9

Oct

Don’t ever change, internets

Posted by   Published in The Internets, THIS-IS-AWE-SOME (clapclapclapclapclap)

Share on TwitterPin it on PinterestShare on TumblrSubmit to StumbleUpon/images/neutral.jpgDigg ThisSubmit to redditShare via email

Related Articles

13 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url
mygif
Jer said on October 9th, 2012 at 12:53 pm

Okay, that’s awesome.

And if you go out to YouTube right now, it’s still like that with over a thousand more rankings. I wonder how long it’s been like that.

ReplyReply
mygif
JM said on October 9th, 2012 at 3:17 pm

It’s been that way for at least a year, when I first saw it. It may very well have been that way from the very beginning — it would be nice to find out.

ReplyReply
mygif
Bryan Rasmussen said on October 9th, 2012 at 4:11 pm

maybe whoever put it up has a batch script that goes and updates the it whenever like/dislike deviate.

ReplyReply
mygif
nemryn said on October 9th, 2012 at 4:33 pm

I have no strong feelings about this.

ReplyReply
mygif
Sisyphus said on October 9th, 2012 at 4:41 pm

@Bryan Rasmussen, I really hope that’s not the case. I’d like to think that people just go and change it spontaneously (as I recently did when I saw that one more like would put us back at equilibrium again).

ReplyReply
mygif
Jim Smith said on October 9th, 2012 at 7:28 pm

I’m pretty sure the way it works is that some people frequently check the video’s stats, and switch their own rating back and forth as necessary to preserve the balance. (The last time I looked at the comments, there were clearly people trying to mess it up, but far more ready to cancel them out.) It probably wouldn’t even take that many dedicated super-geeks to maintain the equilibrium, but I’m sure there are hundreds of them keeping a sharp, neutral eye on things.

ReplyReply
mygif
Kirala said on October 9th, 2012 at 10:25 pm

And this leads me to be nitpicky and point out that a balance of “like” and “dislike” is not the same as “dispassionate” – it could as easily mean strong feelings both ways as true neutrality.

Or maybe I’m just grouchy that there isn’t a meta-page where I can “like” and know it will likely tip the balance in favor of a clever concept that deserves recognition.

ReplyReply
mygif
highlyverbal said on October 10th, 2012 at 11:41 am

@Kirala: I think it means aggregate neutrality. The real problem is not strong feelings both ways; that would balance in the aggregate. The real problem is when the likes are very mild and milquetoast but the dislikes are very strongly held and passionate. (Or vice versa.) Then, aggregating to neutrality is silly.

Until “likes” are weighted, this is the best we can do. And weighted “likes” will have obviously have their own problems.

ReplyReply
mygif
Ben said on October 10th, 2012 at 12:40 pm

@highlyverbal I slightly dislike your idea

ReplyReply
mygif
Bryan Rasmussen said on October 10th, 2012 at 6:54 pm

So anyway, on the alignment chart of the Interwebs this would be True Neutral?

ReplyReply
mygif
steve, from the internet said on October 11th, 2012 at 5:32 am

It’s out by 2 in favour of “likes”; go fix it, internetters.

ReplyReply
mygif
Craig Oxbrow said on October 11th, 2012 at 10:20 pm

It’s fixed.

ReplyReply
mygif
Jenny Creed said on December 4th, 2012 at 5:24 am

It is pretty funny, but it’d have been six times funnier if the video had zero likes or dislikes. Invent a time machine and go do it right, Internets!

ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Please Note: Comment moderation may be active so there is no need to resubmit your comments