The Online Onslaught Forums


By contributing to Online Onslaught, you'll help make sure we're around for years to come. Toss us as little as a few bucks, or as much as your generosity allows. Thanks!

Last active: Never Not logged in [Login ]

Printable Version |
Subscribe | Add to Favorites
<<  1    2  >>
New Topic New Poll
Author: Subject: The Negative Net
eoghann
Showstopper






Posts 534
Registered 2-27-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: Angry

posted on 5-21-2003 at 10:17 PM Edit Post
The Negative Net

or
"Those God Damn Smarks!"

Its hardly going to come as a revelation to you that the internet fans are often derided by the WWE and wrestlers as overly negative.

Whenever that allegation is made those same people band together to prove they aren't negative by flaming said wrestlers or organization to a crisp. I'll let you figure out the logic of that strategy yourself, it makes my brain hurt.

However, I've been noticing an interesting trend for a while now. The columns, reviews and other opinion pieces scattered around the net remain as overwhelmingly negative as always, but take a look at some of the polls those sites hold.

At pro-wrestling.com for example, their poll on Judgment Day gives us some 30% who felt the PPV was a let down of some sort compared to some 70% who thought it was ok or better. Now "OK" is not a stunningly good opinion, but it does suggest they felt they hadn't wasted their money.

Here's another one:

Over at 1wrestling.com they have polls for each show allowing people to give their ratings. In the case of Judgment Day we had scores of 44% for thumbs down, 23% thumbs in the middle and 33% for thumbs up.

Again this gives us a majority (in this case56%) who felt the show was worth the money. Compare that with 1wrestling's own coverage of Judgment Day.


And there's more. This weeks RAW has been generally recognized as one of the best in quite some time, except over at Pro-Wrestling Torch where the "viewer feedback" section once again trashed the show.

How does that compare to the 1wrestling.com poll ratings for the show which give an overwhelming 68% thumbs up and only 14% thumbs down?

There's only one conclusion to reach. It's not internet fans who are negative. It's internet fan writers.

Not only does the IWC not accurately represent wrestling fans as a whole, but IWC websites don't actually represent the people who read them.

Interesting huh?





What, you actually read this stuff?

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
metallikid
The Immortal One






Posts 4898
Registered 12-17-2002
Location Orlando, Florida
Member Is Offline

Mood: Super

posted on 5-22-2003 at 02:53 AM Edit Post
That is pretty much true. Other then this site all the articles are always negative. I think a lot of fans are too negative also. We all need to sit back and enjoy.





It's Great to be a Florida Gator!

View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member
rasslinjunkie
Man of a Thousand Holds






Posts 1245
Registered 4-29-2003
Location louisiana
Member Is Offline

Mood: Deservedly Smug

posted on 5-22-2003 at 04:17 AM Edit Post
Eoghann's right. IWC writers are too critical, and they don't speak for a majority of the fans. But I offer a simpler explanation for the constant criticism of WWE---indignation, even if wholly imaginary, is fun. And it doesn't require a whole lot of effort to find something to get pissed off about. I don't have to tell you how many people derive their sense of self-importance entirely from being too smart for WWE; I'm sure we all know a few. Don't get me started on what a questionable honor it is to be able to figure out "rasslin'." But like I said, it's quick, lazy gratification.
And the reason I thank God for this site.





Stop posting. Kill yourself.

View User's Profile E-Mail User Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member   rasslinjunkie 's Aim   rasslinjunkie 's Yahoo
eoghann
Showstopper






Posts 534
Registered 2-27-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: Angry

posted on 5-22-2003 at 04:29 AM Edit Post
Well I could have offered similar poll data for RAW and Smackdown shows that also shows a difference of taste, but I couldn't be bothered since this was intended to be a mini-rant not a full column.

As far as the okay thing. If you use it that way, then it strikes me your using the word wrongly. My understanding of the word is that it indicates a basic level of approval or the indication that something is satisfactory. That seems to jibe with dictionary.com's definition too.

Now if something is even remotely satisfactory then it must have been worth the money, otherwise it wouldn't have been satisfactory.





What, you actually read this stuff?

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Operation Retard
Beats me, I'm gay!






Posts 3301
Registered 1-4-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood:

posted on 5-22-2003 at 04:50 AM Edit Post
Think of the OK thing like with grades in school. A 'C' is technically an average/satisfactory grade. Thats what it's supposed to symbolize. But most people consider 'C' to be a bad grade. They want the 'A' or the 'B'.

No one wants to spend 30 bucks on a show that is only OK, just like they dont want to spend 10 hours on a paper that will only get them a 'C'.

An OK PPV could equal a great episode of Raw. But even the greatest episode of Raw should never cost money. If a PPV feels like a Raw, even a great Raw, it fails because a PPV should feel grander than that. But just because it failed to justufy it's PPV status, doesn't mean it was gut wrenching TV, hence it's OK, but certainly not satisfactory.






View User's Profile E-Mail User Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member   Operation+Retard 's Aim
eoghann
Showstopper






Posts 534
Registered 2-27-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: Angry

posted on 5-22-2003 at 03:21 PM Edit Post
Well again I'd have to say thats missusing the word. A C is a pass. That means it wasn't a waste of money or time getting it.

An A or a B is an above average grade. Average ought to be sufficient. Thats why its average and not poor.

If someone told me a film was okay I'd assume that I wouldn't be wasting my money to see it. If that was the case I'd expect them to tell me that its poor.

The grading system works based on the situation. You don't have a single system that applies regardless of the money involved. Thats just silly.





What, you actually read this stuff?

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
bigfatgoalie
American Dream






Posts 7923
Registered 1-16-2002
Location Stratusphere
Member Is Offline

Mood: Stratusfied

posted on 5-22-2003 at 04:19 PM Edit Post
Eoghann, I really think you are forgetting that while a "c" is a pass and is "ok", the perception of a "c" is bad.

Why? Because it was merely "ok" and was not "good" or better.

When I pony up the cash to go see a wrestling event or to watch a PPV, I'm expecting it to be better then RAW or SmackDown. So are a lot of people. So if it merely does that, then it would be 'ok" to most.

The problem is, that doesn't make it good. And the perception that it gives is that the PPV was not good. That doesn't mean it was bad by any means, just that PPV didn't muster a "good" rating. For me anyways, I'm always a little let down by something that is just "ok", but am usually happy with something that is good.

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
eoghann
Showstopper






Posts 534
Registered 2-27-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: Angry

posted on 5-22-2003 at 04:33 PM Edit Post
That approach is biasing the scale towards the negative and isn't what the word seems intended to mean.

Now since a bunch of people are coming up with the same basic definition, I'm just going to have to accept that thats the common use of it.

But I will maintain that it is not the correct usage of the word.





What, you actually read this stuff?

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
bigfatgoalie
American Dream






Posts 7923
Registered 1-16-2002
Location Stratusphere
Member Is Offline

Mood: Stratusfied

posted on 5-22-2003 at 04:44 PM Edit Post
OK or o·kay

adj.

  • Agreeable; acceptable: "Was everything OK with your stay?"
  • Not excellent and not poor; mediocre: "He made an OK presentation."

adv.

  • Fine; well enough; adequately: "The television that works OK despite its age."

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Blown Spot
The Rowdy One






Posts 2399
Registered 1-22-2003
Location Silver Spring, MD
Member Is Offline

Mood: Mauve

posted on 5-22-2003 at 05:22 PM Edit Post
Um... would you agree that an ok PPV is not worth $35? I think most would.

BUT

You usually don't find out that a PPV is ok until after it's viewed and paid for.

THUS

The word ok, as it is applied in Eoghann's initial post, can be viewed as referenced to several things;

1.) The people who voted "OK" paid for the PPV and after viewing thought the card was indeed just ok

2.) They saw the card, thought the matches would be ok but, didn't pony up the cash for it.

3.) Someone else paid for the PPV, they happened to be there, and thought it was just ok


All of this should go without saying.

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Blown Spot
The Rowdy One






Posts 2399
Registered 1-22-2003
Location Silver Spring, MD
Member Is Offline

Mood: Mauve

posted on 5-22-2003 at 05:24 PM Edit Post
...and really beside Eoghann's point.
View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
ModSquad
Hello, future girlfriend






Posts 3472
Registered 1-30-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: Trumpy

posted on 5-22-2003 at 06:09 PM Edit Post
You know, the edit function still works.





"The moment that The Rick tells me that I am in the wrong then I will stop. And since I have 10 years of reading his work under my belt I feel fairly confident that he won't since he is a proponent of thinking differently. Save the threats."

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
eoghann
Showstopper






Posts 534
Registered 2-27-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: Angry

posted on 5-22-2003 at 06:24 PM Edit Post
See I would say that an OK PPV was worth my money, but only just. If it wasn't worth my money it would have been a poor, or unsatisfactory PPV.

dictionary.com equates OK with satisfactory.

You are right however that it does depend on the situation a person was in when they voted. If they didn't pay then their definition of OK is probably easier to reach than if they had paid.

The statistics in the initial post are far from scientific. I do still think they show a divergence from the writers opinions though since many writers savaged this show (and surely no one would equate that with OK?).





What, you actually read this stuff?

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Blown Spot
The Rowdy One






Posts 2399
Registered 1-22-2003
Location Silver Spring, MD
Member Is Offline

Mood: Mauve

posted on 5-22-2003 at 06:48 PM Edit Post
To Eoghann - Just looking at the raw data I would agree. You couldn't come to any other conclusion but the one you stated.

To Modsquad - Please forgive my transgression. While the edit function does work the functions within the edit page do not. That makes me tend to forget about using the edit function altogether.

I can't use any of the icons. I click them and nothing happens. They worked before the board update so I don't know. I'm using IE 6.0

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
OORick
Monkey on a Rock






Posts 4427
Registered 12-27-2001
Location - The Birthplace of Aviation
Member Is Offline

Mood: See You in Hell ;)

posted on 5-22-2003 at 07:05 PM Edit Post
quote:
Originally posted by eoghann
See I would say that an OK PPV was worth my money, but only just. If it wasn't worth my money it would have been a poor, or unsatisfactory PPV.



You know, back in the olden days, some guy on RSPW used to review PPVs by taking each segment and attaching a monetary figure to it. Good matches might rate as much as $10; good promos or little things like that significantly less, but still on the positive side. Truly magnificent displays of suck MIGHT get you $0.00 or could, in rare instances, result in the viewer being OWED money.

Then you tally it all up, and see if the PPV delivered more or less than its price tag. Back then, PPVs actually COULD over-deliver sometimes. I vaguely remember one PPV being declared "worth" about $47 or so (which was like double the 1994 price tag of most PPVs). But of course, in later years, when somebody hijacked this ratings method for the Torch or 1Wrestling or somewhere, no PPV could ever be worth more than $7.

Do any of you who spend more time on the other sites know if that ratings method is still being used somewhere? Cuz if not, maybe someone should steal it for here... especially since Scott apparently doesn't consider me or OO worth the trouble of dealing with anymore, I could use the back up PPV analyses....


Rick






View User's Profile E-Mail User Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member
eoghann
Showstopper






Posts 534
Registered 2-27-2003
Member Is Offline

Mood: Angry

posted on 5-22-2003 at 07:33 PM Edit Post
Off the top of my head the only place I can remember seeing the dollar rating system being used was by one guy posting directly into the Lords of Pain forums. So I'd guess that its up for grabs.

I must say I like the format. Its still pure opinion of course but it does make the reviewer break his opinion down into segments which makes for a better comparison with one's own likes and dislikes.

Incidentally Blown Spot is correct. In IE6 there is a javascript error which stops the formatting buttons working.





What, you actually read this stuff?

View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
Operation Retard
Beats me, I'm gay!






Posts 3301
Registered 1-4-2002
Member Is Offline

Mood:

posted on 5-22-2003 at 09:19 PM Edit Post
quote:

  • Not excellent and not poor; mediocre: "He made an OK presentation."



  • BFG had it with this definition. key word is mediocre. as it says in the defintion, mediocracy is not poor. but even you eoghann must believe that mediocracy isn't worth 35 bucks.






    View User's Profile E-Mail User Visit User's Homepage View All Posts By User U2U Member   Operation+Retard 's Aim
    eoghann
    Showstopper






    Posts 534
    Registered 2-27-2003
    Member Is Offline

    Mood: Angry

    posted on 5-22-2003 at 09:38 PM Edit Post
    No I don't because it has to be taken in context. A mediocre PPV is not the same as a medicore free show. Totally different context.

    In order for a show which costs $35 to be considered mediocre it would have to be doing considerably more than a mediocre RAW show was doing.

    What we're talking about here isn't a factual grade. Its a grade based on your personal reaction to a show. That grade is affected by many things of course, not least of which is your mood at the time.

    But one of those factors is whether you had to pay for the thing you're grading. Trying to apply a single universal grading system to all forms of wrestling show isn't practical or useful.

    If I say a PPV show that I've bought is ok, I mean that its an OK PPV. I don't mean it would be ok as a RAW show.

    Once again I'll point out that the dictionary equates OK with satisfactory. And if you think you've wasted your money thats clearly not any form of satisfaction.

    However this has gone on quite long enough and long since ceased to have any relevance to the points I was making.





    What, you actually read this stuff?

    View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
    Blown Spot
    The Rowdy One






    Posts 2399
    Registered 1-22-2003
    Location Silver Spring, MD
    Member Is Offline

    Mood: Mauve

    posted on 5-22-2003 at 10:16 PM Edit Post
    This thread is starting to reach the tedium of "The Main Event is ALL that matters" thread.
    View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
    eoghann
    Showstopper






    Posts 534
    Registered 2-27-2003
    Member Is Offline

    Mood: Angry

    posted on 5-22-2003 at 10:30 PM Edit Post
    Yes it has. Really guys. I've already acknowledged that the word is commonly used the way you're using it.

    Can you not simply accept that I think its incorrect usage and let it go at that? I've explained repeatedly why I think that and no amount of "but surely...." arguments are going to change that.

    We have three options here.

    1) Continue in a pointless dispute over the exact meaning of a word.

    2) Just drop the thread

    3) Look at the far more interesting subject of WHY there might be such a divergence between writers and their readers.

    The last option seems the most interesting to me.

    Do readers for example just like reading rants? Is it that they can't find anything else and so settle? Or do they maybe feel that they're getting honest opinions because the views are so negative?





    What, you actually read this stuff?

    View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
    LuckyLopez
    Reeks of WCW






    Posts 12562
    Registered 2-13-2003
    Member Is Offline

    Mood: Grieving

    posted on 5-22-2003 at 11:46 PM Edit Post
    quote:
    Originally posted by Blown Spot
    This thread is starting to reach the tedium of "The Main Event is ALL that matters" thread.


    As one half of the power behind that tedious thread I am offen... no I'm not... that was a bad one...

    Eog, I think the answer to your last question is exactly as you stated. Its simply easier to write negative reactions and its more fun to read them. Outrage is so much easier to do, whether you are the one with the "original" voice of outrage or if you are simply finding your own complaints legitimized by an article. Even we at the OO board who seem to pride ourselves on being as positive and even keeled as the site itself (which is another interesting issue) have more than a few occasions when we go off on rants. Granted, you seem to be one of the less likely to do that (from my own experience) but I'm sure you can think of a few posters who you have seen jump in with stupid self serving "I can do it better" rants that you felt did not match their general demeanor and conduct.

    Its much easier for Keith to convince us to hate Steiner and wish for his crippling and firing on live TV in a Canadian town than for someone to convince us to empathize with him.





    He smiled.

    View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member   LuckyLopez 's Aim
    Blown Spot
    The Rowdy One






    Posts 2399
    Registered 1-22-2003
    Location Silver Spring, MD
    Member Is Offline

    Mood: Mauve

    posted on 5-23-2003 at 03:08 AM Edit Post
    quote:
    Originally posted by LuckyLopez
    As one half of the power behind that tedious thread I am offen... no I'm not... that was a bad one...


    Hey, I contributed my fair share to that thread as well.

    quote:
    Originally posted by LuckyLopez
    Its much easier for Keith to convince us to hate Steiner and wish for his crippling and firing on live TV in a Canadian town than for someone to convince us to empathize with him.


    I don't know. It depends on what you find more interesting. A well reasoned, mostly sane, argument or a nutty, seemingly out of control, pontification.

    I won't write whom is which.

    View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
    LuckyLopez
    Reeks of WCW






    Posts 12562
    Registered 2-13-2003
    Member Is Offline

    Mood: Grieving

    posted on 5-23-2003 at 05:22 AM Edit Post
    quote:
    Originally posted by Blown Spot
    I don't know. It depends on what you find more interesting. A well reasoned, mostly sane, argument or a nutty, seemingly out of control, pontification.

    I won't write whom is which.


    Oh c'mon... sure an interesting and well thought out coloumn is a better read, but once a week reading The Smarkies is a lot of fun too.

    Oh that was mean... Kyle's not even around these days...





    He smiled.

    View User's Profile E-Mail User View All Posts By User U2U Member   LuckyLopez 's Aim
    Icon
    Creepy Little Bastard






    Posts 71
    Registered 2-18-2003
    Location Bay Area, CA
    Member Is Offline

    Mood: Anabolic

    posted on 5-23-2003 at 06:15 AM Edit Post
    quote:
    Originally posted by OORick
    You know, back in the olden days, some guy on RSPW used to review PPVs by taking each segment and attaching a monetary figure to it.

    Do any of you who spend more time on the other sites know if that ratings method is still being used somewhere? Cuz if not, maybe someone should steal it for here... especially since Scott apparently doesn't consider me or OO worth the trouble of dealing with anymore, I could use the back up PPV analyses....


    Rick



    It appears that someone is indeed using the dollar value rating system (although only giving a $ value on the whole PPV, so a match-by-match value system could still be 'claimed':

    http://www.411mania.com/wrestling/tvreports/article.php?tvreports_id=1140





    "Every time I think you are hopeless with your Metallica-loving ways, you go and warm my heart with a Roxette reference. You magnificent bastard."

    Bonestein to Ando

    View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
    Reeks Of Awesomeness
    And I am AWESOME






    Posts 249
    Registered 5-13-2003
    Location Michigan
    Member Is Offline

    Mood: Keepin it Fake

    posted on 5-23-2003 at 03:52 PM Edit Post
    I know I'm commenting on this a LONG time since the real point of the post was established but I just thought I throw my two sense in....

    Honestly I don't think the IWC represents wrestling fans as a whole, but do any critics ever represent the masses? I mean how many crictics didn't like the Matrix Reloaded? A lot....and how much money has it made so far.....A shit load. IWC writers are basically glorified wrestling critics, and as anybody who watches the Simpsons knows, critics criticize everything for no real reason. I mean has anybody read Scott Keith? This guy has made a career off of negativity. I mean you read his rants and you wonder why he even watches wrestling....well except to give love to anyone who's Canadian.

    Basically what I'm saying is that it is infinately easier to write an entertaining piece criticizing something then to write a piece praising something, and since most writers are lazy and want to make their mark, they choose to write negative columns.

    While this may not represent the majority of the fans, this does cast a shadow over ALL internet fans in the eyes of the wrestlers because they don't get the response of the fans, they read the writings of a hack who can't write anything better. Honestly this is the only site on the net that I've seen consistent positive articles...just look at 's latest on Stone Cold.

    So in closing, the IWC will ALWAYS be a negative lot in general because they all want to be the next Scott Keith and being positive isn't going to help them on their way....

    View User's Profile View All Posts By User U2U Member
    <<  1    2  >>
    New Topic New Poll


    go to top


    Powered by XMB 1.8 Partagium Final SP1
    Developed By Aventure Media & The XMB Group
    Processed in 0.1073430 seconds, 21 queries