YTMND Search

 (1.00)

All your base variants? We are in the second decade of 21st century - this doesn't count as retro chic just yet.

 (4.00)

So your vote is based not on the site content and your assessment of it, but rather what other people vote on the site and their assessment of it? Why don't you just make your vote based on some other arbitrary means? You're really no different than circle jerking upvoters or faggy downvoters.

 (0.00)

That's the font I used. I spent several minutes trying to figure out which font to use and then hours trying to figure out which song to use and finally resorted to Ace of Base because I like the nostalgia of it.

 (0.00)

Wow, I didn't realize CthulhuBurrito was a '10er! If I had known that, I probably would have used him instead of lemurofdoom. To be clear, though, I didn't pick the other two based on quality; it was really more about ratings and view count. Which is why CthulhuBurrito would have been a better choice.

 (0.00)

Because it's so mature to vote based on how the creator of a site votes on other sites rather than the site itself, right? Just tell me: Did you watch the whole thing or not?

 (5.00)

Better for YTMND than a chronic alt downvoter who votes based on the user and not the site and thinks everything should have the exact same taste in YTMNDs or else they're trolls and everyone fucking hates you

 (5.00)

I accept partial responsibility for this site, since I told TheeBatman that this song is Neil Sedaka - Breaking Up Is Hard To Do. And I take full responsibility for my upvote. You, however, can take part of the blame for me being an unrepentant upvoter. One of the reasons I upvote is to counter the people that auto-1 sites, based on the user that made it.<br /><br />You are doing more to hurt YTMND with your downvoting and trolling than anyone else. Constantly berating and discouraging people doesn't foster a positive community. I want people to thrive. I want YTMND to always be here to entertain us and enrich our lives. I love it. That's why I give 5s and leave silly comments.

[i]really???[/i] i thought it was always obvious that ytmnd's user base is a remarkable, untapped source of creativity. like a living, breathing foolproof get-rich-quick scheme. maybe these "advertisers" didn't see any of our dvd rips with pop culture reference head pastes.

The oldest issue with ytmnd is that Max never took his baby really seriously. He's been running this site himself the entire span of its existence and could never keep up with the demands of the userbase, so they left. Instead of doing what any sensible person would do and turn ytmnd into a business and hiring people to keep up with demands and evolve the site and design, he insisted on keeping it completely static and self-contained within the community, only pushing to make vague promises of small incremental improvements based on a trickle of echo chamber demands (and even then he ignored some of that and made whatever you want to call YTMND 2.0). Max has never aggressively pushing for relevance, despite the clear opportunity to do so starting in mid 2006, ytmnd's peak, and that is why ytmnd has become the garbage heap of the internet instead of a viable alternative to other user-based media sites. Other sites grew up, and ytmnd festered and rot.

That would be a nice idea to limit the number of sites per day, but I'm having a little problem with the account creation based on IP. If I restart my modem, I get a brand new address (at least where I live) so that would be quite useless.<br />Regarding avatars, that would be great, even though in all these years I've been used to recognize the users by their names, my memory automatically links their behaviour and the sites they make. I'm saying that would be a little confusing to have avatars because we would be automatically bound to recognize users by their picture; since avatars are editable, users who don't have a wide and precise attention to the screen and all their elements (username, avatar, comments and replies) would be confused. I know I'm not very clear about it, but I can't even explain it well in my own language too.

 (0.00)

I don't know computers very well, but is it even possible to limit site creation based not on username, but IP address?

 (0.00)

Also, you have to understand that senorgif is based on user-generated content. I believe there's no real danger, but it pisses me off to see ytmnd stuff on their site because it really looks like they stole it.

 (1.00)

I just left this wall of text on some user's site like the no-life eloquent waxer I am:<br /><br />I was really teetering between a 3 and a 4, which is something I do a lot. If you look at Lastimero where the line between the two are, you'll see that this is actually in the top third of all the sites I've voted on, so that's not too bad at all.<br /><br />As for how I generally vote, I'm part of what seems to be a small minority of users who don't vote based on just the content of a site. I look at the creativity of the idea presented, the effort put into it, and how much different from its source material a site's content becomes by moving to the YTMND format. Originality is highly valued for me, as are good loops. I also make a point of not "upvoting" or "downvoting," which to me means voting solely to change the total score to one's liking (if I "upvoted," you'd get a 5). I could actually go on--I have a few exceptions to these guidelines--but I think you get the picture.<br /><br />In your case, you found a couple of nice images online, did a little editing, and put it to some nice music...To be sure, the aesthetic is appealing to me, but if I voted solely on that, I'd be giving 5's to all kinds of stuff that don't deserve it. Kind of like the thousands of users who voted 5 on anything with Daft Punk back in the day, even if it was paired to some completely irrelevant cat gif found somewhere on the internet.<br /><br />I hope I'm not coming across all high and mighty here (like Umfuld, perhaps). I know that I'm still just one vote in a sea of stars (especially since I don't believe in using alts). And in the end, stars are really just red pixels in cyberspace that we attach meaning to.

 (4.00)

[u]More than you ever, [i]ever[/i] wanted to know:[/u]<br /><br />I was really teetering between a 3 and a 4, which is something I do a lot. If you look at [user Lastimero:votes] where the line between the two are, you'll see that this is actually in the top third of all the sites I've voted on, so that's not too bad at all.<br /><br />As for how I generally vote, I'm part of what seems to be a small minority of users who don't vote based on just the content of a site. I look at the creativity of the idea presented, the effort put into it, and how much different from its source material a site's content becomes by moving to the YTMND format. Originality is highly valued for me, as are good loops. I also make a point of not "upvoting" or "downvoting," which to me means voting solely to change the total score to one's liking (if I "upvoted," you'd get a 5). I could actually go on--I have a few exceptions to these guidelines--but I think you get the picture.<br /><br />In your case, you found a couple of nice images online, did a little editing, and put it to some nice music. For me, this typically falls in the 3 range unless there's a particularly clever concept at work. What could possibly bring your site to a 4 is the cohesiveness of the concept and the subtlety of the editing. To be sure, the aesthetic is appealing to me, but if I voted solely on that, I'd be giving 5's to all kinds of stuff that don't deserve it. Kind of like the thousands of users who voted 5 on anything with Daft Punk back in the day, even if it was paired to some completely irrelevant cat gif found somewhere on the internet.<br /><br />I hope I'm not coming across all high and mighty here (like Umfuld, perhaps). I know that I'm still just one vote in a sea of stars (especially since I don't believe in using alts). And in the end, stars are really just

 (5.00)

Based on the title I was expecting a long GeneralFod site.

 (2.00)

You might at this point be wondering why my votes are all over the place. I'm part of what seems to be a small minority of users who don't vote based on just the content of a site. I look at the creativity of the idea presented, the effort put into it, and how much different from its source material a site's content becomes by moving to the YTMND format. Originality is highly valued for me, which is partly why I like some of your voice-overs. I could elaborate, but I'm sure I've already said more than anyone cares to read.

 (2.00)

What did I dismiss or deny? I found this site because it was on the front page. If it makes you feel better I'll give you a 2 instead because the image was nice. My concentration in college was in behavioral neuroscience; I know quite a bit about the history of psychometrics, and the development of social policy based around eugenics and evolutionary psychology in the US in the early twentieth century. I'm discussing politics here though, not the science or morality of it. My point being that James Watson (one of the scientists who discovered the structure of DNA as we know it) lost a shitload of credibility for suggesting differences in intelligence between populations for genetic reasons. Issues of intelligence testing aside, such as possible cultural bias, my point is that its a completely taboo subject.<br /><br />So what are "its effects"? There's empirical support that the racist policies of the 60's were detrimental to black children. But there's also a growing body of evidence that violence and cruelty in the media are detrimental to children, too, which is largely dismissed and ignored.<br /><br />My point being: Why is racism for shock value completely, utterly, and unquestioningly reviled; but the use of graphic descriptions of rape for shock value is... largely ignored by people who consider moon man to be immature and revolting?

 (4.00)

Thank God I didn't get Zelda based on this commercial, or I wouldn't have gotten it.

 (0.00)

ok so you're 1'ing my site because i said i edited the gif that it was based on? <br />or it didn't get edited enough? <br />or becuase i was supposed to go out with a camera and shoot the footage myself? <br />should i have written recorded and produced my own music for it too?<br />or what exactly is the issue here?<br /><br />just to be clear, my process was as follows:<br />found the following gif online (on ffffound i think): http://i.imgur.com/hcOSm.gif<br />edited the gif, zooming in, pausing, looping, whatnot<br />edited two songs together into one audio track<br />synced gif to audio track<br />posted<br /><br />is this acceptable to you?

 (1.00)

Exactly. I vote based on what I find to be entertaining. That's all. Apparently this concept is too esoteric for Umfucktard to even comprehend.

 (0.00)

A site can take 3 days to make and if it's unfunny it's not worth my time. Let me cite an example...Fourest. There. I don't upvote sites based on effort, I upvote them based on humor, or if they're artfaggy enough for my tastes. The amount of effort taken is second to the humor or whatever else I may like about it.<br /><br />I'd explain the comedy of my direct rips sites in more detail but somehow I feel that would ruin the joke, but then again for people who don't get it...

 (0.00)

I could blab about how the comedy is derived by the simple fact of randomly cutting some spastic scene from some show and looping it to the point it becomes absurd, but apparently effort matters.<br /><br />I could of course inform you of the fact that all "classic" YTMND sites take considerably less effort than the site style you're citing that I tend to do.<br /><br />I know I'm not generally directly changing anything, but cropping an avi, then converting it to .gif, trimming said .gif and optimizing it based on a good compression/size ratio so it doesn't look too small or too shitty whilst on the side converting a .wav to an .mp3 and sometimes making it louder isn't exactly something that's done casually or can be done whilst multitasking.<br /><br />Ether way, fuck it. The comedy is derived from the idiocy of it. It's the fact that I went out of my way to make such dumpy spastic bullshit.<br /><br />My last site wasn't as good, because I let it run too long. I guess I just wanted aside dumpily named "The Pig Man", so I had to have a longer scene.<br /><br />Originally I was going to just have a shorter clip of him running and oinking, spastically looped. That may have been funnier.<br /><br />I guess I could compare my humor to, ironically, Tim & Eric. Same style and concept behind it.

 (5.00)

Text based shadowgate was the first "video" game I ever played in my life on my older brothers commodore. <br /><br />OPEN Door ⏎ <br />the door is locked...<br />LOOK North ⏎ <br />You see an old door adorned with a skull mounted on top...<br />OPEN Skull ⏎ <br />You pry the jaw open to reveal an aged brass key...<br />Take Key ⏎ <br />USE Key ON Door ⏎ <br />You insert the key into the lock... It turns!<br />OPEN Door ⏎ <br />.........<br /><br />That game sucked! My brother did all the shit out of the book too, including making the gay looking rainbow hot air balloon scroll across the screen.

 (0.00)

-- All your base are belong to us.<br /><br />-- Mmm, WHAT YOU SAY !!

 (4.00)

i made some english language errors, but you all can still get the effect of the story. please do not comment-downvote my story based on stupid grammar and spelling and english language. you can still get a big dick like i had when i wrote the story if you just suspend belief in the english language and just feel the bonehard zag i flip to your domez.

 (5.00)

you overblow things so hard is laughable. it's a part of why i keep coming back to your typical faggotry. 100% of the time you recoil in fear and disgust and make statements based on the most minimal and vague interpretations.<br /><br />now you're on some kick about be being untrustworthy because of a vague comment i made on a lego site about how you complain about ytmnd, in public and in private. now you're saying to most extreme, hurtful thing you can think of to illustrate your fantasy,<br /><br />"You're the most untrustworthy person I've ever met."<br /><br />if that's true then i very, very sorry you've experienced so little and learned nothing from life.<br /><br />you're one big dramatic, reactionary act. you're like a woman stereotype seen on network television.<br /><br />you fail to see when people are just messing with you, or at least you fail to convey you understand whats going on. look up, umfuld. look at all the comments i made. i even made that bar graph and posted it on imageshack and linked it for you. and you react with the most bitchy, tired walls of text.

 (5.00)

numberform.ytmnd.com is the best, serious site on the internet.<br /><br />i was offered 3 jobs based off this gif alone (let me look at that url again, numberform.ytmnd.om)<br /><br />i bet you wish you could be<br /><br />1) as talented as me<br /><br />and<br /><br />2) as good looking

 (5.00)

jim varney died from stealing 2nd base from acr?

 (5.00)

anystrom, you are a good freind. I still love a good moonman site though. Continue to vote one as much as you see fit. I won't fuck with people based on their tastes. I appreciate your thoughtful comment though and can respect what you are getting at. Just don't talk shit about macho man randy savage please... not that you would but that was a preemptive request.

 (0.00)

to clarify, I think your criticism is often good, however you vote based how others are voting. that's not a complaint, mind you; i just worry that it's driving you towards utter cynicism.