Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
mediaphage
Mar 22, 2007

Excuse me, pardon me, sheer perfection coming through

echinopsis posted:

speaking of skin we’re gonna start selling vibrators at work, but weirdly not fleshlights?

kinda not very equitable

nothing stopping you from using a vibrator on yourself

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

by Fluffdaddy
kinda missing the point


tbh i don’t really care, it’s just interesting I suppose that vibrators are basically a symbol of empowerment but fleshlights don’t really carry that same prestige

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

OFFICIAL #1 GNOME FAN
idk you can use a vibrator with a partner but a fleshlight seems like more of a solo thing

akadajet
Sep 14, 2003

echinopsis posted:

kinda missing the point


tbh i don’t really care, it’s just interesting I suppose that vibrators are basically a symbol of empowerment but fleshlights don’t really carry that same prestige

all prestige was lost when they hired shmorky to do their ads

mediaphage
Mar 22, 2007

Excuse me, pardon me, sheer perfection coming through

echinopsis posted:

kinda missing the point


tbh i don’t really care, it’s just interesting I suppose that vibrators are basically a symbol of empowerment but fleshlights don’t really carry that same prestige

i’m not missing the point dude, i think it’s pretty silly to call it an issue of equitability to be frank. there’s a huge obvious reason that a tool designed mostly to put the power for women to pleasure themselves in their own hands is a symbol of empowerment while a fleshlight isn’t

regardless it’s silly most places and people are still so puritanical with regards to sex and self-pleasure. a surgeon general got lambasted over masturbation as a public health issue (she was pro)

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

by Fluffdaddy

mediaphage posted:

i’m not missing the point dude, i think it’s pretty silly to call it an issue of equitability to be frank. there’s a huge obvious reason that a tool designed mostly to put the power for women to pleasure themselves in their own hands is a symbol of empowerment while a fleshlight isn’t


the equity comment was a bit of a joke, because I don’t really care that we’re gonna sell one and not the other



they’re both tools for masturbation at the end of the day


maybe because of the patriarchy and latent levels of homophobia around, people just don’t want to see things to do with mens sexuality in a mall, but women? all that marketing buys into the male gaze


anyway I still don’t own a fleshlight

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

by Fluffdaddy

akadajet posted:

all prestige was lost when they hired shmorky to do their ads

oh poo poo lol that’s right

Roosevelt
Jul 18, 2009

I'm looking for the man who shot my paw.

lol at the lack of sex toy equity at echi's pharmacy shop

Roosevelt
Jul 18, 2009

I'm looking for the man who shot my paw.

tell your boss you should start stocking those molded porn star arses to keep things equitable

Jabor
Jul 16, 2010

#1 Loser at SpaceChem
maybe it's just for relieving muscle soreness

polyester concept
Mar 29, 2017

I went into a spencer’s store recently to look for a gag gift and was surprised to see fleshlights for sale. i mean why not i guess but it just made me feel very old and out of touch

Agile Vector
May 21, 2007

scrum bored



Roosevelt posted:

tell your boss you should start stocking those molded porn star arses feet to keep things equitable

Moongrave
Jun 19, 2004

Finally Living Rent Free

The feet with a vagina in the sole or what

Hed
Mar 31, 2004

Fun Shoe
From Wsj

quote:

Google is shifting the way it presents search results to incorporate conversations with artificial intelligence, along with more short video and social-media posts, a departure from the list of website results that has made it the dominant search engine for decades.

Google plans to make its search engine more “visual, snackable, personal, and human,” with a focus on serving young people globally."


can’t wait to have snackable TikTok content links

Cybernetic Vermin
Apr 18, 2005

Hed posted:

From Wsj

can’t wait to have snackable TikTok content links

extremely unexpected and yet very dumb, i will necro beeftweeters comment from months back (entirely correct, i just think the "might cause" was overly optimistic)

Beeftweeter posted:

i mean, if anything, google just doesn't have to do anything at all to appear more competent than microsoft right now. the bing ai failures are extremely public, they've tried to defend it, nerf it, tweak it — but it's still quite bad

of course google product managers will see it as an existential threat and it might cause them to make search even worse somehow, but they don't need to

Cybernetic Vermin fucked around with this message at 12:43 on May 8, 2023

theflyingexecutive
Apr 22, 2007

Hed posted:

From Wsj

can’t wait to have snackable TikTok content links

I got A/Bed into a google search that was Pinterest board styled and noped and reported right the gently caress out of there

MononcQc
May 29, 2007

everyone is aware that google's search results have gotten worse over time, but the thing they're trying to save here isn't search, it's the ad profit, and it very much feels like the latter was already harming the former for a while.

Buck Turgidson
Feb 6, 2011

𓀬𓀠𓀟𓀡𓀢𓀣𓀤𓀥𓀞𓀬

quote:

visual, snackable, personal, and human

Qtotonibudinibudet
Nov 7, 2011



Omich poluyobok, skazhi ty narkoman? ya prosto tozhe gde to tam zhivu, mogli by vmeste uyobyvat' narkotiki

MononcQc posted:

everyone is aware that google's search results have gotten worse over time, but the thing they're trying to save here isn't search, it's the ad profit, and it very much feels like the latter was already harming the former for a while.

it's kinda weird that the advice for finding decent info on search engines nowadays is to do "site:reddit.com" and yet reddit ad inventory is still considered meh afaik

granted i know that realistically having good content no longer matters when you have google levels of brand stickiness and 80% of search users arent gonna use that trick because they dont actually care, but still. doubly so since google's rise was essentially predicated on having better results than metacrawler or yahoo or whatever the gently caress

Cybernetic Vermin
Apr 18, 2005

MononcQc posted:

everyone is aware that google's search results have gotten worse over time, but the thing they're trying to save here isn't search, it's the ad profit, and it very much feels like the latter was already harming the former for a while.

i mean, the only thing that as a corporation makes sense to save is ads since that's their entire business. the new here is that google had a solid 20 years of basically understanding that they couldn't gently caress too much with what search does

like, any average product manager would have fallen into the trap of going "how do we drive engagement with the page", making you stay in search and click on things and whatnot, so google has been nicely conservative not messing with it. but now here's bing chat to spook them into doing something extremely dumb (at least my suspicion is that this started with bing chat and spiraled into the "what do kids like these days" engagement thing).

Roosevelt
Jul 18, 2009

I'm looking for the man who shot my paw.


i really hate marketing

post hole digger
Mar 21, 2011

post hole digger
Mar 21, 2011

search results lookin like a drat snack 🥺🥵

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

OFFICIAL #1 GNOME FAN

Cybernetic Vermin posted:

extremely unexpected and yet very dumb, i will necro beeftweeters comment from months back (entirely correct, i just think the "might cause" was overly optimistic)

lol nailed it :c00l:

eschaton
Mar 7, 2007

Don't you just hate when you wind up in a store with people who are in a socioeconomic class that is pretty obviously about two levels lower than your own?

Cybernetic Vermin posted:

(at least my suspicion is that this started with bing chat and spiraled into the "what do kids like these days" engagement thing).

does this mean everything we wrote is now also going to have to include an astonished-looking open-mouth reaction pic to improve its likelihood of being clicked in the search results?

(my guess is that whole “YouTube Face” thing happened because the Homo sapiens pattern recognition engine likes faces so much it sees them in everything with more than a couple marginally discernible edges, much like pigeons and what they’ll consider a nest, so a thumbnail with an easily recognizable and excited face will automatically generate 0.001% more engagement, and at global scale that behaves like evolutionary pressure and soon every thumbnail has to be YouTube Face just to avoid being buried)

distortion park
Apr 25, 2011


if you go by what mr beast and co do it seems to help if the face is sort of hosed up somehow. i don't quite know what is off about them but they all look like this

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

OFFICIAL #1 GNOME FAN
everyone says that dumb stupid face increases engagement like its conventional wisdom but it really makes me not want to watch the sociopath making a dumb face talking about bullshit

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

by Fluffdaddy
maybe you’re not the target demo

hosed up but true


like didn’t mr beast or some other big popular-with-teens youtube company say that they truly notice less engagement with non-goofy thumbs? like the trend toward hosed up faces is data driven

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

OFFICIAL #1 GNOME FAN

echinopsis posted:

maybe you’re not the target demo

hosed up but true


like didn’t mr beast or some other big popular-with-teens youtube company say that they truly notice less engagement with non-goofy thumbs? like the trend toward hosed up faces is data driven

yeah its possible i guess. but what i was saying is that while people have said that before, i've never seen any data to actually back it up. i'm skeptical it works because it's such an unnatural expression

mediaphage
Mar 22, 2007

Excuse me, pardon me, sheer perfection coming through
making our search more human. by making it less human

Cybernetic Vermin posted:

i mean, the only thing that as a corporation makes sense to save is ads since that's their entire business. the new here is that google had a solid 20 years of basically understanding that they couldn't gently caress too much with what search does

like, any average product manager would have fallen into the trap of going "how do we drive engagement with the page", making you stay in search and click on things and whatnot, so google has been nicely conservative not messing with it. but now here's bing chat to spook them into doing something extremely dumb (at least my suspicion is that this started with bing chat and spiraled into the "what do kids like these days" engagement thing).

it didn’t start with bingo chat but that’s part of it. googles been worried about kids searching only on tiktok for a while

Jabor
Jul 16, 2010

#1 Loser at SpaceChem

Beeftweeter posted:

yeah its possible i guess. but what i was saying is that while people have said that before, i've never seen any data to actually back it up. i'm skeptical it works because it's such an unnatural expression

it started with children's entertainers and spread everywhere else as those children grew up and became the primary target demo

(well, not children's entertainers per se, but entertainers who were mostly watched by children, many of whom shouldn't be allowed within 100 yards of a school)

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

OFFICIAL #1 GNOME FAN

Jabor posted:

it started with children's entertainers and spread everywhere else as those children grew up and became the primary target demo

(well, not children's entertainers per se, but entertainers who were mostly watched by children, many of whom shouldn't be allowed within 100 yards of a school)

:shrug:

it's viscerally offputting to me

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

OFFICIAL #1 GNOME FAN
oh drat forgot to turn on my monitor

Jabor
Jul 16, 2010

#1 Loser at SpaceChem
overstimulated children like high-energy things :shrug:

doesn't seem particularly difficult to understand to me

mediaphage
Mar 22, 2007

Excuse me, pardon me, sheer perfection coming through
midjourney bans the use of the term "human flesh"

fart simpson
Jul 2, 2005

DEATH TO AMERICA
:xickos:

Beeftweeter posted:

idk you can use a vibrator with a partner but a fleshlight seems like more of a solo thing

your using it wrong

Moongrave
Jun 19, 2004

Finally Living Rent Free

mediaphage posted:

midjourney bans the use of the term "human flesh"

Use “beef” or “steak”

cowboy beepboop
Feb 24, 2001

mediaphage posted:

i’m not missing the point dude, i think it’s pretty silly to call it an issue of equitability to be frank. there’s a huge obvious reason that a tool designed mostly to put the power for women to pleasure themselves in their own hands is a symbol of empowerment while a fleshlight isn’t

i get your point but he's right it's not equitable

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

by Fluffdaddy

BARONS CYBER SKULL posted:

Use “beef” or “steak”

we still talking about masturbation aids or what

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

mediaphage
Mar 22, 2007

Excuse me, pardon me, sheer perfection coming through

cowboy beepboop posted:

i get your point but he's right it's not equitable

the marketing may not be equitable but the products are, lots of dudes get into that

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply