That's one spot where Queryfail was advantageous where Agentfail wasn't. Queryfail put the names of the agents with their remarks so you got a sense of the agent's personality and really how they see authors...so for some, it did mean very clearly being able to mark some agents off as people to submit to because they were folks you don't want to work with. Now that's not what agents were hoping for...though really, with the flood being what it is, I'm not sure they really care if 50% of us mark them off our lists...even if a huge portion of the 50% can actually write.

Agentfail, on the other hand, mostly managed to make agents who are trying feel bad while making other agents feel more vindicated in doing those sorts of things because writers are ______ <-- fill in the blank for desired negative word.) And it didn't even help writers since we didn't learn WHICH agents are saying "no answer means no" on requested material and didn't learn which agent could be preshopping material and then rejecting it because they didn't make a quick connection with an editor.

In Queryfail, we at least got a sense of some agents to avoid. Agentfail may have made some folks feel better (offering a place to vent amoung peers since we're told that any public complaint about treatment by agents and editors will lable us "whiners"...and, well, it did. Lots of folks jumped on the "whiners" name calling thing about the agentfail comments) but it didn't overall give any useful info.

It showed agents that writers really really despise the "no answer means no" thing but if agents didn't already know that, they're pretty out of touch. And I'm not even sure that agents LIKE that policy...it's just a way to deal with the worst of the flood the fastest.