Skip to Content
12-21-2010 @ 8:22PM
Look I'm sure you guys don't want to offend anyone by not including their column, but there are simply too many posts in this list of "Best of". IMO there should only be maybe 3 at the most in each category. In short, TLDR.
12-22-2010 @ 10:32AM
I'd agree. February had 28 days. There's 41 posts listed here. It smacks a bit of hubris to suppose you had a post worth of a "best of" list every single day of the month, some days with more than one. Why not just post a link to every single post from the month and leave it at that?
12-22-2010 @ 12:14PM
It's just a year end wrap up. Complaining that there are too many "best of" links is semantics.
12-22-2010 @ 2:30PM
Cutaia is right -- in some ways these are more year-end wrap-ups than anything else, because I like to include standout news posts to help people put the month in context -- but this actually represents something like 9-15% of what we published. In some months you'll see in the series, it's much less, but the early portion of the year was a genuinely busy time for the site. Many of our writers felt that a significant portion of their most interesting work was done then.What you're saying actually did give me pause while I was putting these articles together, but I realized we had a lot more writers and content than we did last year. Naturally, the "Best of 2010" series was going to be larger than its predecessor.
12-22-2010 @ 2:49PM
(cutaia), No, actually, and I don't think that word means what you think it means. Semantics denotes word selection, and the connotations thereof. There's a significant difference between a "year end wrap up" (and if that's what it is, call a spade a spade) and a "best of" series. The former implies aggregate (e.g. Here is a list of the things we wrote in February), while the latter implies a qualitative value judgment (e.g. Here is a list of THE BEST things we wrote in February). They don't mean the same thing in the least, which is what your "that's just semantics" comment seems to imply. Allison,A fair point, to be sure; it was a busy year at the start. However that's a beast of a textwall to read through. Kudos to you for reading and responding to reader feedback though.
12-22-2010 @ 2:53PM
Yeah, I hear and appreciate the "Wall o' Text" criticism; it was Adam who suggested breaking the links into sections and adding pics/video this year to help deal with that (the 2009 version was literally just a list of links, arranged chronologically). I'm truly sorry that it feels long, but this really does represent only a small portion of what was published on the site in February. Small month, big events.
12-23-2010 @ 11:09AM
"No, actually, and I don't think that word means what you think it means. Semantics denotes word selection"Are you kidding me? That's 100% exactly what I'm talking about. They made a poor choice in word selection. You and Fishboy weren't initially complaining about the size of the article...you were complaining about referring to the long list as a "best of" list. You both even put scare quotes around the term "best of."Basically, if they hadn't named it the "best of" article, neither of you would have left your comments, so how in the blue blazing **** did you get the impression I wasn't talking about word selection?
First time? A confirmation email will be sent to you after submitting.
Members enter your username and password.
Enter your AOL or AIM screenname and password.
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.