Jump to content
Squid Division

Unnecessary Comical Picture Thread

Recommended Posts

:frusty:

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 by ThunderPeel2001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:frusty:

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

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

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

Glad we got to the bottom of that. Sorry for the confusion. :tup:

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
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
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
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
This makes me laugh, every. single. time.

I love that image, this one makes me laugh every time as well.

82860d1217358994funnystkh8.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fKupj.jpg

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×