Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest Irv

According to Whatdoestheinternetthink.net 90.5 percent of internet users hate the carolina panthers.

16 posts in this topic

What this means? not a damn thing just thought i might share.

I'm too lazy to take a screenshot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please don't make another thread this week

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
internethatesthesaints_zps34c8f0ac.png
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pol pot, aids, and murder all graded out as positive tho so either this site's data is flawed or the internet is completely debased

given the huddle as a data subset i'd say it's the latter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like aids and murder but hate the Panthers....you should hear me when we lose a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since launching, this has sparked up some discussion as to how it all works. Well, you can understand that I don’t want to disclose too much of the ‘algorithm’ of the site. However: basically it searches based on associative (so far just English) sentences. The given search term is used in these sentences which are then sent off to the various search engines, counting the amount of results returned. (Sentences are double quoted before they are sent off, so as to make sure the search-engines search for occurrences of the *whole* sentence).

This, of course, produces questionable results which should not be taken very seriously. However, the more results (hits) returned, the more reliable these results can become. Do a search for George Bush and then Barack Obama, and you’ll see that the internet is certainly not far off – or perhaps even in-sync – with the result you had in mind.

My advice would be to do 10 ‘obvious’ searches, of which you are almost certain of the results, based on your perception of general opinion (e.g. ‘beer’, ‘sex’, ‘sleeping’, etc.) and then do 10 less obvious searches. If the first 10 convince you of even the slightest accuracy, the second 10 will perhaps be not as random as you thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You put just about any NFL team into that search and it will come out to at least 80% negative.

90% of the 90% of negative things about the Panthers probably come from teh Huddle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To call the methodology on that "flawed" would be an insult to flaws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To call the methodology on that "flawed" would be an insult to flaws.

I was expecting a how it works page to read something like "we just make the numbers up Enron style - but noone cares. People will post it everywhere to prove their points online".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



  • Topics

  • Posts

    • With all respect, the issue with your premise, Nanuq, is an assumption on your part.  I'm not of the mindset that "Hillary managed to lose." Once you've committed to that belief, there are few avenues to explore with respect to the future of the party. While there were definite missteps and poor decisions her campaign took along the way, there were also a few outside factors at play which helped sabotage the election. Look, the DNC has to answer some difficult questions and they also have to decide how they're going to approach 2018 and 2020. Tom Perez, although I liked the guy in the Obama administration, I don't care for his role in the DNC and I'd prefer him as a sort of interim guy until they party charts its course. Ease up, Nanuq. They'll come around. Trump is gonna Trump and the DNC already has enough ammunition to get them through the next 6 election cycles.... provided they use it wisely.
    • Just for the record Fiz the NFL allows test/epitestosterone ratios (T/E) of 4:1