Calendar
Network
Feeds
baiduyou
Interesting, in that it's like looking into the mind of someone who is utterly insane.
Google appears to have localised display of the fireworks logo to users in the U.S. Just the regular logo showing on Google.com here in UK.
Yahoo, Ask and MSN are all happy to display July 4th logos etc to the rest of the world - so why aren't Google?
The United States 4th July celebrations are a pretty well-known event globally; I seem to recall less well-known country specific holidays and events being highlighted. It almost seems like Google doesn't want to draw attention to its American roots in overseas markets.
Story: Internet Plagiarism
Story: Is Desphinning rude?
No, it's not rude, but that's not to say people won't take offence anyway.
If you feel strongly enough about a post, desphinn it. I hardly ever desphinn because I think in most cases just not giving a sphinn is enough.
As long as you give a valid reason why you've decided to desphinn a post, the submitter should have no excuse for taking it personally - and if they do they are the ones at fault, not you.
Interesting. Does anyone have any more examples where the sponsored links are decorated like this?
As Hank Scorpio says, you can't argue with the little things. It's the little things that make up life.
Story: My Twitter Wish List
Great suggestions - particularly an automatic reduction of URL length prior to posting. Having to make frequent detours to TinyURL etc is a pain.
I don't know much about trademark law, so it'll be really interesting to see how these cases play out.
@webprofessor Thanks for the mention. I like how you included the post in the same category as some of the posts it was talking about ;)
Still not sure what "it" is that I'm not supposed to get - the occasional rant certainly makes life more intestesting, and isn't the whole point of a social news site to spark discussion and interaction? I thought 30+ comments (incidentally with quite a few agreeing with the POV) was a pretty good outcome. It was no LyndonGate, but then what is...?
Nice to see you participating here. I'll look forward to reading your next 16 hour post :)
*Now* I get it :)
Curse these long days and far too much serious reading for eroding my appreciation of irony ;)
Nice interview, but according to Gab he's 20, not 21.
He was the human equivalent to one of those 10-screen/scroll-long clickbank get-rich-quick-ebook sales letters. Please don’t get in touch if that’s your mentality.
lol
@annie - I know, I know... :)
It just cracked me up that almost immediately after Gab stated he was 20, Gyutae began a question "You're a 21 year old still in school..."
Gab, don't argue with Gyutae - you're 21 ;)
Incidentally, I thought that this video commentary on the media uptake of the story made some great points http://youtube.com/watch?v=wMg8vqWB69s&feature=user
Come on people - has everyone become so used to sensationalist tabloid bullshit that they can't use their own judgement anymore?
The idea that it should include a line at the end the say it isn't true is absurd - How many clues that it's a joke could someone need? A minor being named for a crime? Hookers that take credit cards? People of restricted growth working with a travelling circus? The 'Ralph wants to be a politician' line?
People have to take responsibility for what features on their own websites. You can blame Lyndon as much as you like but Money.co.uk took the decision that they were happy with publishing the story for what it was - a piece of satire.
If a serious news site then republished this as fact without checking its authenticity it's them who have lost my respect, not Lyndon for writing it. Verifying a story is correct before you publish it should be standard journalistic practice, no?
@Kimota What makes you think that people had to believe it was true to Digg it or link to it? I think the average Digger is more concerned whether something is funny or not than its factual accuracy. The focus is on entertainment, not reference.
Also, and this is a minor point, as far as I'm aware the article was placed in money.co.uk's "And Finally.." section, which in the UK is associated with humorous pieces. It wasn't on the home page with the serious stuff, despite being the most popular article on the site. Will their target audience suddenly lose faith in the validity of their financial reporting because of this piece? I doubt it. Maybe it's a cultural thing, as there don't seem to be many Private Eye reading, Have I Got News For You watching Brits up in arms.
We're in agreement that stricter guidelines and regulations would be great - I can't believe The Sun can get away with printing this sort of shit - and I mean that in the nicest possible way Lyndon ;) - or that Fox should be allowed to call itself a reputable broadcaster.
Not everyone has to get a joke for it to be funny. The best parody treads the fine line between absurdity and being almost believable. That's where the humour is. Putting notices everywhere saying "Warning! This item is intended for humorous purposes only and is not intended to be taken seriously" kind of defeats the point.
As for it not being satirical, that's subjective, but as a Brit I'm sure you remember a lot of people were upset with the Brass Eye Paedogeddon special. They didn't get the point that it wasn't making a joke of the issue of paedophilia - it was lampooning the frenzied media coverage of the topic at the time. A lot of people not understanding it didn't mean it had failed.
The argument seems to come down to whether you thought the article was a deceitful lie or a fun, harmless joke. Personally, I thought the "13 Year Old Steals Dad's Credit Card to Buy Hookers" piece was a great satirisation of low-grade tabloid journalism, others might disagree. I would ask though how ridiculous or exaggered a story has to be before people begin to question it?
And why does Money.co.uk's "And finally..." section need to develop its own reputation for humorous items - it's already an established idea across the media. Not to mention that it would be pretty hard to develop a reputation for funny or satirical items without putting any in there in the first place.
People read absurd, 100% fictional stories in the news every single day. I think the issue is that this one has been admitted to be a joke and those who believed it was true are outraged. Should money.co.uk now include a note to clarify the situation to anyone who still doesn't realise? That's their call, not Lyndon's. If because of this perfect example a few more people realise that a lot of what they read in the press is fictional bullshit, it can only be a good thing.
As always though, a bit of debate is healthy. I can see your point of view and I certainly don't think you're a moronic, po-faced Albanian Marxist ;) (of which there are not nearly enough around)
It's almost impossible for me not to look at a Sphinn URL I see on Twitter.
I know the term 'hilarious' is subjective, but this is surely stretching it.
Unfortunately the "Sphinn Live" data is frequently used to make judgements on people's voting patterns.
Like vangogh says, a lot of people have already read the posts in their readers before seeing them on Sphinn.
Personally, I tend to open up several articles at once, read them all and then do all the voting together - which could give the false impression that I'm either the world's fastest reader (I'm not) or that I just vote for articles without reading them (I don't).
It's not only amazing that anyone would do this, but that they thought it was such a good idea that it was a worthy use of their time.
Some people are in desperate need of a hobby and a moral compass.
Articles like this are great for getting people thinking about usability and improving conversion rates but don't really have much meat to them.
For anyone with more than a passing interest in the field I'd recommend picking up a copy of 'Call to Action' by the Eisenbergs or spending a day digesting Uncle Jakob's wisdom at Useit.com.
Story: Google Uses 613 Words About Adding 1 -- Privacy -- To Its Home Page