explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:1100: Vows

2012-08-29T22:12:08Z

84.154.135.194: comment from Germany

Somebody please explain what a "High School Misdirection Play" is. I did my best to explain American Gridiron, but I'm not a sports nut (far from it). [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 16:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

::How about now? [[User:TheOriginalSoni|TheOriginalSoni]] ([[User talk:TheOriginalSoni|talk]]) 16:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

::I assume that a "Misdirection Play" is where the ball is made to look like it is passed/thrown/handed to one player who then proceeds to run as if they had the ball, attracting the defensive players away from the actual person holding the ball. Highschool football has a tendency to use more "tricky" plays than "higher" levels of play (college, professional) as there is more chance of success for a risky, surprise type of play compared to games with more experienced players. Similarly, there are more "surprise" plays in college ball than in the NFL - I think there are more "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-point_conversion two point conversions]" in college ball. [[User:J-beda|J-beda]] ([[User talk:J-beda|talk]]) 17:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

::In American Football, the team on offense must move the ball down the field past the defending team (similar to most field sports, such as football (soccer), rugby, or hockey). In order to do this, sometimes the offensive team will try to trick the defensive team into thinking the ball is, or will be moved, somewhere where it's not. This is called a misdirection. One example of this (the one I'm most familiar with) is the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_pass Screen Pass]. In the comic, the "bride" is a member of the offensive team and, it is implied, has courted and promised to wed cueball, who is playing on the defense, in an incredibly elaborate attempt to misdirect him about the intended football play. It is quite absurd. [[Special:Contributions/98.189.235.248|98.189.235.248]]

:Boise State is a team known for their trick plays because they used 3 in a row in the 2007 Fiesta Bowl [[User:Joehammer79|Joehammer79]] ([[User talk:Joehammer79|talk]]) 19:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
::This is false. They used 3 trick plays in the fourth quarter & Overtime, but they were not 'in a row.' jjhuddle 19:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
:::I stand corrected. 5 years of college football made me forget all the little plays in between. [[User:Joehammer79|Joehammer79]] ([[User talk:Joehammer79|talk]]) 19:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Is anyone else struck by the fact that if there's continuity of stance in panels 1-3, then "Amy" is running backwards through the End Zone? --[[Special:Contributions/98.225.182.131|98.225.182.131]] 20:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

:I think in the last panel "Amy" actually has turned around and is running forward, because the veil is then trailing and the ball looks to be in the crook of the arm. [[User:Lcarsos|lcarsos]] ([[User talk:Lcarsos|talk]]) 20:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"...the priest asks (for the sake of formality) if the bride takes the groom to be her husband..." No no no no no. Most of the dialogue during the ceremony is understood to be poetic or discretionary ("obey," anyone?) But, there are a few questions during a wedding ceremony which are legal essentials, NOT formalities. One is to ask each person whether they actually want to marry the other person, that one, there, calling him/herself "Rob" or "Amy." Another is to get each one to explicitly declare there is no legal impediment to them getting married to that there person.

The third essential is the officiant's duty to look at the pair and see if, in his best judgment, they are sober and sane. YMMV, but pronounced intoxication or delirium would make the wedding questionable and a serious officiant would not sign off on the license. The last essential involves the signing of the paperwork by five persons -- the officiant, the bride and groom, and two witnesses.

I've been doing weddings since 1999. Neither footballs nor parachutes have ever been involved, but one ceremony included a kilt and a freshly caught bigmouth bass.[[User:Noni Mausa|Noni Mausa]] ([[User talk:Noni Mausa|talk]]) 14:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
:Did anyone ever say no? [[User:Buggz|Buggz]] ([[User talk:Buggz|talk]]) 10:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me state first that I am a big fan of xkcd. Yet this cartoon is not only totally unfunny but also the title text totally fails to add to the joke. Am I alone with this opinion, or is this typically American (with obsession towards A. football and highschool sports in general)???
[[Special:Contributions/84.154.135.194|84.154.135.194]] 22:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:1098: Star Ratings

2012-08-29T22:10:22Z

84.154.135.194: formatting test

'''please add <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> to the end of your comments to include your signature. Thanks!'''

*An alternate explanation is that internet users only vote in 1s and 5s, and that the cutoff represents the point where there are too many 1s.

*The people most likely to vote are those with strong opinions, which would often be polerized to one or five stars. These people would be the most likely to vote because their connection to the product would make them more willing to spend the time to share their experiance.

*In my opinion, this comic is about overrating. The comic says anything between full fout stars is crap. One possible explanation could be that people dislike to admit that their decision for a particular product was a bad one, so they grant three stars. Or look at certain brands, where every defect is by definition unimportant so they do not impact the review too harshly. [[Special:Contributions/46.142.51.138|46.142.51.138]] 15:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)madd
**It was pointed out to me (by a district manager in the organization concerned) that on those surveys you are asked to take by retail outlets, anything less than a 5 is considered a zero by Corporate. They're apparently not interested in honest evaluations; either it was SUPEREXCELLENTGREAT!! or it's worthless. [[User:Shalom S.|Shalom S.]] ([[User talk:Shalom S.|talk]]) 19:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

*It seems likely that any product with a 1-start rating only has one (or a small number of) reviews as well. Usually a product has ''some'' redeeming value that someone will find useful.
**Usually the developer or at least a friend will provide a positive rating and review, though the issue of self rating isn't specifically addressed by this comic. Still, if 3 users give it a 1-star review, but the developer has access to at least 2 accounts that can give a 5-star rating, you still result in 13/25 rating, or two-and-a-half stars, which is why that star rating would be "crap".--[[User:DanB|DanB]] ([[User talk:DanB|talk]]) 16:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
*** Agreed. If there's only one review, it most likely comes from the supplier / author / producer, and in that case it's going to be a five star rating. From that perspective, the only way to get a bad _average_ review is if there are many bad reviews. As an example, consider a product with five reviews: 5, 2, 2, 1, 3. The average is 2.6, and depending on the implementation this might be shown as "two and half stars" or "three stars". If you take out the 5, you get an average of 2. Consider the case of two reviews, 5 and 1. The 5 is from the author and the 1 is from a real user. Average is 3. Considering the other cases (5 and 2, 5 and 3, 5 and 4) the averges are 3.5, 4, 4.5. As you can see, anything below 3.5 is crap (the 1 and 2 from real users) and 4 and 4.5 are indeed ok (3 and 4 from the real user). As the number of "real" reviews increases, the average will tend towards the actual average perception from users (law of large numbers), and there is ''no way'' to get a 5 on average because of the fact that when dealing with subjective evaluation, ''someone'' is going to think the product is crap, therefore a five star rating is the product of a single review from the author. [[User:Mem|mem]] ([[User talk:Mem|talk]]) 20:56, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

*I think there might be a little too much analysis for this, given the title text. When shopping online, especially for random items like computer parts, media, and whatnot, people tend to peruse through items fairly quickly and/or fairly critically. A 5 star rating seems a little too perfect for the real world, hence the notion that there's only one review; a cynic might say that its from the author himself or some astroturfer (and they're probably right). The rest of the rating scale, however, is an observation of buyer behavior. Getting ''only'' four out of five stars is considered the lowest a potential buyer will risk before buying/downloading/ordering whatever it is. Everything else is very unceremoniously considered "crap," with the reasoning that there's some sort of defect or angry reviewer. Any further inquiry isn't necessary since there's a lot of other alternative products or manufacturers on the market. Hence, "crap, move on to the next item" mentality." The title text alludes to this with its strange gravestones. I take it as symbolizing all the products and sellers and manufacturers and establishments that got below that 4-star threshold, doomed to death by obscurity as buyers simply skip over the item in question, having called quickly decided it was "crap." Whether they actually are that bad is beyond that line of thinking. Whether it might be someone just hating on it and everyone else being scared off is similarly beyond it. As mentioned above, Corporate considers anything that isn't great to be worthless; it's because online consumers tend to think the exact same thing. And I guess to top it off, the mention about going to Yelp to give it a one-star review due to his unease and then feeling compulsed not to would basically be some sort supernatural power from the cemetery making sure that 1.) the cemetery's rating doesn't go down, and 2.) the author doesn't make that whole rating cemetery thing even more meta. [[Special:Contributions/68.123.154.215|68.123.154.215]] 05:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
** Wow do I wish I could have used paragraphs there. [[Special:Contributions/68.123.154.215|68.123.154.215]] 05:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

*The alt text sounds vaguely like a chain letter or urban legend. Does anyone recognize it as referring to any one in particular? --[[User:Aw|Aw]] ([[User talk:Aw|talk]]) 23:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

test of the 4 tilde demanded here... [[Special:Contributions/84.154.135.194|84.154.135.194]] 22:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:1100: Vows

2012-08-29T22:06:22Z

84.154.135.194: commetn