h a l f b a k e r yWhy not imagine it in a way that works?
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Many sites now encourage readers to review the products they carry, from books to cars to digital cameras. Provided one ignores the glutinous praise and the one-sided rants, these often turn out to be surprisingly accurate, and generally very useful.
Now, in addition to the products they or their
friends have purchased, most people have an opinion of most other people in their lives. So let us provide a site for people to analyze other people and, after filtering out the praise of our mothers and the rants of our exes, gain an interesting window onto our souls.
[There is a technical issue: how do we definitively identify people in a world where many people can share a name.]
On the basis of the review sites, it is likely to be at least as useful and twice as honest as our therapists, and free to boot, with no charge for missed sessions.
Alternative site names:
•aminutsorwhat.com
•sanitycheck.com
•ratemybrain.com
•overthegardenfence.com
What people say about us
http://www.googlism.com/index.htm
Not perfect, but certainly a clever implementation. [DrCurry, Oct 05 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]
And correct, too!
http://www.googlism...ism=bristolz&type=1
[bristolz, Oct 05 2004, last modified Oct 21 2004]
Buinea pigs?
http://www.buinea.com/
[Worldgineer, Oct 05 2004, last modified Oct 17 2004]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
"how do we definitively identify people in a world where many people can share a name?" |
|
| |
The trick will be to keep the place objective. Once a sense of 'community' developed (a nice-sounding euphemism for the politics that come up from everybody knowing too much about everybody), the objectivity would be lost, or it would become a hangout for wanna-be psychiatrists, like me, for instance. In the glory days of my own discussion board we did some of this, and it actually helped people with some of the advice. But it was unsustainable without alot of work as a moderator. Too much bandwagon effect, although it was a huge group with about 800 members. There'd have to be bouncers at the door and a strict admission policy. |
|
| |
Now, tell me about your relationship with your father... |
|
| |
I like this idea, but it seems that most people's opinions of others are unfounded, idiot. |
|
| |
hee hee - that was funny, [ImBack]. |
|
| |
//how do we definitively identify people in a world where many people can share a name.// |
|
| |
What's wrong with pictures of people? One good, clear shot of each person being "judged" should identify the person well enough in a world of unique faces. |
|
| |
This would be an interesting collection of opinions, but, back to what [ImBack] said. ^ |
|
| |
I would be afraid to be sued for libel if I owned this site. |
|
| |
and why would i want people i barely know to comment on me? |
|
| |
You're not a teenager, I guess: apparently this is now somewhat Baked, and has become very popular with the pimples and braces crowd. I take this as at least partial vindication. |
|
| |
Hm, yeah, stupid keyboard. So, how does your profile fit you, on the very unscientific basis of 5 responses? |
|
| |
I forgot all about this. Hmm. I guess it fits. I don't consider myself very conceited, and especially not intimidating (nor interesting to talk to). |
|
| |
The questions I could choose from were pretty limited. Also, it looks like three respondants were anonymous so, for all I know it's the same person three times. |
|
| |