Who lives on SHZH? Attempt of classification.

Who lives on SHZH? Attempt of classification. As at any self-respecting resource for SHZH gradually established certain types of regulars. First, of course, the writers of articles - as the main creators of content. Clearly defines the following character:

1.1. Miner. Subjects, usually with broad coverage. Intrigued by a topic, conducting survey work and dig a lot of interesting things. He writes rarely, but thoroughly, can comprehend and synthesize narytuyu information.

1.2. Melkotemets. Makes an article from any single fact. After reading some fact, eg: a poem by Mikhail Svetlov "Grenada" appeared in 1926 - immediately stamp an article: "When there was a poem," Grenada "" "Writes often and much.

1.3. Dwarf birch. Subject article for him - just cause for gay rhetoric and rollicking essays of life. Writes chaotic, there is little, then many, but funny and enlivens the landscape. So a wide range, from mathematics to cooking.

1.4. Fanatic . He is obsessed overvalued idea of semi-mystical character and developing his own line, no matter what the voice of reason. Articles vague, full of grandiloquent passages on esoteric topics, but always aimed at solving world problems ("How to defeat evil," "How to achieve universal harmony", etc.). Recipes staggeringly ridiculous, but couched in pseudo-scientific form, to which are bought and trusting.

1.5. Business. He writes on professional issues, which has a good understanding. Articles written by a dry, short and contain much useful information. The very strange article never read and not comment.

1.6. Junior graphomaniac . Nothing to write about, but want to. Articles disheveled, raggedy contents of the topic title has never been revealed. The content is usually reduced to vague conclusions such as "how bad this world", and confident that he first thought of before. Touchy in the extreme, not at odds with the grammar.

1.7 Copyist. He is pulling from everywhere all horrible.

As rightly observed readers, authors can change from type to type, and combine several different types.
Then come the writers comments. Here there are such characters:

2.1. Gullible . Take it on faith absolutely any information in the comments surprised and thanks. Particularly caught my article fanatic and long walks shaken reveal the secret.

2.2. Argumentative . Reading the article, just looking for, what to find fault, not caring that the gist of the text. Can attach to secondary turns of speech and thirty comments tediously prove his innocence. It is not always understand what we do is, yes it is not necessary, the main thing - to argue. Oddly enough, very rarely cling to a fanatic, but almost always litters a prospector and dwarf birch.

2.3. Benevolent . All praise and when to praise even more so for what - is going on. Comes in a branch, left the type of clause 2.2 and all attempts to reason and make peace.

2.4. Gender chauvinist . Everywhere sees gender relations and, accordingly, interprets. He believes that he's awfully good hit people if hint at its masculine (more feminine) insolvency: "Look at how women then started up, then hurt. Very pleased with himself.

2.5 Funeral Whiner . Everywhere sees an insult no less than for the whole country and considers it its duty to rush to the defense. Inappropriately sets long episodes from his life and biography of his acquaintances. He likes to extol the heroic past and tear on the breast virtual shirt.

2.6 Cheapskate . He wrote comments in the pursuit of tenths of points that eventually add up to a hundred. Comments minor importance, but rather as an unsubscribe type "read, interesting." Virtually indistinguishable in appearance from 2.3.

2.7 Normal person . She writes that she thinks: that like - is approved, if not agree - in a peaceful objection, if he knows something useful on the subject of the article - is advised. Extremely rare, is listed in the Red Book.

For the evaluation of articles by readers - see a study .