...Has anyone ever thought of BUYING TVTropes?

IanExMachina · 2011-10-27 21:03:58

Most of the characters aren't really important past what we ascribe to them.

Whilst I really like Gene Hunt and push for others to know the character at the end of the day his only meaning is personal one that varies between individuals.

Also:

trollface.jpg

Elbeem · 2011-10-27 21:22:25

I don't like Tv Tropes gets more traffic than something awful, at all.

Why is that? I don't really see where it makes much of a difference in the grand scheme of things. They both get huge amounts of traffic, and while TVT may have the edge numbers-wise, SA does a better job of getting revenue from that traffic.

Vivi · 2011-10-27 21:28:59

Sorry meant to say think not like.

Elbeem · 2011-10-27 21:52:05

Ah, I see. I was basing that off of Alexa's stats.

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/tvtropes.org TvTropes is ranked #3571 in site traffic and page-views globally, and #1555 in the United States.

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/somethingawful.com Something Awful is ranked #5161 globally, and #1,817 in the United States.

Crimson · 2011-10-27 21:54:55

EDIT: Nevermind, disregard this post.

ClockworkUniverse · 2011-10-27 21:56:41

^It's the same. everything containing "somethingawful.com" gets ranked together.

Elbeem · 2011-10-27 21:59:20

I believe it's included. If you scroll down on the something awful link, it shows what percentage of page-views for something awful go to forums.somethingawful.com

edit: ninja'd. And again, it's not a big deal either way. I was just bringing it up as a comparison for theoretical site hosting costs.

AnneBeeche · 2011-10-30 23:04:00

Just going to drop in my .02:

If I'm correct, FE would be highly, highly unlikely to give up his brainchild for a sum of money. As for the amount of money he may give up TV Tropes for... well, personally I think it'd be better spent on something else, like your college tuition.
Even if you did manage to buy TV Tropes from FE, now what? Just because he's stopped owning the site doesn't mean all the problems are solved. People have to be banned. Posts have to be crushed. The creepy stuff in the corners of the wiki have to be cleaned out. New mods have to be appointed, because surely some will leave, and new rules have to be made. That's very hard work.
Not to mention, just because FE is a poor admin does not necessarily mean you will be a good one in his place. I personally think the trouble with FE is that he simply does not really have the knowhow or emotional stability to properly admin a site that gets as much traffic as TV Tropes--it started off as a personal little hobby for him and then it became much, much bigger than he expected it to be. (of course that's all my speculation. I don't know what really happened) Me, I have never adminned a site before, certainly not a site that popular. I don't know how to deal with something like that. For all I know, I could be just as bad an admin too. Maybe I wouldn't have the exact same problems as FE, but they'd be problems of some kind.
So basically, buying TV Tropes realistically wouldn't solve any of TV Tropes's problems. It'd just be a waste of money.

As for getting SA to buy TV Tropes for you? That's even sillier. Not only do you want a bunch of unrelated people to solve your problems for you (assuming buying TV Tropes would solve any problems at all), but, quite frankly, I don't think Lowtax (the guy who owns Something Awful and would come into possession of TV Tropes should it be sold) gives nearly enough of a shit to want to buy it. As for the 10-20 people in the TV Tropes the Third thread, as fascinated and/or entertained as they are by everything that's wrong with the site, I don't think they give that much of a shit either and besides, they're not allowed to interfere.

Wait, TV Tropes gets more traffic than Something Awful?

Well, I'll be.

Seriously, I never would've guessed.

Also, if this post imports drama or anything like that, just let me know and I'll gut it.

glennmagusharvey · 2011-10-30 23:18:35

> In any case, I do believe what ultimately sunk the site was

TV Tropes is not sunk.

MillerCross · 2011-10-30 23:27:28

TvT's quality as a forum and as a wiki is remarkably low, considering OTC and the fanservice tropes.

I don't mind fanservice tropes, myself, but the problem is that they're used as a venue for the autors to go "this is my fetish

"

glennmagusharvey · 2011-10-30 23:28:50

Just because people use a part of the site as fetish gushing grounds doesn't mean that the rest of the wiki is of low quality, mind you.

MillerCross · 2011-10-30 23:30:40

blah blah analysis blah blah aiming high, reaching low blah blah bad bad bad bad bad resource when it comes to actual discussion blah blah you're actually better off using wikipedia blah blah bad use of literary terms for the sake of creating their own clique-y vocabulary blah blah

glennmagusharvey · 2011-10-30 23:32:49

blah blah blah notability issues with wikipedia blah blah blah examples list is very useful for analysis and creative inspiration blah blah blah tvt is not analysis but fosters it blah blah blah why does everyone accentuate the negative blah blah blah

Edit: blah blah blah bedtime blah blah blah

RedEyedAbyss · 2011-10-30 23:34:48

"TV Tropes is not sunk."

This depends on what standards you apply it to. In terms of being a good resource for analysing fiction, it's a far cry from being useful for the reasons Juan mentioned. This wouldn't be so much of a problem if people on the site didn't treat it as such (something that tends to tick off detractors).

^"examples list is very useful for analysis and creative inspiration"

Except that people are only interested in saying something happened. Most of the time, there's little investigation into why the producers used the tropes the way they did. This becomes most evident in the character pages. There's barely any insight into characters' motives, if at all; merely what archetype they are and what they do in the story.

Malkavian · 2011-10-30 23:36:32

I've never really treated TV Tropes as anything other than a toybox.

Which is what it should be treated as. If some pretentious user wants to pretend it's more than that it's their problem, not the wiki. There are also people who call the original Star Wars film 'The Holy Trilogy' but I don't blame Lucas for that.

AnneBeeche · 2011-10-30 23:44:22

Yeah, same. TV Tropes never has been anything more than a fun time-sinker and to me it feels silly to pretend otherwise.

It's like saying your guitar hero controller is an actual Les Paul.

MillerCross · 2011-10-30 23:53:17

It'd be fine and dandy if the site didn't bill itself as a media analysis resource.

examples list is very useful for analysis

Not really, no. They're hardly helpful when you need to start your own observations on a film. And if anything, wikipedia is better because they at least manage to point out thematical approach in some of the articles. Something that TvT doesn't wanna do and has no interest in doing.

Also, I don't see how "X work did Y" is particularly inspirational, but hey, whatever works for you.

ClockworkUniverse · 2011-10-30 23:57:59

^The examples list could be useful. Sadly...not going to happen with its current user base.

Malkavian · 2011-10-31 00:01:11

I think any user base that -was- interested in genuine analysis wouldn't be getting even a fourth the traffic TV Tropes is getting, to say nothing of the judicious academic editing it would take.

ClockworkUniverse · 2011-10-31 00:03:28

Someone should make a spinoff site like that.

"The same, but somewhere else" isn't ever going to be even on the level of the original. Something similar, but with different goals would be quite worthwhile.

MillerCross · 2011-10-31 00:06:13

meh, we attempted that, remember? Hell, we even forked the site with Tzetze and Ponicalica.

Or well, we attempted to do it, until the whole thing fell down because the goons had to go and be hypersmug.

ClockworkUniverse · 2011-10-31 00:07:08

^Huh? Are you referring to the analysis namespace project, or to something I missed entirely? I'm leaning toward the latter, since the former is the closest thing I can think of.

MillerCross · 2011-10-31 00:13:51

The former.

See, when DrSunshine/AOD suggested the project way back when I approached Tzetze, Iverum and Ponicalica and told them to unite resources with the goons. I approached them because Tzetze had been considering a TvTropes fork before, but mostly from a technical perspective (You know the little cyborg and his need for everything technological to appeal to him.

)

He had been stuck at a conceptual level and back then I was agreeing completely with that thread, so I told AOD to drop by #yackfest and establish contact.

Not only did we use a shitty proboard forum, but most of the people have bailed. Not to mention that ideologically speaking, it was doomed from day one due to the staggering level of requirements the goons wanted for the project, which ties into...

I think any user base that -was- interested in genuine analysis wouldn't be getting even a fourth the traffic TV Tropes is getting, to say nothing of the judicious academic editing it would take.

I honestly don't want "genuine academical analysis", but I definetly want a level of thought put into the example lists beyond natter and correcting edits. And I'm honestly interested on what a person who's not completely versed in literature, film or what have you has to say on fiction and his own proper analysis.

RedEyedAbyss · 2011-10-31 00:24:01

Incidentally, that's why I latched on to liveblogs: so people would have an outlet for looking at fiction more in-depth.

Malkavian · 2011-10-31 00:52:56

>Looks at my Smallville blog

>It's more in-depth than many

>assuming this is actually literary criticism

MillerCross · 2011-10-31 01:14:34

I don't think anyone has assumed that. And if I ever said such a thing, you're allowed to slap me.

Same if I ever compliment you in general.

Chagen · 2011-10-31 08:05:14

"It'd be fine and dandy if the site didn't bill itself as a media analysis resource."

No it does not, it did not, and it never will.

MillerCross · 2011-10-31 09:25:07

It used to, but it doesn't now, you mean.

there used to be a line in the homepage about "analysing fiction".

And even then, the fact that it's wiki alone means its intentions as a catalogue are more than just simply "We detail random fiction crap". Otherwise, trope pages would just be laconical and links from the work pages, which would contain the full example.

Chagen · 2011-10-31 10:24:55

Well, it's not a hardcore analyzing site. It's just a fun little site to catalogue things.

MillerCross · 2011-10-31 10:28:23

I'm not demanding harcore analysis, as I've mentioned before. I only want a site that doesn't just list things for the sake of listing things. It's too inane.

Also, there's talk about it being a writer's resource. Especially by moderators, which often times, makes me wanna punch the screen, really.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

...Has anyone ever thought of BUYING TVTropes?

Comments