If we wanted to use more than 140 characters, we'd be writing more here.

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

The 2006 Weblog Awards Doesn't Love Us

Well, I just glanced over at the nominations for the 2006 Weblog Awards and we weren't mentioned in any of the categories we were aiming for. (Sound of bottle smashing against skull) Oh, well.

I'm guessing we either weren't political enough, were too archaic in our visual design, weren't well known enough, or my regular eccentric posting on the Message Board there pissed off a judge or two, particularly the one that contained the phrase "shrivelled bollocks and enormous man-teats" though I can't see why anyone would be put off by that, especially an awards site that nominated Jesus' General in any category.

There is also the off chance that the judges were George Clooney and Danny DeVito fans and that my post of yesterday was ill-timed.

We take great pride in that we do focus on the writing here, although we've been known to splash some graphics up on occasion, most of which we've doctored in the name of satire (satisfied F. Johnny Lee?). The punctuation and spelling may take a miss now and then, but I've seen that from the blogs of major magazines with paid editors. Yes, it is all rather baroque and lengthy writing at times, but it's meant to be. Hemingway we're not but how many funny quotes is he remembered for?

My central impression on first glance at the nominees is, "Oh, all these blogs again," sort of like waiting for the Emmy nominations and hearing that Desperate Housewives has nicked you to the spot again. That's probably quite unfair to the all the nominated blogs, even the ones that might have rude pictures of Teri Hatcher.

My second impression was the same as the first, only more bitter.

As there are no links to all the nominated blogs yet at the site, I don't know if we've truly been outclassed, out popularised, out-politicised, or whether the judges made the selections while stoned out of their flipping minds (although I'd have thought that would be an advantage for us).

I suppose it would help if a set of criteria for judging was somewhere on the bloody site. You know, something along the lines of "We're looking for sites with dazzling graphics, colourful ads, political committment, passable writing," that sort of thing. Most contests have at least some pretense at setting some basic objective guidelines beyond "a blog that appeared this year."

I'm sure this is just all bitter disappointment talking and I'm certain I speak for my comrades in that we congratulate all the nominees (lucky bastards), and appreciate all the tireless efforts of the judges, who almost certainly had numerous choices to pick from and I'm certain held nothing against my complaint last year that November is really far too early for an end of year award, which was made entirely in jest and which only a really bitter, self-righteous, unforgiving sort would hold a grudge about.

(Yes, we do intend to enter next year, as long as there's no fee.)

Seriously, I'm sure it's a thankless job picking from so many. We're just looking for a little love and validation from the judges (and the bump on the hit counter), but I'm sure everyone who had a site in wanted that as well. How many of them had interviews with the "real Billy Jack" though?

On to The Bloggies (which I'm afraid we have even less of a chance in, as they tend to favour snazzy, intensely graphical, well-traveled sites). In the meantime, we'll continue to do things our way here, for better or worse. (Yes, worse...all right, we know!)

OK, I've wasted enough time on business. Back to the nuthatch that is DOUI. Come and stay awhile.


Post a Comment

<< Home