Is Anyone Out There : Forum : Shockingly Inactive


[reply] [quote]

Shockingly Inactive

4 Years Ago


The reasons behind why this site seems more inactive than usual has nothing to do with why this group was formed.
It's quite simple to look up the traffic metrics and this site is actually on the rise in terms of traffic over the past year.
The old guard doesn't engage anymore so this site appears anemic to the old guard... which is kind of ironic in a negative feedback kinda way.
I write constantly, sometimes over ten pieces a week.  I used to be more active with my reviews but because I'm inherently kind of an a*****e and allegedly the reason why traffic is down I've stepped back from that.  But none the less, activity in terms of original work is not the issue.  The fact is that we don't engage each other with reviews beyond our own cliques.  Every single member of this group is guilty of it.
You guys can call me a troll if you want but you can't have it both ways.  Superficial responses are counter productive.  The whole "lets be unconditionally nice to each other" non sense is going to stunt traffic not enhance it.
Sack up and be honest... and stop blocking people who don't fawn over your work.  (you know who you are). 
Omelets and eggs etc... 



[reply] [quote]

Re: Shockingly Inactive

4 Years Ago


People aren't getting paid to post on this site. This may be the best writing community on the whole internet, and it sucks. It sucks a*s. The text editor is like something out of the 90's I don't see why Google Docs doesn't allow it's online text editor to be used for other purposes. That's aside the point, who are you complaining to? The inactive members? They'll never read this. 

Honesty is important, but it's better not to inspire others to be discouraged. Look at the effect pure honesty has. Without a touch of grace, all you'll ever do is cause people to flee. The whole time I've used this site, I've only ever seen five or so good writers. I myself hate poetry, my good writings are too good to give away for free. I think what has caused the demise of this site is the advent of Facebook and Netflix. There is so much garbage on this site, it's hard for a reader to find something they would like to read. The formatting is poor. This site needs an overhaul. It's better than Writing.com, but it's still terribly bad when put in comparison with how good it could be.
[reply] [quote]

Re: Shockingly Inactive

4 Years Ago


It's not exactly a complaint. It's a critical observation and a response.
Don't put that "you cause people to flee..." bullshit on me.  I interact with maybe 5 different people here tops. 
This site was designed based off of myspace.  Which you're probably too young to even recognize.  It's not the format... it's the fact that people here would rather "chat" than write. 
And you don't even know how to troll properly.  You gotta weave your insults into your message with a certain kind of logic.  Just sounding off like a whiney little kid only serves to make a fool of yourself.
None the less, I'm happy you chose to interact with me.  Next time, try harder though.  I'm almost embarrassed for you in this moment.





[reply] [quote]

Re: Shockingly Inactive

4 Years Ago


Originally posted by David george
The reasons behind why this site seems more inactive than usual has nothing to do with why this group was formed.
It's quite simple to look up the traffic metrics and this site is actually on the rise in terms of traffic over the past year.
The old guard doesn't engage anymore so this site appears anemic to the old guard... which is kind of ironic in a negative feedback kinda way.
I write constantly, sometimes over ten pieces a week.  I used to be more active with my reviews but because I'm inherently kind of an a*****e and allegedly the reason why traffic is down I've stepped back from that.  But none the less, activity in terms of original work is not the issue.  The fact is that we don't engage each other with reviews beyond our own cliques.  Every single member of this group is guilty of it.
You guys can call me a troll if you want but you can't have it both ways.  Superficial responses are counter productive.  The whole "lets be unconditionally nice to each other" non sense is going to stunt traffic not enhance it.
Sack up and be honest... and stop blocking people who don't fawn over your work.  (you know who you are). 
Omelets and eggs etc... 





I'm guilty of going to my home page first to select a reading and we do need to mix it up better. I don't see anything wrong with not connecting with someone else's work, but we shouldn't trash one anothers. New writers need support and us old farts write for ourselves.
[reply] [quote]

Re: Shockingly Inactive

4 Years Ago


Honesty is good and should never be equated with trashing, but some cookies are gooey and I don't like to see them falling apart. Motivation is key to helping each other get better and we should be there to encourage our fellow cookies. Cookies don't make cookies tougher with mindless beatings. That's the bakers job.

That being said, I don't care how soft I may seem, don't mock me with hollow praise. I want honesty. If I can't take it, that's my problem. 
[reply] [quote]

Re: Shockingly Inactive

4 Years Ago


Originally posted by David george
It's not exactly a complaint. It's a critical observation and a response.
Don't put that "you cause people to flee..." bullshit on me.  I interact with maybe 5 different people here tops. 
This site was designed based off of myspace.  Which you're probably too young to even recognize.  It's not the format... it's the fact that people here would rather "chat" than write. 
And you don't even know how to troll properly.  You gotta weave your insults into your message with a certain kind of logic.  Just sounding off like a whiney little kid only serves to make a fool of yourself.
None the less, I'm happy you chose to interact with me.  Next time, try harder though.  I'm almost embarrassed for you in this moment.





I happen to be a fool. A damn fool. Mr. T pities me. No one should ever be surprised by my idiocy. I've have done things so idiotic, you couldn't possibly fathom. I'm not trolling. That's not my intent. That review I left on your story. It was an indictment on all of poetry. It was not meant to be personal. Why are you so invested in this? What do you have to gain?
[reply] [quote]

Re: Shockingly Inactive

4 Years Ago


re: imagninarymight
You're fake. I know what you say behind the scenes.  I know this isn't your only profile.
It's very clear to see what your intent is on the surface anyway.  Own your faults... don't try and make your non sense into something it so clearly is not.
If you'd like to have an honest conversation I'm all ears.  But I think we both know you don't have the balls to actually do that (this isn't about "gaining" anything).  And that is why I have no respect for you or people like you. 
Maybe you do have an honest point to make... but as you are currently going about it, you're only ever going to be full of s**t to me.
 



[reply] [quote]

Re: Shockingly Inactive

4 Years Ago


In response to "Ian D. Mooby" who has since deleted all his posts in this thread
1 - Freedom of interaction without having to worry about a "big brother" is a good thing.  You and everyone else have the option to block those you don't wanna deal with.  You don't need a moderator to make that decision for you unless it's illegal... were not children.
2 - I agree with that.  But unfortunately that is a reality of doing business on the internet.  Even the most sophisticated social media sites on the internet struggle with that problem.
3 - The point system is irrelevant.  Who cares?  I don't even notice it anymore... most of us don't even notice it anymore.  That you do says more about you than anything.
4 - Just plain false... it's called a "review". If you see an error mention it in the review.  If you're talking about site errors the moderator's name is Charlie Konsoor; he has a profile, he has a facebook account, he has a twitter account... etc.  Just because you don't know how to do it doesn't mean the option isn't readily available.
This site "bites plain and simple" to you because you are purely subjective with your critique.  You want it to "bite plain and simple" because it validates your superficial 'hot take'.   
[reply] [quote]

Re: Shockingly Inactive

4 Years Ago


It's not the spam accounts that are primarily responsible for why this site is at about a quarter of the site traffic it used to be at.

They are annoying but you're talking about maybe 3-5% of the traffic at the very most.  I'm on this site quite frequently and I don't come across it enough to make me want to lower my presence.  If that's what you're primarily hinging your disgust on I would say you're not really looking.
 
[reply] [quote]

Re: Shockingly Inactive

4 Years Ago


"The truth of the matter is the only reason I post on this site is so that no one can post my stuff on it as their own."

That makes zero sense.  Are you seriously pretending you're that important of a writer you need to make asymmetrical literary warfare against plagiarists that don't actually exist on a site you repeatedly say is irrelevant?   Wow. I thought you were just a d********g before... now I'm starting think you actually have a borderline personality problem. 


Come back to reality kiddo... this is starting to get pathetic in a very sad way.  And I thought I had an ego; I'm almost embarrassed for you right now.
[reply] [quote]

Re: Shockingly Inactive

4 Years Ago


Ha...  you fell for literally every trap I set for you.
Ha...hahahahhahaa
Do you seriously not see that?  Please tell me it's not going to be this easy.  (fyi genius... these threads aren't formal, it's about expression not the grammar Nazi game.  smh, it really is like pistol whipping a blind kid with you. self awareness is something you need to work on)
[reply] [quote]

Re: Shockingly Inactive

4 Years Ago


Reviewed by David george
10 Months Ago
I didn't want to like this. But I did none the less.

Your writing is engaging. And the topic, even in abstract, is very very relevant for the day.
So why read something if you are determined not to like it?  Could it be because you didn't like the review I gave your poetry after you flooded me with read requests and how stupid do you have to be to tell me and the world that you couldn't find on thing wrong with the story when you were set to  dislike it?  The story was just a story  nothing more and you reading into it to find some moral that is relevant for the day is just you trying to hard.  Now the this story was taken  down because it did suck, it sucked big hairy donkey balls but you just couldn't see it I guess.  Next time if you go to review something determined not to like it and you do maybe you should just not comment.
[reply] [quote]

Re: Shockingly Inactive

4 Years Ago


It was just an ice breaker kiddo, i.e. not that serious and meant to start a dialogue that leads into a more specific conversation.  Regardless, it's not illegal to enjoy a particular writing despite not liking that person on the whole.  Why are you digging through reviews from almost a year ago to post in a spot that has nothing to do with it in the first place anyway?  That's straight up weird and kinda creepy.   You also keep sending me private messages talking about how I'm helping you get attention which is also kinda weird and creepy.  In reality the miniscule amount of attention this bizarre obsession you have with me is bringing you is both not worth it and the wrong kind of attention in the first place.  This is not going to help you get the admiration you so pathetically crave Mooby.  You should probably move on and stop embarrassing yourself in front of the 2 or 3 people who are actually paying attention to this (it might even be less than that at this point...).  You might feel relevant in the moment (which is a false feeling anyway) but when that feeling dies down you will only be left with a feeling of emptiness.

By the way, don't feel too flattered that you used to get read requests from me.  When I send them I send them to everyone on my friends list.