Funny vs LOL subgraph

September 18, 2013 9:07 PM

The definitive difference between Funny and LOL [Warning: dataviz]
posted by gwint (22 comments total)

Someone please help.
posted by oneironaut at 9:36 PM on September 18, 2013 [1 favorite]

I think they broke the funny.
posted by blue_beetle at 9:41 PM on September 18, 2013 [3 favorites]

I picked up so much speed tapping past the introduction that I think I might have overshot the actual interesting part. Tapestry needs a "back" button.
posted by Strange Interlude at 9:45 PM on September 18, 2013 [3 favorites]

I felt the funny, in the way an amplituhedron feels quantum particles, but not in a comfortable way.
posted by oneironaut at 9:46 PM on September 18, 2013 [1 favorite]

oneironaut: Someone please help.

If I understand correctly, the piece is trying to explain how the distinction between "funny" and "lol" can be teased out (at least as it regards tags on gif images) by looking at the other tags that are usually seen accompanying them. Each tag seems to bind to a distinctive grouping of other tags.

I agree that it is not quite as clear as it could be if the non-slide portions of the talk had been reproduced. The author said (on twitter) that the talk itself will probably go online at some point.
posted by curious.jp at 10:29 PM on September 18, 2013 [1 favorite]

Mod note: Some comments deleted; as always, dropping in to say you didn't read/don't care etc. isn't so awesome, and meta discussion goes to Metatalk.
posted by taz (staff) at 10:34 PM on September 18, 2013 [2 favorites]

Dunno what the deleted comments said but I thought this was pretty cool.
posted by Hairy Lobster at 11:13 PM on September 18, 2013

It starts with graphs showing that gifs tagged with "funny" are distinct from gifs tagged with "lol", but then the actual difference is explained with some examples.

So all the data viz did was supply him with a hypothesis, and he tested it by looking at a ton of tagged gifs?
posted by Pruitt-Igoe at 12:22 AM on September 19, 2013

Well, it wore out my mouse clicker thingie, that's not so funny, but I did do a WTF.
posted by HuronBob at 3:21 AM on September 19, 2013

It seems that he doesn't quite clarify that this is a way to distinguish "the difference between funny and lol" solely when it comes to "how those two terms get used as image or gif tags". Because it seems that that's the only context in which his data would appear to make sense.

As to the empiric difference, I think it's kind of an "I'll know it when I see it" situation, although it also seems like schadenfreude has a lot to do with lol....
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:32 AM on September 19, 2013 [1 favorite]

I like it. The only problem I have with it is that he didn't explain how he verified what kinds of images were associated with which tags. I'm guessing he just glanced at a bunch, which is cool, but definitely moves it clearly into the "fun, but not rigorous" observation category.
posted by ignignokt at 5:27 AM on September 19, 2013

Was there some text missing from this? After awhile it was a bunch of random gifs interspersed with blank slides, then it said something like "And now I'm about to make my point..." and then it was more blank slides. Very frustrating.
posted by bleep at 5:30 AM on September 19, 2013

I'm disappointed that there was no mention of humor being our official 6th sense.
posted by yoga at 5:55 AM on September 19, 2013

Thanks, curious.jp. I did understand what it was trying to do, but given the level of my technical and mathematical proficiency, the description of the methodology sounded to me like arcane magic.
posted by oneironaut at 7:57 AM on September 19, 2013

I'm not sure why, but this felt like one of those "zoom in and enhance" moments.

Also, it fell very much between funny and LOL on the spectrum, nearer WTF.
posted by chavenet at 8:14 AM on September 19, 2013

Wow I thought that was pretty clear, but I am a trained scientist, and therefore better than most of youse.
posted by Mister_A at 8:42 AM on September 19, 2013

I think the dynamic of the gif lends itself to "LOL" much more easily than it does to "funny." For something to be funny, I think there needs to be some context, and this has traditionally been done by telling a story or setting a scene leading up to the humorous moment.

I guess you could pull this off in gif form with some sort of caption or with very long intro, but LOL is laughing at something that's being taken completely out of context. You click a link not knowing what to expect, so for maximum shock-and-LOL it must be of something totally bizarre. I think the LOL was borne of the internet, one of its parents being America's Funniest Home Videos. The internet does WTF very well, but due to this, there is less tolerance and a reduced attention span for "funny."
posted by antonymous at 8:43 AM on September 19, 2013 [2 favorites]

I'm sorry, I'm sure I had some really salient questions about this but...but...horse motorcycle flying what the huh?!
posted by Mooseli at 9:40 AM on September 19, 2013

horse motorcycle flying what the huh?!

Believe it or not, I've seen the full clip that's from - it's from a collection of clips of weird visual bugs from video games. Lots of horses getting onto motorcycles, people's heads going all warpy, guys driving invisible cars and what-not.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:51 AM on September 19, 2013

horse motorcycle flying what the huh?!

That horse may have been taking it to the limit.
posted by RobotHero at 10:01 AM on September 19, 2013

Anyone know what software he could have been using to generate those graphs?
posted by RobotHero at 10:20 AM on September 19, 2013 [1 favorite]

D3 maybe. If you're into Javascript, there's also Springy, Sigma, and Arbor. If you're coding in another language, Google "force directed graph"
posted by gwint at 12:08 PM on September 19, 2013