The last few interviews seems to have little to do with getting to know the person. Instead, it seems to be a combination of the interviewer trying to make themselves look smart by asking "smarts" questions, an interrogation, and a try out for a comedian contest (where the interviewer is the one trying out).

The last few interviews have left me feeling like I didn't learn anything about the person and many I stopped reading because the questions were just getting useless (ie what is your opinion of china in 1500 vs 1600 [when the person isn't from China and isn't a chinese scholar], how much wood could a woodcutter cut, etc etc).

Do you really want to know me that well? :evil:

All joking aside, I agree with you.

Isn't the that entire POINT of them? Or is the interview just another slutting thread now?

Isn't the that entire POINT of them? Or is the interview just another slutting thread now?
Is there multi-color type?

Isn't the that entire POINT of them? Or is the interview just another slutting thread now?

:yes:

:nigel: C.

The last few interviews have been smart people, so people have tried to ask smart questions. As for asking about China, I asked Remilard about China because I wanted to know what he thought about China. OK?

I enjoyed answering my questions, but I really have only read about 4 interviews total, so I'm not really qualified to say much about this.

I agree, it shouldn't be about trying to find the coolest questions.

The china was an example.

All people are smart. The interviews are not about finding out how trivia savvy a person is (almost all of these "smart questions" are little more then trivia), but learning about a person and getting to know them.

I'm disappointed in how the interviews are turning out. They used to be about getting to know a person, not about quizzing them.

The last few interviews have been smart people,
Says who? :doh:

I have noticed a diffence in the type of questions being asked. I participate in an interview if I have at least one decent question to ask. If I think its a means of just slutting away a few pages, I don't. To each thier own.

I cannot believe this. I actually agree with Krista on something. :wall:

I cannot believe this. I actually agree with Krista on something. :wall:


It hurts less with time.

Alfiedog has started a support group, Amy. I hear it's quite good and I may make a guest appearance soon.

Says who? :doh:

According to Catgirl, she's pretty smart. Or is she a smart____? :p

Alfiedog has started a support group, Amy. I hear it's quite good and I may make a guest appearance soon.

:lol:

I would think that the interviewee could make the decision to not answer questions they think are frivolous, or, if that's the sort of thing they want to present, they can answer if they have time. If you want to know something more profound, there is no rule against changing the "vibe" of an interview, is there? Or, once selected, do you have to answer all the questions you are asked? Maybe I'm missing the point.

All people are smart. The interviews are not about finding out how trivia savvy a person is (almost all of these "smart questions" are little more then trivia), but learning about a person and getting to know them.


Of course all people are smart. The last few interviewees, therefore, have been no exception. Many people learn more about a someone by seeing how he/she reacts to a weird question than by asking about favorite colors, etc.

I don't feel like debating this, I just wanted to let people know that I, for one, am losing interest in the interviews because they are turning into slutting threads with little to learn about the person being interviewed. It's taking away from the point of them and it is turning people off.

The fact that this thread has been opened for 15 minutes and a number people are agreeing with me shows that it is developing into a problem. I want the interviews to continue where we learn about people, not seeing their circus response to being asked page after page of trivia questions.

I would think that the interviewee could make the decision to not answer questions they think are frivolous, or, if that's the sort of thing they want to present, they can answer if they have time. If you want to know something more profound, there is no rule against changing the "vibe" of an interview, is there? Or, once selected, do you have to answer all the questions you are asked? Maybe I'm missing the point.

You're missing the point. :p Many would consider it rude to not answer questions in their own interview thread.

You're missing the point. :p Many would consider it rude to not answer questions in their own interview thread.

But is it mandatory? You get to decide a question limit, do you not?

I am feeling very attacked here. Who wants to post my swan song for me?

But is it mandatory? You get to decide a question limit, do you not?
It says in the first post of every interview that the interviewee may ignore any questions that he or she does not wish to answer.

FTR, no one (as I can see) is blaming people by name about the type of questions they ask during an interview, so let's not take it personal. :)

Still missing the point :)

People are no longer reading the interviews b/c the quesitons have become so incredibly ridulous that it's becoming a waste of bandwidth. So it's ending up that only a few people are now posting and reading them b.c of this. And it seems to be getting worse.

Just putting it out there. The interview thread is supposed to be for EVERYONE to read and participate in, for us ALL to learn about someone. People are getting turned off from them because of how they are turning. The old interviews, way back when, were not like this and far more people participated in them.