Formerly known as Whiners.Pro, Crymore.net is an anime blog focused on fansub reviews, anime fandom-related articles, and fansub releases.

Since you’re probably here for the fansub reviews, I feel obligated to inform you that the review summary is very awesome and that you should check it out if you’re new here.


Key Players:


Dark_Sage – Things

kokujin-kun – Translation Reviews

Calyrica – General Fansub Reviews that Dark_Sage doesn’t wanna do

Secret Admins:

FireBird – Review Summary, unfucking Dark_Sage’s mistakes.

Puddi – Translation Parties, unfucking Dark_Sage’s mistakes.

TheThing|Encoding – Site efficiency, comments section, unfucking Dark_Sage’s mistakes.

56 thoughts on “About-Old”

    • Each time the About page is rebooted you learn a little more about things, and a little less. This trade-off of knowledge is the sacrifice you must make the second you click the About button. By the time the final About page appears, you will have learned everything there is to know and everything there isn’t. You will have become complete.

    • Err, how? I mean, the almost complete lack of lists, trivia, videos and photoshop slideshows would lead me to believe it doesn’t resemble Cracked at all.

      • You’re right, I should be more like Cracked. Think of all the fame I could receive!

        Maybe I should start making “Top 6 Crazy Faxts About ___” articles, with three paragraphs per page and overload the site with ads, hoping the info I pulled from Wikipedia and my own ass will result in another 500,000 hits from reddit per day.

        “Top 7 Crazy Things Miyazaki Has Said!”
        1. Threatened to blow up America!
        It’s easy to believe that Miyazaki has said some crazy stuff in his time, but blowing up America?
        *laugh track*
        That’s right, in a 2007 New York Post interview, Miyazaki had this to say:
        “and I want […] to […] blow up […] America”
        Holy wacky taffy! This guy’s off his ro-ro-ro-rocker!
        *laugh track*
        So, kids, might wanna think about *that* next time you watch Howl’s Moving Mononoke!
        *laugh track*

    • Looking spiffy, though about this: “Dark_Sage is the primary author of the blog and also the person writing this sentence. I’m kind of a dick.” I dunno, it seems to me it would sound better if it said “He’s kind of a dick” considering the rest was in third person. Maybe it’s just me, but that’s my two cents.

  1. >F: What are you doing

    I remember a review where you said something like “I’ll fight for question marks after questions until I die”.

    Well, I’m gonna enjoy the Dark_Sage vs. Dark_Sage. Hopefully the commentator will be worthy enough.

  2. Hmmm… I would have posted the following in the comments area of their respective sections – but I CAN’T…

    For some reason, the following two reviews (and ONLY these two) just produce a Blank Page, whether I click on the review link or the ‘comments’ link. All other sections of the site work just fine for me.



    [Feel free to delete this note once you’ve either fixed this problem or determined somehow that it’s Just Me.] Thank You.

  3. Okay, ethics question for those of you who check every new comment:

    I’m completely fine with adjusting review scores upwards based on relevant critiques in the comments.

    Should I apply the same adjustments downwards if people have legitimate complaints about subs I’ve already reviewed, or would that not be a good idea?

    Let me know. The main problem I’m seeing with adjusting review scores downward is that certain groups may receive outside criticism that far exceeds that of other groups, and I’m really not interested in tying my scores to public opinion (positive or negative).

    • I agree with the sentiment that some groups are criticized more than others however I would leave it to you to filter out what is relevant and what is actually just bias.

      The same mistake in the same train of error (unless absolutely and completely incompetent) shouldn’t be used to mark a group down again and again and again for example. Likewise, one offs should count less barring stupidity in the extreme. Common sense stuff I’d expect/already get these days.

      Who knows however, maybe the grading system won’t work that well for this sort of system. Perhaps using a numeric based system could work better to favor this sort of upward and downward movement since the scale would be more sensitive then the typical grading system?

    • I don’t think you should tie your scores to positive or negative public opinion, however the reality of undertaking reviews like you do is that you will inevitably miss some stuff, because you’re human. When people bring up mistakes or misinterpretations you’ve made, if the concerns are valid, you graciously adjust the scoring. I don’t see why it would be a bad thing to do the same for criticisms of the subs that you overlooked, as long as they are justifiable issues.

      Maybe consider having a limit to how much a group’s score can be adjusted by public outcry? (i.e. the maximum permissible adjustment, up or down, could be one or two increments: Starting from a C, a group could be adjusted up to a C+ or a B- at BEST, or down to C- or a D+ at WORST. In most cases, incrementing up or down one step would be sufficient to address the majority of concerns). This way, at least you prevent your scoring system, vague as it can be sometimes, from becoming beholden to public opinion & group prejudices.

      Still, I don’t think allowing scores to be incremented down will be a problem in the majority of your reviews, but some people do put a lot of effort into their comments, and it’s not a bad idea to accept negative feedback as well as positive feedback on scoring. It’s not like you have to take their opinions unless the points have merit, so you’re still beholden only unto yourself.

      I don’t think numerical grading is the answer; With the +/- system, you’ve got 13 different levels at which to rate the subs already… Anything more is just going to further complicate things, and open up more unnecessary debate. Only a certain degree of finickiness is tolerable, after all.

    • I feel that grade adjustments should go both ways but only if you agree with the critiques (which is a given).

      Furthermore, I feel that a small note ought to be added to the review that indicates that the grade has been changed after a chinwag.

      I fear this change will open a whole new can of worms even if it encourages debate, intellectual or otherwise.

  4. Just stumbled upon this site by chance. I was sad when I found one day that whiners.pro was gone all of a sudden. Now, I’m quite happy to find that you and the old content haven’t vanished.

  5. I’m in the process of creating a more in-depth about page. But I’m kinda at a standstill… What would y’all look to in one of these? I’m one of those people who is fine with curt descriptions, but I know some people hanker for more.

    • The grading template could be useful on the about page. Give a short description of each tier and/or a description on what releases qualify for reviews and which ones don’t. I think you have made these articles I mentioned already (but they don’t appear to be linked on the about page).

  6. It might be a good idea to put some of your most important articles in this space.


    Fansubbing guides:
    Ellipses in Fansubbing
    How to reflect quirky phrasing in your subs
    How to Emphasize via Italics

    General guides:
    Fansub Reviewing ‘Round the World
    Anime Blogs: A List

    And probably other stuff i’m forgetting. I think these are the types of articles you’d want people to see when they come to your site.

    How else would you expect people to find these posts? A google search? Related posts? Scrolling through every page under “Articles” until they find something appealing? Sure, some people might find the articles through these means, but i’d think that the About page would be one of the first stops for a new visitor.


Leave a Comment