Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Quantify my love

I just popped a little gizmo from outbrain.com on this blog that allows the reader(s) to rate each post, under the assumption that my fragile ego will be able to handle the assault. This should help me figure out which columns to send to random editors when I'm in the mood for rejection.

The default star system goes from 1-5 (Bad, Boring, Okay, Good, Excellent). That seems like a tough grading scale to me. Excellent? This isn't the Economist. Let's use the following rating guidelines instead:

1 – The column came out of the screen like the girl in the Ring and ate my face off. (And also, please install a crippling virus on my computer.)
2 – The column outed me to my grandparents.
3 – The column made me watch that movie with Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson.
4 – The column put the toilet paper roll on backwards.
5 – The column was legible.

Also, if you notice that every post already has a five-star rating when it's posted, it's probably just a glitch in the software. And if there are two five-star ratings every time, it's probably a glitch in my mom's software, too.


  1. huh? I'm confused... which doesn't take much really. Are we supposed to rate your posts? I think you should do it on the laugh factor scale...
    1. It made me smirk
    2. It make me snort and smirk.
    3. I laughed.
    4. I big time belly laughed (BLOL)
    5. Oops! It made me laugh so friggin' hard I pissed myself.

    Most of you stuff I rate a 5.

  2. Oh, I like Sheri's idea. Hi Sheri! Most of your stuff is Depends wearing worthy.

  3. Sheri -- Thank you! You're far too kind. Please go on.

    Carmel -- Thanks! But I think the only thing Depends has to do with me is that we're both often full of crap. *rimshot*

  4. Mike, I agree with Sheri and Carmel. Ok, and with you too, on the depends thing. I'm just an agreeable sort today, I guess.

    I'm going to rate you based on Sheri's idea. 'Cause yours made no sense to me at all. Must be cause you're so full of shit... er, crap.