One Day Left To Nominate Consumerist For The Bloggies

UPDATE: The nominations period has ended. Thanks to all who showed their support for the site.

Once again, it’s time for the Bloggies, the annual awards for, well… blogs. If you’ve been a reader of Consumerist for long enough, you know that we’ve been a bridesmaid many times over. But that’s not going to dishearten us from throwing our name into the nominations hat this year.

So if you want to help put Consumerist into consideration, go to 2011.bloggi.es and put our URL into whichever categories you feel are appropriate.

Alas, in spite of a spate of quality finance/business/consumer news sites out there, there is no category that specifically encompasses that topic. In past years, we’ve been nominated in the Best Topical Blog, Writing, Group Blog and Weblog of the Year categories.

You have until 10pm ET on Sunday night to submit Consumerist (and whatever other blogs you might enjoy) for consideration.

2011 Bloggies Nomination Form [Bloggi.es]

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Alvis says:

    Can we nominate just Meg, Ben, Chris, and Laura?

    • LadyTL says:

      Unfortunately I feel the same way, particularly with certain articles from a certain person. That person’s work is definitely dragging this site down so that I can’t in all honesty nominate it for anything.

    • Brent says:

      Is there an award for douchebag commenters?

      • Portlandia says:

        why, do you want an award?

      • Brent says:

        My own comment was snarky, and I regret going for the ad hominem. I’m sorry, Alvis. I’m taken aback, though, by the Phil bashing on Consumerist. It’s pretty harsh sometimes.

        • Southern says:

          IMO Brent, it’s not just “one” person (although one in particular, whom I will not name, does appear to be more at fault than all the others combined). It seems that ever since the purchase by CR, there’s been less and less focus on actual “Consumer” oriented articles, and more of a focus on “just post something to drive traffic”. Stories on Sports, Astrology, Tipping, Receipt Checking, stories like the Adrian Peterson & Ghetto stories.. They’re interesting, and they drive a lot of comments, but they’re just not Consumer oriented.

          Again, I’m not going to post specific examples, I think most of us are “aware” of them already.

          Just read the “About” us link at the bottom though, and think about how posts from whining waiters (Tipping threads), Sports Stories, Astrology, Receipt Checking, “I got fired for calling someone a [whatever]” fit into the “top consumer issues of the day” motif.

          I still love the blog, I just don’t think it’s exclusively about Consumerism any more.

        • Alvis says:

          Granted, he gets more flack than he deserves, but the other editors are really top-notch. They deserve awards.

    • Portlandia says:

      Funny, i was thinking just the same thing…and only looked to see if there were similar comments.

      I’m sure our accounts will be canceled and our post disemvoweled by the morning for saying so.

    • TasteyCat says:

      If people really disliked Phil as much as they claim, they’d stop reading his articles, and stop commenting, rather than pushing every article he writes to the top of the most discussed list.

      Picking on him seems like some sort of running joke and/or trying to be like the cool kids. Whatever the case, it’s not driving anyone away from reading what he writes.

      • myCatCracksMeUp says:

        Exactly! Some people like to bitch and bellyache, but they stay and read and post comments anyway.

    • Roloboto says:

      I think Laura is the worst.

      WOW! someone got a return on their purchase by asking for it!! Let’s make a post about it!!

      At least Phil creates some discussion…

    • Cetan says:

      No M.B.?

  2. Southern says:

    I had a very long post (about 100 lines long) with examples, as to why I agree with you two, but RIGHT before I hit submit I thought to myself, “this is just going to ruffle feathers”. So I deleted it, and I’ll just post:

    “I agree”.

  3. PSUSkier says:

    With the way some of the articles have been written as of late, I sadly don’t believe I will be.

    • MamaBug says:

      yup. this.

    • stevied says:

      as of late?

      Long before CU took over The Consumerist lost their way. Gone are the biting, semi-indepth investigative articles about downright corrupt companies and the way companies just plain defraud consumers.

      I don’t think companies (and consumers for that matter) have cleaned up their act that much. Instead I think it is a lack of focus and trying to be the everything for everbody.

      Since the losing their focus The Consumerist has been feature much more consumer whine, too much entitlement. Maybe much of this stems from an eagerness to fill blank space with something, anything, just as long as the commentary pours salt on the consumer versus business wounds.

      Looking back over the past 30 days, what story should be of a major interest to consumers? Something that potentially could have caused us harm?

      It is right there on the front page…. One story down from this request for a nomination…..

      Oregon suing J&J for a secret recall.

      That is the kind of story I expect from The Consumerist.

      The rest is filler.

      • PSUSkier says:

        Agreed it’s been declining for quite a while, but I feel the rate of degradation has been becoming more severe as of late. Meg, Ben: I really like the intention of the site you’re operating, but a major overhaul is not just a good idea, it’s a requirement at this point.

        • myCatCracksMeUp says:

          Why is it needed? There are still as many people reading this blog and commenting on stories as there was before.

  4. StrangeEmily says:

    I have to shrug my shoulders on this one.

    I wish I never learned about peoples disdain of Receipt Checkers, Holiday Stock being put up too early, Yelling to get your way after knowingly breaking Store Policy’s, Hate for Security getting confused at items being taken into a store where said item is being sold on display, Children being allowed to roam free only for the parents to scream “abuse” when an employee obstructs their snowflakes “fun time” and for having to show your ID for Purchases over $100 at places like Walmart.

    Only good thing I can say is I found out about the Halloween Cat Lady Snickers Commercial from here. But is that all there is???

  5. myCatCracksMeUp says:

    I nominated this blog.

    I like most all the stories; but I can’t say the same about a lot of the commenters.

    I think it’s funny that the postings by the person so many like to bash get so many comments. You’d think that if they know they don’t like the stories this person posts then they would not read them, much less comment on them.

    The only think dragging down this site, IMO, are the whiny little children who visit someone’s web site and then bash the contents.

    It’s no less ill mannered to do that than it is to visit someone in their home and then criticize the host.

    • Kate of Lokys says:

      No, it’s more like visiting the shop of a local coffee shop you’ve been patronizing for years. You like the owner, you’re friendly with most of the staff, almost all of them are intelligent, well-spoken, interesting people who always have something new and noteworthy to talk to you about – something relevant to your interests, something thought-provoking, something useful or informative or just neat.

      Then the store hires a new employee. He can’t get basic orders right, he constantly screws up names and drinks and details, he’s a bad conversationalist, he’s abrasive, and he talks about things that you *just don’t care about*.

      The owner is still great, the rest of the staff is still great, it’s just the one guy who sets your teeth on edge every time you go in and see him behind the counter. He doesn’t live there. He doesn’t own the place. All he does is work there, and when he does so badly enough that multiple other customers complain about him, I think the complaints probably have some merit and deserve to be heard.

      • Roloboto says:

        You still go to coffee shops?

        I make my own coffee at home.

      • ParingKnife ("That's a kniwfe.") says:

        The difference being this is a blog. A blog, like a newspaper, has it’s own personality and POV. If you don’t like it, go ahead and criticize it, just don’t claim the intelligent thing to do is invest a lot of time in it.

        • Kate of Lokys says:

          The problem with that analysis is, I was investing significant amounts of time in this blog (well, I was reading it for 10-15 minutes per day, at least) before Phil was hired. This blog had an overall focus and point of view that was in accordance with mine, before Phil was hired, and I still tend to enjoy the articles posted by Ben, Chris, Laura, and Meg. So, I read those articles, and I largely ignore Phil’s stuff – I’m not one of the people who posts on every article he writes talking about how awful he is, I think that’s tacky – but when someone claims that disliking the work put out by a new employee at an existing business is like criticizing the host of someone who invites you in as a guest, well, I think that’s a false analogy that needs to be corrected.

          • myCatCracksMeUp says:

            Maybe that analogy wasn’t the best so here’s a different one (copied from where I already posted it above):

            If I go to a store that sells clothing I like for years and years, and then they start selling clothing I abhor, I might speak to the manager and/or owner once, and let them know that I don’t like the clothing they’re now selling. I don’t keep going back into the store and whining and moaning that what they now sell isn’t to my satisfaction; instead, I just find a new place to shop. Whining and moaning is annoying to the other customers who are in the store and who do like the new clothing.

            Ok – the the point I want to make here is that it might be ok to complain once to the manager, but after that – just leave if you’re not happy. And while you might not be commenting on posts by Phil about hating his work, there are plenty of others who do it regularly.

            It sucks. It reminds me of the people who go onto “mommy blogs” and criticize the mommy’s stories and child-rearing and other things. What the fuck for? I’ll answer my own question – they go there because they’re soulless jackasses.

            This site is what it is. Some people think it was better years ago. You and others have let the Consumerist managers know how you feel, not just once, but numerous times. It’s time you all of you to move on. Or if you want to stay and read some stores, then do so. But continuing to complain is ill mannered, and disruptive.

            • Michaela says:

              So, if you don’t like something, you ask for some change, and then leave if it doesn’t happen?

              You have used your comparison of the site to a store multiple times. You have complained to the commenters about what you don’t like. You haven’t seen change. Why haven’t you left the comments section alone then?

              Your anecdote works beautifully theoretically, but it doesn’t really apply in the real world. I can safely assume about half the people here who complain about a store still visit that place, just as those who hate certain posts on consumerist still feel compelled to keep visiting the site. Maybe they see potential. Maybe they think pointing out the negative will eventually force change. Maybe they just like to troll.

              You obviously feel compelled to continually attack those who have written inadequate comments. Similarly, they feel compelled to continually attack those who have written inadequate posts. Maybe if you consider what directs your action (attacking commenters) you can gain a little more understanding of what directs the actions of those you dislike here.

              • myCatCracksMeUp says:

                I don’t see my attacking the negative commenters as the same as attacking the blog writers. To use my clothing store situation (yes, again), I see the situation as the unhappy patrons loudly criticizing the store while still inside the store, bothering other shoppers.

                Imagine – you’re shopping in a store you like, along with quite a few other shoppers who also like the store. You’re enjoying the store and the shopping experience. But some other people, who used to like the store but no longer do, come into the store and start loudly telling the employees and the customers how sucky the store is. The say over and over again that the store used to be better than it is; that the merchandise now mostly sucks, that some of the employees really suck. The employees aren’t responding, and the complainers continuing to complain is annoying, so some of the customers tell the complainers to please shut up now and that there is nothing to be gained from standing around continuing to complain, and there are millions of other stores out there for them to shop at.

                But you’re right about one thing – my telling (or attacking, to use your words) the complainers that they’re annoying the people who still enjoy the product is not going to produce any changes in them, so I might as well shut up myself, which is what I will do.

    • drizzt380 says:

      The consumerist has a product. We are the consumers of that product. Consumerist has no ads. It is supported by what? Their parent company and donations? I have no clue which one makes up the majority (I’m even fairly sure it is not donations.)

      However, if I complain about Phil, its because I’m telling them what they need to do to keep any donations from me(you know, the ones they were just plugging for two weeks ago).

      And now they come to me, on the eve of the bloggies nominations, and they pander for a nomination? Well, its like if an employee came to me for a raise. If I felt he deserved the raise and I had the money, I’d give it to him. If he had been slacking off or turning in shoddy work, I’d tell him exactly what he needed to do in the future for such a request to be accepted.

      Even if his work was horrible but he had a history of exemplary work, I wouldn’t just kick him out. I’d figure out what needed to be done for him to continue being my employee.

      To be frank, thats what I see many people doing, especially in these comments. Most are saying, “you know what, you don’t entirely deserve this from me.” And when you see a million comments complaining about a Phil post, thats because thats what people feel their time is best spent addressing. They don’t feel the need to go “Great job” 10 times to a single article. But they might take 10 posts arguing a single point with other people in a bad article(or just arguing about the merits of the article itself).

      Unfortunately, I feel that Consumerist is putting up a bit of shoddy or unfocused work lately. And I haven’t decided to “fire” them quite yet but most of the time I just skim the article titles and see if anything catches my eye where I used to read almost every article and its links. My fellows and I have told Consumerist what it needs to do quite a few times. And eventually, I’m going to have to give up on Consumerist and go a different route.

      Also, Alvis has a pig from Invader Zim as his icon. Give me the pig!!!!

      • StrangeEmily says:

        That really made sense to me. Only reason I still look on this website is in the hopes that it might get better. I plan on giving them a year and if i get the same articles that were bothering me this time next year then I’ll delete this place from my bookmarks never to return and won’t even feel bad about it.
        Though its not really the articles that bother me, sometimes its the very headline that makes my head hurt so much that I wish I never glanced over it on my way to looking for an article that I would like to read.

      • myCatCracksMeUp says:

        If I go to a store that sells clothing I like for years and years, and then they start selling clothing I abhor, I might speak to the manager and/or owner once, and let them know that I don’t like the clothing they’re now selling. I don’t keep going back into the store and whining and moaning that what they now sell isn’t to my satisfaction; instead, I just find a new place to shop. Whining and moaning is annoying to the other customers who are in the store and who do like the new clothing.

        I think that the people running Consumerist will get that some people aren’t happy if enough people leave.

        Right now there are still a lot of people reading this blog and posting comments. Consumerist is doing something right or everyone would’ve left, not stayed to comment on story after story.

        I do notice that at least a few of the people who are complaining are also people who post quite a few comments in a lot of the posts. I find that weird. There are quite a few blogs that I used to read, and post comments to, and then I quit enjoying them as much. So I stopped reading those blogs. I didn’t bellyache and bring down everyone else who did still enjoy those blogs.

  6. shufflemoomin says:

    Why do you expect an award? All you’ve been doing lately is reposting a complaint verbatim and then adding a tagline saying ‘if this happened to you, what did you do about it?’. There’s no journalism whatsoever here any more. You don’t bother to help get people’s complaints sorted these days. If I had an issue, I certainly wouldn’t send it in just so you can post it and people can discuss it. How does that help anyone? I’d say, these days, this blog is way below ‘award winning’ and judging by the comments on this article, I’m far from alone on this.

    • tbiscuit360 says:

      Exactly. Real consumer reporters would actually be contacting the company directly to see what happened, not just copying and pasting. It is lazy and not journalistic in any way.

  7. justagigilo85 says:

    I’ll nominate for stupid articles pertaining to mislabeling @ Target and consumers who piss and moan like irritable babies.

  8. ovalseven says:

    All for $20.11 and your name on a web page most people will never visit?

    If you don’t win, I wouldn’t be too upset about it.

  9. The Marionette says:

    You sir took the words right out of my mouth.

    I visited this place for quite a while before I actually joined it and I have to say it’s been going down hill for a while. I want to see articles about companies actually doing harm to customers and they be brought to justice about it or about products that have had major recalls that could be harmful to people (the toxic waste candy article is an example). Instead I constantly see either bestbuy/walmart/company c articles about a customer who was too ignorant too avoid problems from jump street and then whine because THEY didn’t think things through or read contracts before buying from a company, or articles about consumers wanting companies to bend policies so they can benefit from very expired warranties and complain when they won’t do it.

    Now I’m not saying all the companies are right, and in fact some of them should just be burned to the ground, but reading some of these articles it’s painfully obvious that the customer/consumer is actually at fault and the stories tend to seem a bit bent to make it seem as if the customer was in the right and the company was wrong

    Also I want actual news, not things like this
    http://consumerist.com/2011/01/study-putting-celebrities-in-tv-ads-only-makes-them-worse.html
    or
    http://consumerist.com/2011/01/guy-recreates-steve-carrell-bit-to-save-house-from-foreclosure.html (a person deciding to make an ass of himself isn’t news)

    Just a bit of constructive criticism for you to make this place somewhat better (or maybe i’ll get disenvoweled for it).

    • The Marionette says:

      Hmm, i had the “Replying to comment from stevied” checked and it made a separate post.

    • MamaBug says:

      I’d like to point out people have stopped posting simple “wy s ths n cnsmrst” posts and are now pointing out the specific flaws.

    • Michaela says:

      You make a good point. I enjoy the site, but I was not able to come up with a category in which to nominate the blog. When I think of a topical blog, I think of one that has a set direction and type of article posted. Sure, consumers are found everywhere, but it has gotten to a point where the articles here are all over the place topic-wise.

      I do still enjoy the site, but (in my opinion) the Consumerist just doesn’t qualify for a Bloggie this year. Sorry Consumerist! Better luck next year?

    • myCatCracksMeUp says:

      The celebrity in add post got 82 comments which is, I think, about average. The Steve Carrell imitater post got 20 which is quite low. Over time if there are lots of posts that only get 20 or so comments, and almost none that get 50 or more, then I’m sure the Consumerist people will change what stories they post. But when stories get 80+ comments, it kind of indicates that there are people who like those stories, so why should they stop posting them?

  10. ovalseven says:

    As long as everyone else is complaining, I’ll jump in.

    The threading in the comments section is still a bit messed up. They were easier to follow when they were all in chronological order (not reverse).

    • Southern says:

      Yes, it really should make you wonder when a post where there should be a lot of “YAY! I nominated you, hope you win!” replies are instead along the lines of “Well, I *would* have, but…” instead. (For what it’s worth, I did nominate.)

      Even if not everyone agrees with the above posters (and I’m sure there’s plenty), I think the old adage of, “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire” might apply.

      I wonder if anyone in power will notice?

      • wrjohnston91283 says:

        Hopefully this thread will be the wakeup call that Meg and Ben need to get the place turned around. I did not nominate them for the same reason’s many others have pointed out. They no longer help consumers, instead either copy and paste a users complaint, or link directly to someone else’s material.

        • Southern says:

          I agree, WRJohnston. Ben himself should realize that it wasn’t crosslinked stories or “I found a wallet, should I keep it?” type stories that necessary got him attention from the media, it was the original reporting and unique stories like the “Grocery Shrink Ray” that made him (and the Consumerist) stand out from the rest of the crowd and made them take notice.

    • shufflemoomin says:

      Not to mention the archaic way that the page has to reload each time you write a comment. That’s what keep me from joining in.

  11. MamaBug says:

    I’m gonna jump on the bandwagon here. I’m not nominating Consumerist because the blog isn’t topically consumer issues consistently anymore, and the writing/editing/simple proofreading is horribly shoddy on some articles,
    It used to be that Consumerist would break some really important consumer issues before other sites – oftentimes now I see “headlines” here that I’d seen previously on CNN, Huffington Post, MSNBC, Yahoo, etc the day before.
    This blog has been going downhill as of late. :(

  12. dragonfire81 says:

    I am surprised that with the recent and frequent criticism regarding the content quality of this blog and the proficiency of certain editors, there’s been very limited response from Ben, Meg or anyone else.

    If I were in their position I would consider what my commenters/audience was telling me and contemplate making changes to my approach for the blog. I just can’t believe people as experienced as they are have stayed so quiet about things.

    • StrangeEmily says:

      The weekend is on their side for this one I’m afraid, Its not unusual to not see anything on Saturday and Sunday, which is kinda funny since the only time they stepped out of their norm is to ask for votes.

    • myCatCracksMeUp says:

      Maybe, like me, they’re hoping that all the unsatisfied readers will just leave.

      There will still be plenty of us who still like this blog just fine who will stay and read and post comments.

      In fact I’d probably post more if there weren’t so many “the OP is wrong” and “why is this on Consumerist” commenters here.

  13. penuspenuspenus says:

    Start posting more consumer issues then maybe… I dunno, I want to like the Consumerist, but a lot of these posts just seem whiny rather than a real consumer issue. “Wahh, Amazon/Best Buy/Etc won’t take my return because I broke the rules but I STILL WANT A REFUND!” Please read through the complaints and do some research to see if they are valid. It’s getting pretty bad. I’m sure I’ll get banned again for complaining though.

  14. Cyniconvention says:

    I have not been here as long as some – only since about the end of 09 – So I don’t feel that it is my place to demand firings and drastic changes.

    I mainly come here for the witty commenters and, admittedly, “not as serious consumer articles” like “Man Punched In Face at BK, Dies.”.

    It is sort of discerning that this blog will sometimes have articles posted a day after MSNBC or such.

  15. Cetan says:

    As a new Consumerist.com reader… I’ve noticed a change in quality as well, having entertained myself with the archive and stories from way way back. It’s kinda saddening.