Its a good idea to isolate duplicated weblists or lists that only contain one item. 

numbah I agree with you, it's a shame to have comments that won't post on "recent comments" because they don't fit. This means in order to get the exposure of weblists and comments that you once got, you either need your own server/ website or you just won't... get the exposure!

You know all my funny weblists with a little personal touch to them? Done. Why? Because now the lists with this status wont even post on recent comments. I'm not making anymore weblists until this stupid policy changes. It has killed the fun of weblists for me, and that is a sad thing. SPECIAL NOTICE: I'm already holding two weblists hostage until this policy changes. WHO'S THREATENING: I'm exercising my personal choice not to post weblists. ALL my lists of late have been very structured, even if they have my name all over them. You can always rate an item one to five and all my items are related to a single topic. All I want is for these lists to get the same attention as any other comment instead of going unnoticed because they are without a SPONSOR.

Hi All, I'm listening. Thanks for the feedback. (don't appreciate threats though) There's some good points in here. The issue of quality control of Weblists is not a new one, and it is an emotional one, as a lot of time and effort goes into these lists. It's not really that I have a problem with personal Weblists - I'm just trying to figure out the best way to ensure that lists of broad appeal get the most airplay. As you know, there's the community rating feature - which if used more broadly - would solve this issue. But to date, it hasn't accumulated enough data to really make a difference. I'm going to do a little more thinking about this one - I do have a problem with lists that don't fit a ratings structure (e.g. "choose one!") and lists that don't have a theme ("some things on my mind"). It's not that these sorts of things don't have value, it's that RateItAll is just not the right venue. There's plenty of places on the Web to chat about anything and everything - RIA just isn't designed for that. For better or for worse, our format is structured ratings lists. Let me sleep on it again - I'll check in tomorrow via the blog. (btw, if you haven't seen (!Link Url="http://rateitall.blogspot.com/2006/01/two-big-things-on-horizon_17.html" Name="Today's Blog post"!), it's worth a read.

Leaves me cold. Removes a good deal of the charm of the place, and caters to the pompous.

Isn't this place called Rate it "ALL"? Besides, isn't every weblist somewhat personal? And, how do you know said "personal weblists" are only of interest to the ones who create them? Many of the reviewers I have met here is because their "personal weblist" also reflects my beliefs, likes/dislikes, or views. If their weblists were conveniently tucked away in their user page, then I truely believe I wouldn't know hardly anything about the people here. Maybe the ultimate eventuality of RIA has somewhat deviated a bit from Lawrence's initial vision of strict product evaluation, but from what I've observed, in my short time here, it has become more of a viable community of interesting individuals. Personally, I'm not here to debate the best toothpaste brands or the fastest race car...I'm here to share my time, my views, and maybe a laugh or two. I think you can't get much more "personal" than that. I implore RIA to bear equal weight on all weblists.

It's a poor idea. Some of the more creative entries here are the ones that are largely personal. And they give the RIA reviewers the same opportunity to display approval and disapproval of a concept, assertion or idea as any other list. Those who find them distasteful or boring can do what anyone who doesn't care for a certain topic can do: ignore them. Also, "personal" lists are likely to become more common as the well of ideas is beginning to become exhausted on this site. Almost every conventional topic (Flags, TV Shows, Pizza Chains, Political Figures, Sports Teams, Aftershave, etc.) has been touched upon on RIA, on multiple occasions, in the past. The "library" of topics already covered is indeed vast here. People with original ideas should not have their submissions treated as second class work. Let them flourish or prosper (all lists) in the marketplace of RIA participation.

Ridgewalker took the very words right out of my mouth when he asks the question "Why? Because he used the word "I" in the title of his list?" You should know that in the web list description it states very clearly: *NOTE* The entries in this list are not necessarily endorsed by the list maker. Creative entries welcome. Would my list have gained this status if I had titled it "No matter what they say..."? Or perhaps "Its not true when they say..."? If that is the case you are getting hung up on a very minor semantic technicality. The point is to generate commentary on issues that people may or may not relate to. Why should that be controlled any differently than other topics on this site? I don't agree with the comment "Where they do have value, I think, is in telling people a little something about the Weblist creator." The reason is how does anyone (short of administrators) on the web site know where the entries came from if they are unaccredited? What does my list tell you about me, bearing in mind my disclaimer in the description? The list is a complete miscellany of phrases, ideas, questions, etc. Why is that not worth rating, yet other seemingly more universal, and frankly, often boring, subjects are? Second subject. What happened to user's pictures displayed in the "You are trusted by..." section? Is this somehow related to the suppression of "too personal" web lists? These are bad ideas and lessen the individuality that makes this site entertaining.