HOME > Chowhound > Site Talk >

What kind of CH are you?

g
GerardGartrell Jan 24, 2007 04:15 PM

I saw this on another board and laughed out loud. It is so true (see post #17).

I'm a #3.

http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php...

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
  1. ArtemisNYC RE: GerardGartrell Jan 24, 2007 05:07 PM

    LOL, this is great. I'd say I'm a cross between Subpopulations 1 and 3, much to my dismay.

    1. NovoCuisine RE: GerardGartrell Jan 24, 2007 05:21 PM

      I like that the guy with the jiggling boob icon and 10,700 posts to a fantasy football forum has called this place over the top ;)

      My SO pokes fun at me for discussing salt cod with people online, and I reciprocate when he has a burning desire to login and talk about a potential NFL draft pick. It's all fun and it takes all types for forums.

      4 Replies
      1. re: NovoCuisine
        Yaqo Homo RE: NovoCuisine Jan 24, 2007 07:31 PM

        I think I just found a new avatar; move over, Bertani bottle.

        1. re: Yaqo Homo
          NovoCuisine RE: Yaqo Homo Jan 25, 2007 03:12 PM

          Oh but I homemade it.. :) I have a bunch of 'food celeb' ones to bust out, though.

        2. re: NovoCuisine
          LindaWhit RE: NovoCuisine Jan 25, 2007 05:08 AM

          I have concluded that MojoMan on the huddle's food and beverage board should stay there.

          1. re: NovoCuisine
            sivyaleah RE: NovoCuisine Jan 25, 2007 11:37 AM

            I was JUST going to mention that! The guy talking about some thai place that has the asian women bouncing around w/her top 1/2 off. Yep, he knows food...

          2. Sam Fujisaka RE: GerardGartrell Jan 25, 2007 04:47 AM

            That Huddler is certainly a generous guy!

            1. puppymomma RE: GerardGartrell Jan 25, 2007 05:02 AM

              Oh, I'm a #3 definitely. I like their message board setup. I wish our avatars were a little bit bigger.

              1. prunefeet RE: GerardGartrell Jan 25, 2007 09:56 AM

                Well, I'd like to think of myself as a 1.

                1. eleaticstranger RE: GerardGartrell Jan 25, 2007 05:36 PM

                  How prevalent do you think subpopulation 2 is? Has anyone noticed that population growing since, say, the early 2000's?

                  2 Replies
                  1. re: eleaticstranger
                    spigot RE: eleaticstranger Jan 25, 2007 06:25 PM

                    Why do you ask, eleaticstranger?

                    Because FWIW, I think yes. I was on chowhound a lot years ago, fell away at some point, and came back post the sale to CNET. And #2 seems much more prevalent since then, to me.

                    1. re: spigot
                      eleaticstranger RE: spigot Jan 25, 2007 06:47 PM

                      Just interested in others' impressions, that's all.

                  2. applehome RE: GerardGartrell Jan 25, 2007 08:59 PM

                    Type 5: People who are concerned about what type everyone else is...

                    How's this help anybody find good food? If we're proud to be chowhounds, then certainly we need to acknowledge that this is part of the noise - not the signal.

                    1. eleaticstranger RE: GerardGartrell Jan 26, 2007 03:46 PM

                      Type 6: People who 'see beyond labels' and chastise those who think they recognize different kinds of motivations for interests in food and eating.

                      Certain boards, I take it, are meant to help people find good food. It's not clear that "Site Talk" is.

                      3 Replies
                      1. re: eleaticstranger
                        applehome RE: eleaticstranger Jan 27, 2007 01:09 PM

                        Site Talk is where we talk about the site. If you want to talk about motivations for posting, I would guess that it better belongs under Not About Food. Since the Moderators have not done anything about this thread, they are either busy or happy to have this discussion sitting in ST (perhaps from the perspective of Chowhound criticism).

                        But that’s not the point of the poster here – they want another “Chowhound category” discussion. There have been many similar threads in the past where people create a straw man of categories and ask others to point to a category that they fit into. They are most often on General Topics or NAF, leaving Site Talk for actual discussion of the site mechanics and management strategies. They may reveal something about each poster, but, frankly, if you don’t get it from our posts, even a well-thought out category chart (which this isn’t) won’t make you any more or less comfortable with any individual poster.

                        This post is particularly nefarious as it actually points to a different site altogether, where one of us set up this particular straw man – and it leaves you thinking that the reason it’s off-site is so that we can be discussed behind our backs (ha-ha look at those silly chowhounders).

                        I wandered around this other board for a bit – it is exactly what Jim Leff keeps saying he doesn’t want CH to turn into (and the great majority of us agree). It was just chock full of completely inane responses that do nothing at all to inform the reader of any aspect of food. The Chowhound thread was actually the most sensible – with legitimate points being made about the site (again, not about food). But the other food threads were just silly comments about nothing.

                        Clearly, we don’t want that here - which is enough reason to keep these kinds of meaningless discussions off the site, and for the moderators and participants to police them.

                        We all have different views. Thankfully, we don’t have to read (or respond to) everything. I consider chain discussions to be silly, and if I had my way, they wouldn’t be on Chowhound (not because of food quality issues, but because chains are ubiquitous and identical by design, so a discussion of uniqueness is pretty much a waste of time, plus the continued growth of chains insures the failure or non-being of individual, unique efforts - both of these reasons are contrary to the Chowhound ethos of discovering and encouraging the production of new and wonderful foods). Obviously, not everybody agrees, and so we have a chain board (nicely contained so I can ignore it). Nevertheless, I don’t need to know who likes chains for me to decide whether a poster is worth reading or not. In fact, I grudgingly accept that there is a lot of good commentary in the Chain board – especially RWOrange’s recent paean to McD cheeseburgers – and I would have missed those if there hadn’t been a board or if we discouraged posting on chains.

                        So… it’s all good, we each make up our own minds as to the value of each post and poster (generally), and category polls of Chowhounders are not useful information.

                        1. re: applehome
                          eleaticstranger RE: applehome Jan 28, 2007 12:28 AM

                          OK, you win. We're bad chowhounders for thinking there are differences and being interested in them. Where's the good food?

                          1. re: eleaticstranger
                            applehome RE: eleaticstranger Jan 28, 2007 11:35 AM

                            http://www.chowhound.com/

                      2. Das Ubergeek RE: GerardGartrell Jan 27, 2007 06:47 AM

                        Oh no, some random guy on the Internet insulted me!

                        I'm gonna cry now.

                        Really.

                        1 Reply
                        1. re: Das Ubergeek
                          toodie jane RE: Das Ubergeek Jan 28, 2007 06:17 PM

                          what are those things in your armpits? a key and....? and blue?

                        Show Hidden Posts