I don't really get what your main criticism is. In your other comment, you said the biggest sin committed was that of stacking punchlines on punchlines (which i

I don't really get what your main criticism is. In your other comment, you said the biggest sin committed was that of stacking punchlines on punchlines (which is a problem of flow, not joke quality), but now you're saying that some of the jokes are too bad and should have been cut? More importantly, though, the standards of live comedy can't be directly applied to something that's intended for reading. Live comedy concerns itself a lot with timing your delivery to the (vocal) audience response. I agree that the linked material would need rework before it could be used as a stand-up routine, but that's not the goal. For what it's worth, I think the blog post is funny. Most of the jokes are funny. Some jokes are less funny, but aren't dwelled on, and by the end of the page I've forgotten the bad ones.