ThunderPeel2001 Posted December 19, 2011 (edited) Alright, alright, I'll take another look... I like how the effects of social media are represented in the ultimate style over substance way with extremely low data density, disconnected bursts of poorly backed up information and illustrations that do not convey any relevant meaning. Apart from "poorly backed up information", everything you say seems to me to be about how the information and argument is presented, both logically and visually. This is why I directed people to the Wired article, which essentially has the same message as this infographic, but better presents its argument. Re: "poorly backed up information", see my previous post. Edit: I've also re-written the paragraph that offended you. You're right: It wasn't doing anything good for this discussion. Edited December 19, 2011 by ThunderPeel2001 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nappi Posted December 19, 2011 You did not link to the Wired article in your first post. If you had already read it and your main point was for us to read it as well, why not post a direct link? While Infographics are easy to link on Twitter or Forums or whatever, they are very poor at encouraging you to look further because of the abysmal way the sources are handled. This is the Internet after all, the home of the hyperlinks. Furthermore, as you too pointed out, this is a Comical Picture Thread. I feel like I can comment on things such as the quality of this infographic or how infographics in general treat information, without commenting on the contents. You asked why people are not finding fault on the Wired article instead, and I think the reason is that it is a different discussion altogether. And I'm sorry that I'm not going to contribute to that discussion, but I'm simply not that interested in the subject. For "poorly backed up information", see citation practices. There is no reason not to include the [1] marks next to the information that is not general knowledge, even if you are just making a flashy infographic. I may be wrong but it seems to me that you have taken the criticism on the infographic somewhat personally - going so far as to assure as that you are not going to marry it (and I had already bought you two a gift) - even though it has nothing to do with you. If you really want people to discuss the phenomena itself, and only that, maybe you could post the article in the Science thread. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted December 19, 2011 There appears to be some sort of communication issue. You did not link to the Wired article in your first post. If you had already read it and your main point was for us to read it as well, why not post a direct link? While Infographics are easy to link on Twitter or Forums or whatever, they are very poor at encouraging you to look further because of the abysmal way the sources are handled. This is the Internet after all, the home of the hyperlinks. I posted the Wired link in my second post, prior to your first post. I did because people were taking umbridge with the infographic, rather than the infographic's message. Specficially subbes said she was burned out on infographics, and Armchair said he "wanted to believe it", but questioned the sources. To help rectify this I provided a link to the Wired article, something I had previously read, which also happened to have the same message, which would solve both their problems: It wasn't an infographic and it didn't involve the Daily Mail (and it would also have more journalistic credibility). It also happens to be one of the sources on the infographic, but that's neither here nor there, I guess. Furthermore, as you too pointed out, this is a Comical Picture Thread. I feel like I can comment on things such as the quality of this infographic or how infographics in general treat information, without commenting on the contents. You asked why people are not finding fault on the Wired article instead, and I think the reason is that it is a different discussion altogether. And I'm sorry that I'm not going to contribute to that discussion, but I'm simply not that interested in the subject. You are, of course, completely free to comment on whatever you wish to comment on. I took your post to be a critique of the infographic's contents based entirely on your opinion of how it presented its argument. If that wasn't the case, I apologise. For "poorly backed up information", see citation practices. There is no reason not to include the [1] marks next to the information that is not general knowledge, even if you are just making a flashy infographic. I agree that the infographic could be greatly improved by marking where each "fact" was sourced from. I'd certainly appreciate it. Also, I took "poorly backed up information" to mean that you thought there was little supporting evidence to back up the information presented. I.e. It was poorly backed up. I didn't take it to mean that you were pointing out the claims were "not clearly cited". I may be wrong but it seems to me that you have taken the criticism on the infographic somewhat personally - going so far as to assure as that you are not going to marry it (and I had already bought you two a gift) - even though it has nothing to do with you. No. I haven't taken it personally in the slightest, I was responding to comments, like those from Nachimir, which seem to want me to defend it as if I had created it: "...is not proof that the infographic is valid. You've also failed to answer the criticism that some of the sources quoted in it are shockingly poor ones, reputed for awful journalism and just making shit up." If you really want people to discuss the phenomena itself, and only that, maybe you could post the article in the Science thread. Yes, that probably would have been for the best, in hindsight. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nappi Posted December 19, 2011 Yes. I was not commenting on the contents based on the style it was represented in. I agree that the infographic could be greatly improved by marking where each "fact" was sourced from. I'd certainly appreciate it. Also, I took "poorly backed up information" to mean that you thought there was little supporting evidence to back up the information presented. I.e. It was poorly backed up. I didn't take it to mean that you were pointing out the claims were "not clearly cited". That was perhaps a bit poor wording on my part, sorry about the confusion. However, I'd argue that the way the sources are handled in the infographic is close to not backing them up at all, since roughly 99% of the readers* will probably not type in all the links manually to find a single tidbit they want to know more about. Some of the information may be poorly interpreted or simply not backed up at all and practically no-one will notice, let alone prove it is the case. I guess that is part of the "beauty" of this style of representation. Note: I do not think all infographics are inherently bad. In fact, some of them are very successful. *Based on nothing at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted December 19, 2011 Glad we got to the bottom of that. Sorry for the confusion. Next job: Actually bother to manually type those URLs in and see if the sources are actually any good or not. After all this discussion, I think I'd actually like to know! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nappi Posted December 19, 2011 Good! Let us know what you find out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nachimir Posted December 19, 2011 Good! Let us know what you find out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
James Posted December 20, 2011 These are some pretty funny pictures. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Roderick Posted December 20, 2011 Holy shit what's that from?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thompson Posted December 20, 2011 Holy shit what's that from?? Apparently it's from a doujin called "Prince of Tennis dj - Of Summer and Nude and Men and Tears". Source Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gwardinen Posted December 20, 2011 Apparently it's from a doujin called "Prince of Tennis dj - Of Summer and Nude and Men and Tears". My brain had to reboot after reading that sentence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Orv Posted December 20, 2011 My brain had to reboot after reading that sentence. Fuuuuck JaaapAAaaAaaan. ^ No way is Blizzard Support that cool. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted December 23, 2011 So somebody spotted this... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderPeel2001 Posted December 24, 2011 To be fair, they did their erratic driving after they'd left town. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanJW Posted December 29, 2011 This makes me laugh, every. single. time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thompson Posted December 29, 2011 This makes me laugh, every. single. time. I love that image, this one makes me laugh every time as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
subbes Posted December 30, 2011 That pug's got swag. ADORABLE. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gwardinen Posted December 31, 2011 I suppose it's theoretically possible it has nothing to do with the success of that game with the similar name. If so; snappy title, guys! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brannigan Posted December 31, 2011 I'm normally indifferent to pets dressed up. But fucking hell that pug knows how to work it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites