AC Screws Award Pooch. Pooch Reportedly Unhappy.


Associated Content is gearing up for their 2008 awards. This is their third year awarding various achievements, but as with the two previous years, the awards have changed and the criteria for the awards remains a mystery until the presentation. It would be good to know what we’re shooting for before we win it, AC. But I’m shouting in the wind.

Within the last couple of days, 100 Associated Content contributors received an email which targeted them as “one of the top 100 producers of 2008.” After chasing down a few AC employees to clarify their selection criteria, it was stated the selections were based on pages viewed in 2008. Ah! The chase is afoot, Watson.

The problem is, those reporting they were tagged for this honor do not have the most pages viewed in 2008. Several contributors have come forward and stated they did not receive the coveted email, but their page-view numbers (this number being a matter of public record when you view their home page) are significantly higher than many of those who claim to have received the honor. Wild theories shall ensue.

Theory #1: AC didn’t do a very good analysis of their data.

Theory #2: AC didn’t do any data analysis whatsoever.

Theory #3: People within the AC organization don’t really talk to each other before sending out emails.

Theory #4: AC pulls these awards out of their uncollective asses each year with no basis in reality.

Theory #5: There is no AC and we are all just made of stars.

My personal favorite is #4. AC seems to change, back-peddle, and apply circular reasoning to their moving target awards each year. Sure it’s great to be recognized, but it would be fabulous to know in advance what you’re shooting for. It would also make the recipient feel more confident in the award they receive. To those who got the email, no congratulations are in order. It’s nothing personal. It’s just, I think AC pulled a list of names at random because the available data just doesn’t add up.

I think I’ll start my own awards. This year’s recipient of theBarefoot (I’m hoping “The Footies” catch on) award for organization with the most mysterious ass to pull things out of goes to … Associated Content! The Footie for most creative application of math goes to … Associated Content for their inability to sort a numeric list. The Footie for the web site with poorest communications, both with their members and internally, goes to … Associated Content for having a Denver and New York office which don’t share email and don’t even follow each other on Twitter.

Stay tuned for more of the 1st annual Footie awards as the season progresses.

Advertisements

19 Comments

Add yours →

  1. Yeah, it’s probably #4. Oooor: Somebody is playing with the buttons there; accidentally sending out emails to all and sundry, lol

  2. I say number 5 cause I want to be a star!

  3. Are you using your telescopes again? I have to give out the Pamies!

  4. So what’s the PV threshold? Are they doing top 1000?

  5. Wild theory number nine hundred seventy two: There are only robots with pseudo-artificial intelligence chips who decide these things. They just KNOW they have it right, but their reasoning is faulty.

    (You are awesome. Too bad you aren’t real!) :)

  6. LOL I’m thinking it’s a combination of all combined.

  7. It’s the “new” math.

  8. I vote for the new meth as well. I know I sure could bend numbers when I was tweakin’ ;)

  9. I vote for #3… I think someone up at AC made a unilateral decision about the sort criteria for “top 100” and completely neglected to tell anyone else what those criteria were, including that person’s managers. So, at some point, either the sort criteria which were actually used will be revealed, or management will quietly sweep it all under a huge rug and pretend that nothing ever happened. Based on track record thus far, I believe the latter of those two is more likely.

  10. Im pulling for number 5 here. ( Maybe the Matrix does exists and nothing is as it seems )

    I dont post many articles but enjoy following others who do. I have to say, It does seem sort of like a crap-shoot in a way. Something to think about… maybe some who were not included in the top 100 were left out of that list for a purpose. Maybe they are going to be named for different awards.

  11. chris carmichael January 27, 2009 — 18:18

    Randy! hi

    AC is such a random odd sort of place. I think it is #4 or 5

  12. Will Dr. Scholl’s be a sponsor of “The Footies”? I gave up to aspiring to win any awards at AC after the first year and with a series of mishaps over the years, I’ve backed away from the AC playground. But, it’s still a good place to post what I want.

  13. Damn, and I was convinced that I was a shoo-in for the “most painfully screwed without the benefit of vaseline or even having your hair pulled and told you were loved” award but I didn’t realize how many thousands were in the running. Sniffle, sniffle, and they don’t even send flowers and they don’t write………….

  14. Yes, sometimes the criteria for such things does seem a little random, no?

  15. #5 has some intriguing possibilities. But you may be making astrals out of all of us. . . .

    ;-)

  16. Its not my first time to pay a quick visit this website,
    i am browsing this website dailly and get fastidious facts from
    here all the time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: