Who lives on ShZh? Attempt of classification
As on any resource respecting itself, on ShZh certain types of frequenters are gradually formed. First of all, of course, writers of articles - as the main creators of content. Distinctly the following types are defined:
1. 1. Gold prospector. Subject, as a rule, with broad coverage. Having become interested in any subject, carries out prospecting works and digs out a lot of interesting. Writes seldom, but thoroughly, it is capable to comprehend and generalize the dug information.
1. 2. Melkotemets. Does article of any isolated fact. Having read some fact, for example: Mikhail Svetlov`s poem “ Grenada “ appeared in 1926 - right there stamps an article: “ When there was a poem “ Grenada “? “ Writes often and many.
1. 3. Ernik. article Subject for it - only an occasion to cheerful gab and rollicking sketches from life. Writes chaotically, a little, much, but funny and recovers a landscape. Range of subjects the widest, from mathematics to cookery.
1. 4. Fanatic . Let`s gain supervaluable idea of semi-mystical character and develops the line, without looking on any voice of reason. Articles are not concrete, full of grandiloquent passages on esoteric subjects, but are always directed to the solution of world problems (“ How to overcome the evil “ “ How to reach general harmony “ etc.) . Recipes are embarrassingly ridiculous, but are given a pseudoscientific shape, on as are bought Trustful.
1. 5. Business. Writes on professional subjects which well understands. Articles are written chilly, briefly and contain a lot of useful information. Itself never reads someone else`s articles and does not comment.
1. 6. Young graphomaniac . To write there is nothing, but there is a wish. Articles are dressed in rags, contents klochkovato, the heading subject is never opened. Contents is, as a rule, reduced to vague conclusions of the " type; as this world " is bad; and it is sure that he the first guessed before. Is sensitive excessively, at odds with grammar.
1. 7 Copyist. everything that got Drags from everywhere.
As readers fairly noticed, authors can pass from type into type, and also combine several different types.
Then go writers of comments. Here such characters are observed:
2. 1. Trustful . Takes on trust any information, in comments is surprised and thanks. Especially comes across articles of the Fanatic and long goes shaken by the revealed secrets.
2. 2. Debater . Reading article, at once looks for what to carp at, without caring for capturing a text essense. Can cling to a minor turn of speech and on thirty comments it is tiresome to prove the case. Not always understands what in general also to it it is talked about and it is not necessary, the main thing - to argue. Strangely enough, extremely seldom clings to the Fanatic, but practically always litters articles of Gold prospectors and Ernikov.
2. 3. Goodhearted . Praises all and when to praise absolutely there is nothing - goes further. Comes to the branches left type from item 2. 2 also tries to bring to reason all and to reconcile.
2. 4. Gender chauvinist . Everywhere the viditvzaimootnosheniya of floors also respectively interprets. Considers that it awfully dexterously hooked the interlocutor if insolvency hints on its man`s (more often female): “ see, as women - that were thrown up, means touches “. It is very happy with itself.
2. 5 Weeper . Everywhere sees offense not less than for all country and considers as a debt to rush on protection. Inopportunely states long episodes from the life and the biography of the acquaintances. Likes to extol the heroic past and to tear a virtual shirt to breasts.
2. 6 Hairsplitter . Writes comments in a pursuit of the tenth shares of points which eventually develop in hundreds. Comments are insignificant, it is formal replies of the " type rather; read, it is interesting “. It is almost indistinguishable in appearance from item 2. 3.
2. 7 Normal people . Writes what thinks: what is pleasant - praises if he does not agree - peacefully objects if knows something useful on article subject - advises. Meets extremely seldom, it is included in the Red List.
Concerning an assessment of articles readers - see the corresponding research.
I think that it is not full coverage of types - both writers, and readers form motley variety, as it is good. Without thorough delovar there is no material, without the mystics captured by one, but ardent passion - it is boring, without commentators of all colors - there is no feedback and effect of presence.
Should be noted also a formidable share of administration which quite successfully supports all this soup as it should be and organizes from it quite decent, useful and entertaining resource. All thanks.