZac:
Well then why don't we get rid of sites like the top ten and stuff like that? Or at least not rank them like "good" "awful" and stuff like that. I don't know what was wrong with the voting idea, I think Barnabe just said it was a bad idea for an excuse to make people not go against PR. I think that voting would be a really good idea. I don't think it would be abused if people were really serious about it... Well when is that gonna happen though? Oh well... just take my advice and think for yourself.

http://sweeet.com/links/Futurama/
This is what happens with voting. Out of date rankings, basically "wrong" votes. the problem is unpopular sites will only get 1 vote: that of the webmaster, and that will be a good rank. Also, name recognition will come into effect. the archive will get a better rank then how good it is on account of how good it used to be.

Feel free to make a site like that, I don't mind.

[Reply #22 on:]

The Awful rating seems always a little harsh though.  Couldn't it be Needs Improvement or something a little nicer sounding.  Taht is why i never sent in my site out of faer it would be awful.  that is hurtful to a webmaster who spends time on making it.
I think the roadmap at first was a good idea since there are soooo many futurama websites but a one by one rank is kinda odd and with all this debate I do understand other points of anti-oscars and stuff.  I'm confused???
----Baz
free.mastersites.com/futupollrama

[Reply #23 on:]

 

Originally posted by The Baz:

The Awful rating seems always a little harsh though.  Couldn't it be Needs Improvement or something a little nicer sounding.

Check out the Awful section. Any site that updates and doens't steal all of its content won't go in there, it would go in Fair. The reason I chose the word "Awful" is because I needed a short word for the buttons I used to have.

[Reply #24 on:]

 

Originally posted by jbird3000:
Check out the Awful section. Any site that updates and doens't steal all of its content won't go in there, it would go in Fair.

My site was in the Fair section for a long time, does it mean that it was an Afwul site without stolen content?

[Reply #25 on:]

 

Originally posted by Rubender:
My site was in the Fair section for a long time, does it mean that it was an Afwul site without stolen content?

You know it! Ruben you know that they really don't look at the sites, just the front page and rate it like that... and with the voting thing I still think that it could work if someone did it right. Don't look at me though, I'm not going to do it. Actually I don't even like the rating idea altogether, I like to think for myself. Don't take my opinion seriously though, I'm just a whackass loser who thinks differently than most people.

[Reply #26 on:]

 

Originally posted by iZac:
they really don't look at the sites, just the front page and rate it like that...

You couldn't be more wrong there.  I don't know about other Futurama link sites, but Jason Barnabé (of Planet Roadmap) thoroughly checks each and every site about every 2 months.  He has to, how else would he list everything from every site that is updated or non updated? 

Believe me, he doesn't just look at the main page.

[Reply #27 on:]

   

Originally posted by Z   :i:d:b:e:r:G:
You couldn't be more wrong there.  I don't know about other Futurama link sites, but Jason Barnabé (of Planet Roadmap) thoroughly checks each and every site about every 2 months.  He has to, how else would he list everything from every site that is updated or non updated? 
Believe me, he doesn't just look at the main page.

Yeah, well PR does everything right, ok, but the Oscars don't. So, if any of the webmasters of TFOscars is reading this, write this down:
Example: They say that the webmasters of TFA are Ryan Pritch and Matt Douglas (!!).
They obviously don't know what they're talking about. Ryan's last name is Pritchard, and Matt's is Riley. It looks like they just looked at their email addresses (rpritch@charter.net & kdougla1@rochester.rr.com) and just "assumed" those were their last names.
They also say thay Collenting Futurama's webmaster is "FryFan". If they would bothered to scroll down to the bottom of the main page they would know that Collecting Futurama is mantained by a guy named William LaRue.
They also say that Futurama en Argentina is mantained by "TV Central". Yeah, I forgot that my friend Nicolás Di Candia changed his name to TV Central, his old name was too lame.
They don't know: the name of the webmaster of What Esle? Futurama (Will), the last name of Joey St. Marie, my name, and say that the webmasters of TFA are the "webmasters" of the FFOR Newsletter.
The point is, if you're gonna rank something you should know what you're talking about, otherwise, don't do it.
I never asked to be ranked or rated or whatever, so if you're gonna judge my work, I want you to be able to understand what I'm doing, otherwise don't rate it.
How do they know what site in spanish is good and which one is bad if they not only don't understand what they say but they also don't know if someone is stealing other people content, ideas or information because they only see the main page once in a while (assuming that they ever come back)?
I say this because a site that, according to the Oscars, is better than mine, do that kind of things.
I'd like to know what 'criteria' they use to rate sites, and to compare sites in english with sites in spanish.


[This message has been edited by Rubender (edited June 15, 2000).]

[Reply #28 on:]

 

Originally posted by Rubender:
My site was in the Fair section for a long time, does it mean that it was an Afwul site without stolen content?

No, it means it just wasnt good enough for good.

"Fair" sites actually are the sites I review the most thoroughly. I like seeing when one finally makes itself into my "Good" category.