i have no idea who Moot is, but Rain is a Korean pop-star. it would be extremely weird if a Korean Pop star made it to the person of the year because the web-voting decided this to be the case.
Absurd results is right, and it seems that the ranking system is only going to prop up the oddball first three choices. Simply, Rain, currently at number 2 is much more likely to be ranked than someone much lower on the list who is more deserving (say Paul Krugman). And if you look at the average rankings, it is obvious that many people ranking the first few names are doing so because they feel those choices shouldn't be listed first (their average is much much higher).
The catch seems to be that many, many rankings and, say 99, trumps just a few rankings at, say, 2.
They should have asked the guys at Freakonomics to design the method.
Sigh. The fact that i know this is sad, but moot is the founder of 4Chan, that weird online message board that is the source of both the Anonymous thing and every annoying Internet meme ever.
I hope you are not calling Ron Paul's high ranking absurd. Remember he has predicted all of this economic chaos even saying in 2003 on the house floor that Fannie and Freddie would be insolvent disasters. I think in a year or so from now you will wish he was running things.
I think the rating scale is not transparent. For example Ben Bernanke's average rank is 5. People are interpreting the top 100 scale to mean 1 is the highest and 100 is the lowest. I think the rankings are looking for influence. With 100 being the highest.
Time's mistake was in thinking online demographics = normal demographics, and went the cheapest route to collecting votes. You must surely be impressed with the cohesiveness of 4chan, though. Like the Earth 4 billion years ago, life springs out of pure chaos: in this source, the source of many memes.
Their slider system paradigm needs an explanation! I started by sliding toward 1 to say the person has less influence (like 1%) and toward 100 for more influence.... Also, in left-to-right reading countries, the left side is less, the right is more. Now I think it's ranking that the slider indicates, not "influence" as the text indicates.... So I just gave up, not understanding the paradigm.
First off this list does not provide whether it is positive influence or negative, should we foster negative influence, I am happy that this presidental election fostered record voting, but it did foster research, people were mainly voting on one factor. in which case, Obama, Clinton & Palin should be considered highly influencial, but not positively due to using a primary aspect of pandering for the 'minority' vote. All pop-culture icons also follow this pattern of negatively influencing our youth to be mindless sheep following whatever corperate America and Hollywood tells them. We need people that force our society to think, use the resources available to us to make a logical and clear decisions, not to be easily swayed by commericals. If we want to put somebody who is truely subversively influencial lets give the awards to this who have increased the coffers of corperation through perfect advertising that has everybody running to purchase such a product.
@MCU, 4chan actually started on the SA forums before growing to become rather larger than its 'birthplace'; now they are very separate entities, with the memes beloved of 4chan banned from SA, on pain of probation or a ban.
And with an SA membership costing $10 a pop, getting banned means rather more than it does on other forums, meaning that moderators are heeded, and most posters stick to the rules (with the occasional hilarious - or otherwise - exception, of course).
The Time poll reminds me of when Greenpeace opened up the naming of a whale it was tracking to the internet. The result, following a concerted effort by certain websites: Mr Splashy Pants.
To its credit, Greenpeace has embraced the rather absurd name, and have produced a range of Mr Splashy Pants merchandise. A case of pwning the attempted pwners, perhaps?
I can't believe I know all this. I have a job and don't live in a basement and don't have spots, I swear. Although I do think that "White and Nerdy" by Weird Al Yankovich is hilarious. Eek.
Any list where Moot is at least 100 places higher in influence rankings over Krugman is a wise list. If there were a way to rank "undeserved influence", I'd slide Krugman's bar up to 100%.
I think that the makers of the list have a hard time differentiating between "influential" and either "fascinating" or "interesting". I am pretty sure that Britney Spears is not supposed to be influential (to any age group other than maybe tweens, which is a whole different story), but she is somewhat fascinating.
I think moot deserves this simply for the number of votes he is getting. He is currently ranked number one with a rating of 70 and nearly 2 million votes. Regardless of what methods were used to get those votes you have to admit he must be an influential person if so many are willing to spend their time trying to keep him at number one. Also if you have been watching tv at all you would know the site he created is VERY influential. Chocolate Rain and Rick rolling both started on 4chan although we used youtube to spread them.
Prediction for the future: A girl with black eye liner named Boxxy will be on your TV screen some time within the next year. Just ignore her no matter how cute and hyperactive she may be.
Well, it depends what is meant by "people shaping our world". I guess you would call anybody non-familiar to your thoughts, or your specific way of seeing the world "absurd". I don't know this Korean either, but maybe s/he has shaped many people's world. if we accept that everybody has a world. On the other hand, I am sure if all the people around the world, had the opportunity to vote online, none of the names you mentioned would even show up in the top 1000. So instead of blaming other people of not voting for economists, better to let them vote however they like. The results won't be that representative of any meaningful and useful concept anyway!
I'm a college student and I'm not exaggerating when I say that it's harder to meet other college students who don't use 4chan than those who do. Because of the nature of the site it's not usually openly discussed, but if you know what to look for, it's everywhere.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if moot made an official statement about the vote, positive or negative. As the owner of 4chan, he is the ultimate authority figure on a site full of people who hate authority figures, meaning he isn't particularly popular on his own website.
Nothing about 4chan's role in this vote is as simple as it might seem.
Incidentally, "Person of the year" or whatever will still be an editorial decision. So it's interesting to contrast that with the result produced by opening the floodgates. What I'd really like to see is a voter breakdown by the usual demographics like age, sex, income, bla bla bla, but also "medium of choice" + reason for voting.
Perhaps a vote for moot is, like a vote for Nader, a vote against something? Anyway, this whole debate is silly. Maybe that's the f'ing point the result tally shows. Yes, journalism has a Lippman-esque duty to shape and inform, but an opinion piece the just of which seems to be "I won't be bothered to research the names of the two poll front-runners" (l2Google) seems to highlight a journalistic failure to listen.
In other words, if the point of this "opinion" is to tout a certain pride in forming "the approved opinion" while affecting a cultivated disdain for what a poll result may show: Job well done! Not really journalism, but whatever.
Of course moot is in the number one spot. 4chan has an incredibly wide following, and this following is not limited to america. The sheer number of votes he is pulling in does show his considerable influence though, if only on the internet. I can't believe i know all of this, I don't even really use my computer, save for checking stocks in the morning, and checking out the latest atrocities on the news. Oh well, Nah forget it YO HOME TO BEL AIR.
* Mr. danopticon, surely you couldn't be bothered to research the front runners yourself. If you had, you would understand that it is no accident that moot is in the lead. a very large quantity of those voters knew exactly who they were voting for and why, not as a "vote against something" as you say.
While at first glance he may appear abit over the top, don't let that hinder serious consideration for The Naked Cowboy. Built of muscle, brawn and good looks is NOT what defines this man. His back story is one of perserverance, rising above adversity and accepting that the life you had planned for yourself is not always what you get. Standing out in Times Square in the bitter cold of winter in his signature attire, a cowboy hat, painted guitar, cowboy boots and tightie whities, takes, well, more of his anatomy than is currently exposed.
With hisexperience of how to create a massive brand through the use of your mind with visualization of success all the while going through a multitude of job and gig turndowns is just the tonic many of us need right now. Maybe a sitdown interview with him would reveal much more instead of 30 second soundbites.
Whether or not to be for or against something can be a part of the zeitgeist unbeknownst to the ardent supporter or detractor is a sharper point than your critique can dull. Jacobins during the French Revolution, for inst
i have no idea who Moot is, but Rain is a Korean pop-star. it would be extremely weird if a Korean Pop star made it to the person of the year because the web-voting decided this to be the case.
ResponderEliminarOnline voters would vote for anything ... given the opportunity. I'm surprised Darth Vader or Yoda hasn't made the list.
ResponderEliminarRain is Stephen Colbert's Korean nemesis.
ResponderEliminarAbsurd results is right, and it seems that the ranking system is only going to prop up the oddball first three choices. Simply, Rain, currently at number 2 is much more likely to be ranked than someone much lower on the list who is more deserving (say Paul Krugman). And if you look at the average rankings, it is obvious that many people ranking the first few names are doing so because they feel those choices shouldn't be listed first (their average is much much higher).
ResponderEliminarThe catch seems to be that many, many rankings and, say 99, trumps just a few rankings at, say, 2.
They should have asked the guys at Freakonomics to design the method.
Based on the current list, I would say whoever the individual is that invented internet voting deserves a nod on this one.
ResponderEliminarHall Monitor
detentionslip.org
Sigh. The fact that i know this is sad, but moot is the founder of 4Chan, that weird online message board that is the source of both the Anonymous thing and every annoying Internet meme ever.
ResponderEliminarI hope you are not calling Ron Paul's high ranking absurd. Remember he has predicted all of this economic chaos even saying in 2003 on the house floor that Fannie and Freddie would be insolvent disasters. I think in a year or so from now you will wish he was running things.
ResponderEliminarmoot - founder of 4chan.com.
ResponderEliminarI expect the masses of anonymous have shown to show their support.
Oops, make that 4chan.org. How embarrassing.
ResponderEliminarmoot is the founder of the website 4chan.
ResponderEliminarWall Street Journal did a writeup on him last year: online.wsj.com/article/SB121564928060441097.html
I think the rating scale is not transparent. For example Ben Bernanke's average rank is 5. People are interpreting the top 100 scale to mean 1 is the highest and 100 is the lowest. I think the rankings are looking for influence. With 100 being the highest.
ResponderEliminarI think the voters are confused. Or I am...
Time's mistake was in thinking online demographics = normal demographics, and went the cheapest route to collecting votes. You must surely be impressed with the cohesiveness of 4chan, though. Like the Earth 4 billion years ago, life springs out of pure chaos: in this source, the source of many memes.
ResponderEliminar4chan - A possible swing vote?!
That list is hilarious. T-Pain is #4. How cool is that?
ResponderEliminarSeth MacFarlane at #12 is perfect though. That guy is awesome.
^Yeah, 4chan.com is kind of like somethingawful.com, which has been the pusher of many internet phenomenon over the past number of years.
ResponderEliminarMomofuku Ando of Nissin Foods invented Top Ramen, the food that feeds half the world. Surely he deserves a place on the list.
ResponderEliminarAnother year where I get passed over, Time are losing more and more credibility every day.
ResponderEliminarTheir slider system paradigm needs an explanation! I started by sliding toward 1 to say the person has less influence (like 1%) and toward 100 for more influence.... Also, in left-to-right reading countries, the left side is less, the right is more. Now I think it's ranking that the slider indicates, not "influence" as the text indicates.... So I just gave up, not understanding the paradigm.
ResponderEliminarFirst off this list does not provide whether it is positive influence or negative, should we foster negative influence, I am happy that this presidental election fostered record voting, but it did foster research, people were mainly voting on one factor. in which case, Obama, Clinton & Palin should be considered highly influencial, but not positively due to using a primary aspect of pandering for the 'minority' vote. All pop-culture icons also follow this pattern of negatively influencing our youth to be mindless sheep following whatever corperate America and Hollywood tells them. We need people that force our society to think, use the resources available to us to make a logical and clear decisions, not to be easily swayed by commericals. If we want to put somebody who is truely subversively influencial lets give the awards to this who have increased the coffers of corperation through perfect advertising that has everybody running to purchase such a product.
ResponderEliminarRon Paul is the only person to be honest about the silly bailouts (CNN American Morning 3/20/2009):
ResponderEliminar"These bonuses are outrageous. 165 million dollars is a lot of money, but so is 700 billion dollars of unconstitutional appropriation, that
@MCU, 4chan actually started on the SA forums before growing to become rather larger than its 'birthplace'; now they are very separate entities, with the memes beloved of 4chan banned from SA, on pain of probation or a ban.
ResponderEliminarAnd with an SA membership costing $10 a pop, getting banned means rather more than it does on other forums, meaning that moderators are heeded, and most posters stick to the rules (with the occasional hilarious - or otherwise - exception, of course).
The Time poll reminds me of when Greenpeace opened up the naming of a whale it was tracking to the internet. The result, following a concerted effort by certain websites: Mr Splashy Pants.
To its credit, Greenpeace has embraced the rather absurd name, and have produced a range of Mr Splashy Pants merchandise. A case of pwning the attempted pwners, perhaps?
I can't believe I know all this. I have a job and don't live in a basement and don't have spots, I swear. Although I do think that "White and Nerdy" by Weird Al Yankovich is hilarious. Eek.
Any list where Moot is at least 100 places higher in influence rankings over Krugman is a wise list. If there were a way to rank "undeserved influence", I'd slide Krugman's bar up to 100%.
ResponderEliminarI think that the makers of the list have a hard time differentiating between "influential" and either "fascinating" or "interesting". I am pretty sure that Britney Spears is not supposed to be influential (to any age group other than maybe tweens, which is a whole different story), but she is somewhat fascinating.
ResponderEliminarGo Ron Paul! The only honest person in Congress.
ResponderEliminarI think moot deserves this simply for the number of votes he is getting. He is currently ranked number one with a rating of 70 and nearly 2 million votes. Regardless of what methods were used to get those votes you have to admit he must be an influential person if so many are willing to spend their time trying to keep him at number one. Also if you have been watching tv at all you would know the site he created is VERY influential. Chocolate Rain and Rick rolling both started on 4chan although we used youtube to spread them.
ResponderEliminarPrediction for the future: A girl with black eye liner named Boxxy will be on your TV screen some time within the next year. Just ignore her no matter how cute and hyperactive she may be.
Well, it depends what is meant by "people shaping our world". I guess you would call anybody non-familiar to your thoughts, or your specific way of seeing the world "absurd". I don't know this Korean either, but maybe s/he has shaped many people's world. if we accept that everybody has a world. On the other hand, I am sure if all the people around the world, had the opportunity to vote online, none of the names you mentioned would even show up in the top 1000. So instead of blaming other people of not voting for economists, better to let them vote however they like. The results won't be that representative of any meaningful and useful concept anyway!
ResponderEliminarI'm a college student and I'm not exaggerating when I say that it's harder to meet other college students who don't use 4chan than those who do. Because of the nature of the site it's not usually openly discussed, but if you know what to look for, it's everywhere.
ResponderEliminarIt would be interesting to see what would happen if moot made an official statement about the vote, positive or negative. As the owner of 4chan, he is the ultimate authority figure on a site full of people who hate authority figures, meaning he isn't particularly popular on his own website.
Nothing about 4chan's role in this vote is as simple as it might seem.
Moot indirectly fathered lolcats.
ResponderEliminarInfluential =/= "gatekeeper approved"
ResponderEliminarIncidentally, "Person of the year" or whatever will still be an editorial decision. So it's interesting to contrast that with the result produced by opening the floodgates. What I'd really like to see is a voter breakdown by the usual demographics like age, sex, income, bla bla bla, but also "medium of choice" + reason for voting.
Perhaps a vote for moot is, like a vote for Nader, a vote against something? Anyway, this whole debate is silly. Maybe that's the f'ing point the result tally shows. Yes, journalism has a Lippman-esque duty to shape and inform, but an opinion piece the just of which seems to be "I won't be bothered to research the names of the two poll front-runners" (l2Google) seems to highlight a journalistic failure to listen.
In other words, if the point of this "opinion" is to tout a certain pride in forming "the approved opinion" while affecting a cultivated disdain for what a poll result may show: Job well done! Not really journalism, but whatever.
* In the previous, "just" = gist & "Lippman" = Lippmann.
ResponderEliminarOf course moot is in the number one spot. 4chan has an incredibly wide following, and this following is not limited to america. The sheer number of votes he is pulling in does show his considerable influence though, if only on the internet. I can't believe i know all of this, I don't even really use my computer, save for checking stocks in the morning, and checking out the latest atrocities on the news. Oh well, Nah forget it YO HOME TO BEL AIR.
ResponderEliminar* Mr. danopticon, surely you couldn't be bothered to research the front runners yourself. If you had, you would understand that it is no accident that moot is in the lead. a very large quantity of those voters knew exactly who they were voting for and why, not as a "vote against something" as you say.
ResponderEliminarWhile at first glance he may appear abit over the top, don't let that hinder serious consideration for The Naked Cowboy. Built of muscle, brawn and good looks is NOT what defines this man. His back story is one of perserverance, rising above adversity and accepting that the life you had planned for yourself is not always what you get. Standing out in Times Square in the bitter cold of winter in his signature attire, a cowboy hat, painted guitar, cowboy boots and tightie whities, takes, well, more of his anatomy than is currently exposed.
ResponderEliminarWith hisexperience of how to create a massive brand through the use of your mind with visualization of success all the while going through a multitude of job and gig turndowns is just the tonic many of us need right now. Maybe a sitdown interview with him would reveal much more instead of 30 second soundbites.
* Mr. Coolface,
ResponderEliminarWhether or not to be for or against something can be a part of the zeitgeist unbeknownst to the ardent supporter or detractor is a sharper point than your critique can dull. Jacobins during the French Revolution, for inst
Go jonas Brothers and Taylor Swift
ResponderEliminarHAHAHHAHA MOOT YES HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA SO GRAND i love hackers :)
ResponderEliminar