It's fascinating how quickly a thread like this can grow huge while adding virtually nothing to the original premise.
The standard of writing on this website Page 6
Don't you love the BCG? 
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ July 27 2009, 6:47 PM BSTIt's fascinating how quickly a thread like this can grow huge while adding virtually nothing to the original premise.
I can think of a better word than "fascinating", but perhaps future internet scholars will examine these threads and come to their own conclusions about life in the early 21st century?
To answer the original question, I would say the standard overall is pretty low. That's what you would expect as it's a forum for amateurs to post their work, and most people aren't great comic writers. Or aren't at this point in their writing careers. Having said that, there is often the odd gem, and some very promising writers amongst the surrounding rubble. In my opinion. Whatever that's worth.
EDIT:
I should actually point out that I probably only read about one of every twenty things posted in critique though. So perhaps my opinion is even more worthless than I thought. Though I suppose if it was full of brilliant sketches, I'd read more of it. Hmm.
EDIT 2:
Also, a lot of the sketches are often topical stuff, which I'm not a great fan of. The moment I read 'Gordon Brown enters' I stop reading. So maybe there's a ton of great satire bubbling away in critique. Maybe. It's possible. Possibly.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ July 27 2009, 7:03 PM BSTTo answer the original question, I would say the standard overall is pretty low. That's what you would expect as it's a forum for amateurs to post their work, and most people aren't great comic writers. Or aren't at this point in their writing careers. Having said that, there is often the odd gem, and some very promising writers amongst the surrounding rubble. In my opinion. Whatever that's worth.
EDIT:
I should actually point out that I probably only read about one of every twenty things posted in critique though. So perhaps my opinion is even more worthless than I thought. Though I suppose if it was full of brilliant sketches, I'd read more of it. Hmm.
The standard of writing is based on what somebody can produce in an unlimited time frame, because of this, the standard, you would think, would be alot higher.
People on here can get an idea, and take forever to put it together, and then post it.
Paid comedy writers have tight deadlines, and have to work quickly.
I think the difference is in how quickly and efficiently you can get it done.
So to speak...
Quote: Scottidog @ July 27 2009, 7:24 PM BSTThe standard of writing is based on what somebody can produce in an unlimited time frame, because of this, the standard, you would think, would be alot higher.
People on here can get an idea, and take forever to put it together, and then post it.
Paid comedy writers have tight deadlines, and have to work quickly.
I think the difference is in how quickly and efficiently you can get it done.
So to speak...
I must be doing something wrong.
Everything I post to Critique takes less than two hours from idea to posting. The last couple of things I posted took about 30 minutes to write after the central idea occurred to me. Maybe it shows.
In my opinion it's poor most of the time. One or two nice ideas but not all that many. The main problem isn't the quality of the submissions, but the quality of the critiques. Everyone starts off a bit rough around the edges, but it's hard to progress if you're only taking criticism from other enthusiastic amateurs.
Once you have the idea, sketches never take long to write, not unless you get stuck. To be honest I think a lot of sketches on here would actually benefit from having a little more time spent polishing them.
The difference with paid comedy writers is not that they have to write the sketches to tight deadlines, it is that they have to be able to come up with ideas for sketches to tight deadlines.
Quote: Kevin Murphy @ July 27 2009, 7:32 PM BSTI must be doing something wrong.
Everything I post to Critique takes less than two hours from idea to posting. The last couple of things I posted took about 30 minutes to write after the central idea occurred to me. Maybe it shows.
Thats not bad, but my point was meant to come across as, a writer could have an idea, and conjur it up over a week and then post it as polished as they like.
I personally, when posting in critique, will post it from when ive sat down and turned the laptop on, typed it up- I don't have time to take hours to write anything.
(maybe it shows on me now 
)
I would say that most of the very best writers who frequent this site, don't have the need or inclination to post stuff. Some very good writers still do though. But I bet most of the very best don't.
Absolutely. I know a few very good writers on here, but they never post their work.
Quote: YesNo @ July 27 2009, 7:39 PM BSTAbsolutely. I know a few very good writers on here, but they never post their work.
I have never quite understood this? when people say this.
How do you know if they are very good writers if they do not post anything?
Quote: YesNo @ July 27 2009, 7:39 PM BSTAbsolutely. I know a few very good writers on here, but they never post their work.
Neither do I. 
Quote: Scottidog @ July 27 2009, 7:41 PM BSTHow do you know if they are very good writers if they do not post anything?
Well, just because they don't post on here, doesn't mean their work won't have been read by others.
There is an easy way of finding out how your sketches compare, why not enter the Skit Competition? It's open to everyone, and we all get to vote on which we find the funniest. Can't get more democratic than that?
Quote: Matthew Stott @ July 27 2009, 7:41 PM BSTNeither do I.
Well, just because they don't post on here, doesn't mean their work won't have been read by others.
Do you consider yourself a 'very good writer' Matt? because you do not post?