Kudos to one of our newest contributors, CroMagnon, for pointing out that Johnson has a YouTube channel under the nic “lizardoid” (not sure if that was ever noted here before), and that his famously keen sensitivity to racist and bigoted comments apparently doesn’t extend to that realm. Heck, the very first video I clicked on contained this in the comment section:
To illustrate the rampant comment section further, CroMagnon has produced a nice little video montage:
At current count, Lizardoid has 43 videos that he’s uploaded over the past 5 years (most of them appear to be older), and the only one I spotted that doesn’t have an open comment section is the latest one about Ron Paul in front of the Confederate Flag (just so everyone is on the same page, anyone with a youtube account can remove -or label as “spam”- individual comments from their own channel, and even disable commenting from uploaded videos altogether. ) Many of these comments have been greeting visitors to his channel for years:
I suppose the logical question would be if Johnson would classify the racism on his own YouTube channel as “right wing”?
*Waves to Dark Falcon* Make sure you watch this one right to the end, Mr. Mountain Lion™. 😛
(Guest video post by Emperor. For other classics, check out TheEmperorsChannel on youtube.)
Tonight’s overnight thread features an LOL-worthy video from DoD reader Emperor, complete with the klaxon sound in the background:
For others, check out TheEmperorsChannel on youtube.
It’s interesting. I just realized that I don’t really read LGF anymore. I must not? What, with all the spelunking into the memory hole, fact checkin’ stuff, drifting The World’s Greatest Blog Search Engine, and guest posting for other folks, I should have noticed that LGF was an enclave for those with a hypersensitivity to images of animals in distress:
On the other hand, it IS the Blog Version of Animal Farm, so maybe that’s natural.
Anyway, after a few dozen Outrage! comments:
OK, so, The Daily Show thought that filming a camel in Wisconsin would make a great gag or whatever, but did CJ watch the same video? The camel appeared to get a foot or leg stuck in a barrier, and at the very worst, it tripped. It’s quite natural for this creature to go down on its knees like that, however. They do it so often, in fact, that the area that makes contact becomes very calloused; like a “heel”:
It’s how they sit. Awkward critters, they are. And sure, impossible, I think, for them to look happy no matter the situation.
So a recap: not really a slip, as it was the barrier that was the problem, and because the camel went down in its natural way, the risk of injury was minor. It’s a video that another camel might find funny, actually. And even if it was a slip, it wasn’t as if Stewart himself was leading that camel out into the snow. There was obviously a handler, and I doubt that Comedy Central owns a camel, so someone else had to agree to it. Why not put it on those folks?
We could go on, but I think the point is made. “Camelgate” is going to be a non-starter. The whole thread is kinda silly, when you break it right down.
Perhaps we could use this newly-discovered element of the cult profile to our advantage?
Yes, I believe we can:
[Update: Can’t pass up a great opportunity like this to add another graphic to the archives. — Briareus]
For an assortment of practical and impractical reasons, I decided to buy myself a new laptop. In the process of transferring data over from the old one, I realized that I have built up an interesting folder of files from our battles. Then I noticed that this PC came with a slick and quick video editing program (it was bundled with some of Sony’s software, as usual with these VAIOs). All you have to do is pick some files, pick a theme, and if you want/need to, pick a soundtrack. So, I figured what the heck….
Crank it up!
Short, sweet, and I tried to get a little of our greatest hits in there.
BTW- If anyone has mad skilz and wants to make a better video, consider this a submission thread.
We’ve heard more than a few inquiries from DoD readers who’ve wondered about how LGF calculates the “views” stat that appears on each LGF thread and page. For myself, I’ve certainly visited a lot of LGF pages (especially old ones), and I’ll admit that something always seemed a little fishy. And we know that Charles dumped sitemeter a while ago, along with Quantcast more recently, which makes it a little tougher to verify anything from 3rd party sources. Instead, Johnson opted to go with his own custom-built page view counter last September to display the stats publicly at the top of each thread. But how accurate is his “views” thingy, anyway?
We had left the subject alone for a long time, but thanks to CJ’s recent trash tweets, he has provided the perfect excuse for us to try to sort this out (and we apologise if this gets a little wonky):
Never mind the fact that “views” doesn’t translate directly into “people” for any website (because of refreshes/revisits), or that not all those people (or any?) were neccessarily laughing, I think we should dive into this a little further, and see if the even the 21,600 views part is accurate.
First, let’s start with what Johnson himself has said about how views are calculated (this was a regarding a change that was made a little over a month after the feature was installed):
If I’m reading that right, it means that any visitor to LGF’s front page is actually registering 10 page views (one into each thread counter; whether they were actually read or not, as 9 of them aren’t likely to be on the screen without a scroll). Additionally, we’re to assume that if said visitor actually clicks on any of the threads, that would count as another “view”, and up the counter yet again (and if this person goes back to the front page after reading, it would register – you guessed it – another 10 views?). It’s a slick way to pad stats, IMO, but unusable for comparison to other sites (DoD, for example, has a separate view counter for the front page in our dashboard, and front page views don’t effect thread views).
So, 21,600? Not really. Of course we’d need to know what % of LGFs incoming traffic is front page vs. direct thread links to get an idea on how short the real number might fall (of where a normal blog would record it), but it is going to be unquestionably less. But if CJ wants to count the thread that is 10 spots down on the front page as “viewed”, well….whatever.
But wait, it gets better (or worse, depending on how you look at it)…
While spelunking through the depths of the LGF archives, I would notice that a lot of these old threads showed the counter increase in my browser as it was loading, and in many cases I could have sworn that it was by more than one. While a jump like this would make sense for an article on the front page (because of all the traffic), it seems weird that it would happen on a thread from, say, 2008. So, we had The Boiler Room put in a little overtime, and see if they can take this front page/”scroll assume” cheater effect out of the equation using old threads that aren’t on the front page and unlikely to have any interfering traffic. What we found was pretty interesting:
Boiler Room engineer No. 2 explains the methodology:
I picked twenty old (2008) threads at random, and (using a Selenium code) hit ten of them 20 times each over about 20 minutes. The other ten threads I hit just twice – once at the beginning and once at the end of the twenty minute period. Idea here is to eliminate the influence (or at least quantify it if it’s there) of other people coincidentally hitting on the same old threads.
After about 200 hits over twenty minutes the ten test threads showed over 400 hits view counts increase. The ten control threads – hit ten times over 20 minutes, showed only about 20 hits increase in LGF view counts. This is about the same 2×1 ratio – expected – but proves (to me anyway) that the ‘extra’ 200 hits on the ten test threads were from me and not from some highly coincidental other traffic on those same threads (since this hypothetical other traffic didn’t show up at all on the control group threads).
Then I switched control threads for test threads, repeated the experiment, same result (ie new test threads got about 400 bumps in view counts for 200 hits, etc).
I checked against a different, non-LGF site – and 20 hits by the script produced exactly 20 bumps in the page views. So that tells me there’s nothing funky in the internals of the Selenium code that hits a page twice for whatever reason in the process of loading the page into the browser.
No. 2 went on to explain that while checking some of the threads “manually”, he would sometimes notice view jumps of 3 (and even 4). That IS fishy.
But wait…it gets even better (or worse, depending on how you look at it)…
Since I prefer to double-check our engineers, I thought I’d try some of this stuff out for myself, using a handful of old LGF threads from 2003. Sure enough, well…just watch:
In any case, if you add in the front page tomfoolery, you’ve got a view counter that is set up to display substantially inflated numbers.
Ya don’t say?
Fact checked! 21,600? Busted…bigtime.
(Hat tip: The Boiler Room)
Update: Patterico links.
Also, in the day since we’ve posted this, we’ve naturally had a lot of folks try to duplicate what happened there in the video (Patterico said he couldn’t). With the other feedback that we’re getting, it appears that the refresh issue I’m demonstrating is specific to IE users, and that you must allow the page to load completely for it to jump by 9 like that.
So, I whipped up another quick video, this time just refreshing the page with comments, and making sure to wait for the page to load completely. I’m using IE8 on my VAIO, and was able to get it to jump by 9 with each refresh: