Talk:Rotten.com

External links

The external links in the article aren't relevant, it's just spam isn't it? DJ John 23:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're all maintained by Soylent Communications and linked to on rotten. 24.18.44.64 07:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tone?

I don't see anything particularly wrong with the tone...? --Lenny, 1216 21 Aug 05

The article takes on a very mocking and supercilious tone. Rather surprising as wikipedia is supposed to be unopinionated and strongly NPOV. 59.93.200.18 19:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)Xpert[reply]

Brazil

I just read the Rotten.com article on Tery Gilliam's Brazil, and it didn't have anything wrong with it (shock/porn/insults, etc.) In fact, except for the links to the 'shock' departments, this looks sort of like something I'd read in Rolling Stone. Does Rotten.com have a 'regular media' arm of some kind? -Litefantastic 01:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sportsdignity

nobody seems to have mentioned it

daily rotten start date?

The article mentions that dailyrotten.com started in late 1999. However, on the main page of dailyrotten.com, under the "Viewership" heading on the sidebar, it says:

"On the first full day this page went live, 100,000 people visited this Rotten News page. Of course that was the day after the WTC attacks, so that number is somewhat distorted. Right now this page gets between 50,000 and 75,000 people every day."

Is there a citation for the early 2000 comment, or should it be changed to Sept 12, 2001?

- Eric Jan 08, 2006

From Rotten.com: "Prior to September 11 [2001], Daily Rotten was a different format, but wasn't actually updated daily. Well, we tried, but it was just too difficult to maintain that pace. Occasionally we will still write an original article in this format, and these appear here." Jerkcity 14:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes and theft

Is it worth a mention that a portion of the photos on the site are on snopes and explained without the rotten logo, which shows that they are taken from other places in the internet? Pogo 06:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to create a "Wikipedia and Theft" section as well, for the Wikipedia article, explaining that the majority of Wikipedia photos are "stolen from the (nebulous) Internet"? The fact that a photo exists in another place without a logo is evidence of... nothing. Perhaps you have some sort of agenda...? Poledancer 07:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to show me where Wikipedia has photos stolen off the internet that are copyrighted, etc. It also shows that either Rotten took the photo and added the logo, or that some person is extremley good with photoshopping. And yes, I have an agenda, against urban legends. Pogo 06:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watermarks arnt an idication of ownership anyways. --72.138.186.64 11:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my addition deleted?

I thought since the John and Ken show in L.A. had been doing the Ghoul pool since the early 90s it was worth mentioning since the rotten.com version is almost exactly the same.

See Dead Pool. Jerkcity 21:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

I have added a warning above the links. Rotten.com is extremely disturbing to some people and I thought this should be mentioned.Thomasiscool 19:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Thomasiscool[reply]

'Some people' should lighten up. The article makes it clear it may be shocking. Their 'splash' page makes it clear. Even their name and url make it clear. --72.138.186.64 11:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Clark said that

In the section titled Rotten Library, there is a statement which quotes Sir Kenneth Clark. Being curious I checked the wiki-link leading to the Kenneth Clark article and it seems that he made that statement posthumously. He expired on May 21, 1983 whereas Rotten.com was started in 1996. I'm rather confused. Does this link redirect to the "wrong" Kenneth Clark? 59.93.200.18 19:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Focus of Rotten.com?

Granted, it's been a long time so I could be mistaken, but I seem to remember the first incarnations of rotten.com as having photos displayed boldy on the front page with little other content, whereas now it seems like the photos have definitely taken a backseat to other content. The photo section (on the main page, not the Boners) is rarely ever updated, and to access them you must click on the headers first. It seems like the current rotten.com is much more focused on the Daily Rotten and Rotten Library sections, and as a result is generally much tamer than many perceive it to be. Is this just my personal interpretation, or do others feel the same way? 69.175.50.2 17:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When Merging the Article

Soylent Communications is the heart of the entire "rotten.com complex" and needs further research and inquiry. My opinion both of the rotten dot com and the Soylent Communications articles is that they are poorly organized and too short. In my opinion there needs be more pages written within this subject not less. Furthermore, merely merging the article won't fix the aforementioned problems. In my opinion, Soylent Communications and all of its counterparts have greatly affected popular culture as most people have been to rotten dot com and know it by name. Therefore NNDB.com and rotten dot com deserve more than a few sentences apiece and be crammed into a single vague article along with everything else. I will note however it does no good for me to just mention these changes. I'll begin to make them on my own soon. In conclusion I think it would be a mistake to merge the articles, and other problems need to be addressed. Research will be difficult as the webmaster of rotten dot com is very reclusive (as his company is also) and any input would be helpful to me getting around this problem. To elaborate more, there is almost a media blackout on this subject, I have found a few reputable articles. Any information can be left in my talk box. Unhelpful information includes reciting Wikipedia policy to me which I am already aware of. Thank you.

Research in Wikipedia is against policy. Please read Wikipedia:No original research. Poledancer 06:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove my comments. Please also read Help:Talk_page. Please read especially the part where it says in bold, Do not edit other user's comments. You have already removed my comment twice. Please leave it in place. Please leave this comment in place as well. You are being very rude. This discussion is for everyone, not just for you. It is not your personal talk page. Poledancer 02:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. What I also understand is that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a dull bureaucracy, then again when people merely chant policies it makes it seem as so. I just felt that you were being a busybody and actually had nothing of significance to add to my comment. Thank you for the clarification however, I actually appreciate it.

Splitting

There is absolutely no justifiable reason to split this article into multiple pieces, as one person has suggested. Quatloo 04:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it seems many areas need elaboration and some new articles need to be written. There's justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.133.248 (talk)

None of the subtopics merit a standalone article, and one would be hard-pressed to come up with one that would. Nobody has made any case otherwise. Nobody has so much as mentioned what one of these "multiple pieces" would be. Quatloo 07:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penis Fish

This article mentions Penis Fish but I can't find any evidence of that ever existing.

It does seem odd to mention this penis fish thing as being notable, but not saying what it is or providing a link to it JayKeaton 23:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never go to Rotten.com, and even I know what Penis Fish is. Geeky Randy 21:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaia Online picture -- from here?

I have no idea. It was awful!

DarkestMoonlight (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi

Template:Reqscreenshot

External links

The external links in the article aren't relevant, it's just spam isn't it? DJ John 23:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're all maintained by Soylent Communications and linked to on rotten. 24.18.44.64 07:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tone?

I don't see anything particularly wrong with the tone...? --Lenny, 1216 21 Aug 05

The article takes on a very mocking and supercilious tone. Rather surprising as wikipedia is supposed to be unopinionated and strongly NPOV. 59.93.200.18 19:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)Xpert[reply]

Brazil

I just read the Rotten.com article on Tery Gilliam's Brazil, and it didn't have anything wrong with it (shock/porn/insults, etc.) In fact, except for the links to the 'shock' departments, this looks sort of like something I'd read in Rolling Stone. Does Rotten.com have a 'regular media' arm of some kind? -Litefantastic 01:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sportsdignity

nobody seems to have mentioned it

daily rotten start date?

The article mentions that dailyrotten.com started in late 1999. However, on the main page of dailyrotten.com, under the "Viewership" heading on the sidebar, it says:

"On the first full day this page went live, 100,000 people visited this Rotten News page. Of course that was the day after the WTC attacks, so that number is somewhat distorted. Right now this page gets between 50,000 and 75,000 people every day."

Is there a citation for the early 2000 comment, or should it be changed to Sept 12, 2001?

- Eric Jan 08, 2006

From Rotten.com: "Prior to September 11 [2001], Daily Rotten was a different format, but wasn't actually updated daily. Well, we tried, but it was just too difficult to maintain that pace. Occasionally we will still write an original article in this format, and these appear here." Jerkcity 14:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes and theft

Is it worth a mention that a portion of the photos on the site are on snopes and explained without the rotten logo, which shows that they are taken from other places in the internet? Pogo 06:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to create a "Wikipedia and Theft" section as well, for the Wikipedia article, explaining that the majority of Wikipedia photos are "stolen from the (nebulous) Internet"? The fact that a photo exists in another place without a logo is evidence of... nothing. Perhaps you have some sort of agenda...? Poledancer 07:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like you to show me where Wikipedia has photos stolen off the internet that are copyrighted, etc. It also shows that either Rotten took the photo and added the logo, or that some person is extremley good with photoshopping. And yes, I have an agenda, against urban legends. Pogo 06:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watermarks arnt an idication of ownership anyways. --72.138.186.64 11:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my addition deleted?

I thought since the John and Ken show in L.A. had been doing the Ghoul pool since the early 90s it was worth mentioning since the rotten.com version is almost exactly the same.

See Dead Pool. Jerkcity 21:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

I have added a warning above the links. Rotten.com is extremely disturbing to some people and I thought this should be mentioned.Thomasiscool 19:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Thomasiscool[reply]

'Some people' should lighten up. The article makes it clear it may be shocking. Their 'splash' page makes it clear. Even their name and url make it clear. --72.138.186.64 11:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Clark said that

In the section titled Rotten Library, there is a statement which quotes Sir Kenneth Clark. Being curious I checked the wiki-link leading to the Kenneth Clark article and it seems that he made that statement posthumously. He expired on May 21, 1983 whereas Rotten.com was started in 1996. I'm rather confused. Does this link redirect to the "wrong" Kenneth Clark? 59.93.200.18 19:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Focus of Rotten.com?

Granted, it's been a long time so I could be mistaken, but I seem to remember the first incarnations of rotten.com as having photos displayed boldy on the front page with little other content, whereas now it seems like the photos have definitely taken a backseat to other content. The photo section (on the main page, not the Boners) is rarely ever updated, and to access them you must click on the headers first. It seems like the current rotten.com is much more focused on the Daily Rotten and Rotten Library sections, and as a result is generally much tamer than many perceive it to be. Is this just my personal interpretation, or do others feel the same way? 69.175.50.2 17:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When Merging the Article

Soylent Communications is the heart of the entire "rotten.com complex" and needs further research and inquiry. My opinion both of the rotten dot com and the Soylent Communications articles is that they are poorly organized and too short. In my opinion there needs be more pages written within this subject not less. Furthermore, merely merging the article won't fix the aforementioned problems. In my opinion, Soylent Communications and all of its counterparts have greatly affected popular culture as most people have been to rotten dot com and know it by name. Therefore NNDB.com and rotten dot com deserve more than a few sentences apiece and be crammed into a single vague article along with everything else. I will note however it does no good for me to just mention these changes. I'll begin to make them on my own soon. In conclusion I think it would be a mistake to merge the articles, and other problems need to be addressed. Research will be difficult as the webmaster of rotten dot com is very reclusive (as his company is also) and any input would be helpful to me getting around this problem. To elaborate more, there is almost a media blackout on this subject, I have found a few reputable articles. Any information can be left in my talk box. Unhelpful information includes reciting Wikipedia policy to me which I am already aware of. Thank you.

Research in Wikipedia is against policy. Please read Wikipedia:No original research. Poledancer 06:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove my comments. Please also read Help:Talk_page. Please read especially the part where it says in bold, Do not edit other user's comments. You have already removed my comment twice. Please leave it in place. Please leave this comment in place as well. You are being very rude. This discussion is for everyone, not just for you. It is not your personal talk page. Poledancer 02:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. What I also understand is that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a dull bureaucracy, then again when people merely chant policies it makes it seem as so. I just felt that you were being a busybody and actually had nothing of significance to add to my comment. Thank you for the clarification however, I actually appreciate it.

Splitting

There is absolutely no justifiable reason to split this article into multiple pieces, as one person has suggested. Quatloo 04:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it seems many areas need elaboration and some new articles need to be written. There's justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.133.248 (talk)

None of the subtopics merit a standalone article, and one would be hard-pressed to come up with one that would. Nobody has made any case otherwise. Nobody has so much as mentioned what one of these "multiple pieces" would be. Quatloo 07:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penis Fish

This article mentions Penis Fish but I can't find any evidence of that ever existing.

It does seem odd to mention this penis fish thing as being notable, but not saying what it is or providing a link to it JayKeaton 23:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never go to Rotten.com, and even I know what Penis Fish is. Geeky Randy 21:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gaia Online picture -- from here?

I have no idea. It was awful!

DarkestMoonlight (talk) 14:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Imagery

Perhaps we could put down a picture from rotten.com to illustrate their (the image's) provenancy.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]