The Bad Webcomics Wiki!

You just summarized why I can't stand that wiki. Though I do remember seeing the members talk about a webcomic they actually liked. Hipster Hitler. I'm sorry, but the only word that came to my mind was "snob". Like those cinema critics that dismiss anything other than long dialogue-driven societal French New Wave movies as "brainless trash".

If people enjoy this site, that's fine by me. But I just cannot stand it, precisely for the reasons you explained. In my eyes, it's kinda like Encyclopedia Dramatica, except filled with way more mistaken-for-satire hate.

(Wow, I'm being harsh and hateful. Sorry about that. You just summed it up so perfectly, I needed to let it all out.)

edited 10th Jun '15 2:17:12 AM by Yugnat

I do remember finding one extremely-positive review on the website, which was there mainly for the writer to make a counter-example of how another work by the same author failed. Can't remember which one though.

I've also read that they won't review El Goonish Shive specifically because they realized they couldn't just bash everything. And I think there has to be some sort of consensus nowadays on their forums. Still shows how vitriolic they can be that they need to do something like that.

Really? Because judging by some reviews, EGS would be absolute fodder for them.

Why EGS specifically ? It's hardly a Sacred Cow. Even on This Very Wiki most reviews are negative.

It was brought back up on the forum a month or two back, and I managed to find a bit backtracking this very thread. General consensus seems to be that 1)the comic's too mild in its badness to make funny, and 2)Dan Shive is a genuinely nice guy who's legitimately trying to write well. YMMV on how good these reasons are.

And I found the positive review: Ozy And Millie. The writer explicitly states that he/she wrote the review as a showcase of how it succeeded in contrast to how Raine Dog failed.

I didn't know this. And here I thought I was the only one thinking "how'd EGS dodge their bullet?" Although this is exactly what I was gonna say. It's a flawed webcomic, but Dan isn't giving up on it and one of the most endearing things out there is a creator who can genuinely realize concrete flaws that their story has and commit to patching them up, in my opinion.

What baffles me is that they have a rating system. If they're just there to talk about bad webcomics, why bother assigning ratings?

Although I will say I've seen Penny Arcade referenced a few times positively, mostly when critiquing webcomics they perceive to be (poor) clones of it. And they did admit that Law For Kids at least had their heart in the right place (educating about Arizonian law), they just had incomplete writing and rigid, lifeless art (both of which are inarguable from just a glance at a few strips). So at least there was constructive criticism there.

I think sites like this are really pathetic. Most web comics are free and just someone sharing their writing, but to get content for their own site they insult other people's comics as if they had spent money marketing to you and invited you to read it. Pathetic.

I actually do enjoy the wiki myself, although I'll admit that I don't exactly go looking to see if they have entries on my favorite webcomics. I think they're very mixed up on the main storyline of Mega Tokyo and, while I do agree with them about the plot and artwork getting increasingly awkward, I don't think it deserves to be held up alongside of the other REALLY bad webcomics they cite. Most of the webcomics I've read which get more angry reviews I've found to be pretty... uh, unpleasant, at the very least. (Although I know, YMMV and such).

I did find their review of Cheshire Crossing to be pretty fair. It wasn't kind to the artwork, but heavily praised the actual writing (including congratulating it on doing a tasteful masturbation joke) and the portrayal of the heroines.

I used to not mind them. Then I saw they had Zoophobia and Cyanide and Happiness listed and I realized they're basically the webcomic equivalent of The Mysterious Mr. Enter.

edited 22nd Dec '15 2:06:04 PM by SpongeBat1

The more I read, the more I feel they just hate the medium of webcomics and are making more half-assed excuses. Lord, they consider Cyanide and Happiness a bad comic. It starts with actual bad comics, then with conflicting webcomics like Grim Tales and now with actually good comics that just happen to be subjects they don't like. Eventually it'll devolve into adding Bob and George because "I think sprites are lazy" and Homestuck because "I don't like the format." It's like how Project A.F.T.E.R seems to have a raging hate-on for fanfiction itself, only with webcomics. If you want a good reviewer of webcomics, just check out Webcomic Relief

Their patron saint John Solomon already said Bob & George is terrible, so I'm surprised they don't already have an article mocking it.

I've been less than eager to speak about this years earlier since then, I thought most of what I would have been said, already has been by others.

But having yet again been talking over a few fellow fans with Las Lindas among other reasons (most of which no one gives a damn about), I'll say this much;

A reason for why I all but ignore or simply pretend the Wiki flat out does not exist is that while for some of their 'reviews' they may have some points of criticism towards a given webcomic that may hold something legit...

What bugs me is how it seems like from my experiences that they have almost nothing but hatred towards everything. I got an impression from reading their reviews 'years' ago that it was only a matter of time till EVERY webcomic on the net would be critically panned, either in a light fashion or one with absolute malice.

Don't get me wrong, there are some very bad webcomics be it by my tastes or those of others, but it gets me that next to nothing can escape their criticism.

My biggest issue with them (and other things) as of late is ...how it seems like it's all but sheer toxicity. While criticism is one thing, there's criticism that may be simply criticism for any reason regardless of one's points are hit and/or miss. There's criticism that while it highlights the negative, may also highlight what debately 'works' in one's work.

And then there's criticism that seems so damn spiteful it can suggest all manner of asking just what was about this person and/or webcomic that drove him/her/other to a point to be so, full of toxic venom to unload it on said webcomic(s) via text.

This is a personal thing but I'm a little sick and tired of it.

I'm sick and tired of a lot of negativity, it's not as if I want all things positive but for crying out loud would be too much for some kind of balancing counterpoint?

And by that something that dosen't feel as irrelevant as the good news in a Geico commerical?

Unless someone really is into taking shots at them and enjoying it or something else, I can't really find them useful to any real extent. Mostly because I've come to accept with my own would be art and shit writing that there's going to be people who will feel about whatever it is regardless.

Best one can do themselves is for example to try and see what criticism can actually be useful (apart from how one could be self-critical as it is to begin with), ideally something that isn't spiteful or leave one being resentful for a good amount of time, and improve.

Assuming one isn't improving anyway.

Because until I can legit come across a review where they aren't deciding to take a bowl movement more or less, and nothing more, part of me wants to simply not bother even thinking about them.

Even in an event of being critical of their criticism themselves (less it's somehow 'useful' assuming those on the site even give a damn).

IF anyone here has come across something on their site that isn't entirely spiteful, feel free to link some examples...

Since I don't feel like going once more into what could be shit...that filter's full.

Why do they have a stick up their ass when it comes to webcomics? Did a webcomic kill their father?

There is the "not bad" category, though it only contains two articles. Here's a review of a comic that started out terrible but got better over time, and here's a comic that started out good but turned to crap later on. I've also seen them complimenting comics like Gunnerkrigg Court and Unsounded, in a "these comics do the things right that this comic does wrong" kind of way.

The overwhelming negativity is an inherent problem in only being about "bad" webcomics. In that way the complaint that "eventually all comics will get criticized" is counter productive because reviewing more comics that aren't absolute bottom of the barrel crap is arguably exactly what the site needs. They really go out of their way to almost exclusively focus on the absolute worst of the web. Check the ratio of obscure fetish-driven one-man-projects from some forgotten corner of the web to comics that people have actually heard about to see what I mean.

edited 21st Feb '16 1:58:23 PM by Druplesnubb

It doesn't help that they seem to want them to be bad. Out of sheer hatred.

A review that mentions that the art of a bad comic quite good so they "sadly" cannot complain about it. So they instead complain that they cannot complain about the art. Complaining about it is decided beforehand, they want them to be bad.

Basically, Your Criticism Wiki Is Bad And You Should Feel Bad.

This is the wiki equivalent of the Two Minutes Hate.

@Druplesnubb I don't know what it says about me that a review from Oze and Millie that's largely neutral positive to positive, leaves me with...soothing calm.. Granted not exactly 'professional' though I wonder what really qualifies as such, point being...I was okay with that review.

As for the other one, Vicki Fox; it's straightforward and short, be it as review on it's own or when compared to fields of poison that are many other reviews on that site...it's like walking on a nice spring day with a clear sky, and seeing the ocean with the calming sounds of the waves.

Shame there’s only TWO...

Because to some degree you are correct, and while I tried to say something similar earlier, I'm going to try and be a bit more forward.

The site name in itself should be an obvious tip-off, that it's going to be about web comics that are regarded as 'bad', and well, some are okay with that and ...it's fine. But as you've stated, I get that impression as well that they go out of their way for that.

And on some end again I can understand that, I can understand that some people who contribute to that site that for whatever reasons, are so angered, reviled, disappointed or whatever drove them to write their reviews on said webcomics, and I can get that one needs to vent if it bothers them that much.

I'd be rather hypcritical to say 'well then don't fucking read it' considering how BWW in itself leaves me angry to an extent that it took me some considerable will power to actually take the time to read some of the links provided without loosing my paitence to start with...

To say nothing about how I'm finally saying something about it by A -gathering what willpower I can and b- because this reply is far far overdue and while it's not perfect, screw it, I'm posting it.

It wasn't just because up to that point I thought all that could be said had been said by others, but also because I wasn't even sure I could or provide my own take on things, outside venting...which in a sense I'm doing anyway...

But yes...when it's almost nothing but that...and when you have a grand total of TWO 'not bad' reviews as if 'good' either cannot exist or if it ever was at a start or end, cannot exist because there is apparently a notion that there are no good ones (outside Grunnerkrigg Court and Unsounded).

To me at least it does not paint a rather encouraging picture.

I mean for fuck's sake who here has read their mission statement at the front page of their site?

To me it more or less tells me all I need to know about the BWW in summary, which in a sense is short sighted and ignoring nuance and actually taking a look to see if it's as much as what's stated at the start, but it makes me not want to bother with them less I want to step in an actually try to see what they're about.

I ended up taking a few reads of their reviews so I can have some legit basis and know what I'm talking about and while I'm not so ignorant anymore, part of me wishes I had not done so.

And you're right, a nice injection of reviews that aren't about the bottom of the barrel would do some site some good, or at least give an effort.

I get it, to an extent they want quality control with webcomics, they want people to find what's 'good' in their eyes and yet it seems the only 'not bad' cases along with Grunnerkrigg Court and Unsounded, and who knows what other examples...

Granted there would still be critcisim but if the BWW was more about having reviews of good to bad webcomics even though reviews can't absolutely be 100% objective as everybody has their own biases and such (granted if one makes that clear it can make things more clear potentially)...the site would be a little easier to swallow.

For now...for all the venom and bile and poison I've received from trying to read and understand their views on things, my base instinct towards them is to regard them with similar if not more malice.

Also...I've got zero fucking patience for the Webcomic Relief...I am sincerely sorry if that offends anyone who likes it...

If you do, you do...don't let my personal distaste for the series discourage you, because there's always going to be differences and disagreements.

I on a personal level don't think I can take time to sit through a review of his, I personally can't take it...again, the shit filter is full.

I'd say more but I think I've put up enough wall of text that probably makes no fucking sense cause I can't ever speak worth a damn since I'm doing over 820+ words.

Unsounded and Gunnerkrigg Court aren't the only webcomics they like. I know for a fact that both Homestuck and Order of the Stick have been suggested for reviewing several times just to be rejected for being "too good", as have probably tons of others. I just recalled those two webcomics being deliberately used as a positive example in a review.

I don't think they won't review homestuck because it's good, but because the story's so convoluted that it would take too long to do a review.

Personally, I don't agree with the wiki's views on what a bad webcomic is. While some of the comics on the wiki are genuinely bad, others are pretty good and don't belong there. I like a few of the webcomics on that site. Also, I feel that some of the members of that wiki come off as really arrogant and pretentious. They seem to have this idea of what a good webcomic is and if it doesn't fit their criteria, then it's trash.

Also, like someone else said, the BWW almost seem to want a webcomic to be bad just so they can add it to their wiki.

Like I said, wiki equivalent of the Two Minutes Hate.

I've used this wiki in the past ironically in that I use it too look for webcomics that appeal to my particular kinks, like anything by Bleedman.

It's funny how some of the webcomics I like are ones that I found on the wiki or were being discussed by the wiki. The so-called bad webcomics they have on there are webcomics I think are great.