Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google PAC-MAN Cost 4.8M Person-Hours

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the stolen-moments dept.

Google 332

The folks at Rescue-Time, who make software that helps you (and companies) figure out how you spend your online time, did a modest calculation based on their user base and concluded that Google's playable PAC-MAN doodle cost the world over 4.8 million person-hours of productivity last Friday. "Google PAC-MAN consumed 4,819,352 hours of time (beyond the 33.6M daily man hours of attention that Google Search gets in a given day). $120,483,800 is the dollar tally, if the average Google user has a cost of $25/hr. (note that cost is 1.3 – 2.0 X pay rate). For that same cost, you could hire all 19,835 Google employees, from Larry and Sergey down to their janitors, and get six weeks of their time." Also, Google made the doodle permanent.

cancel ×

332 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yum, numbers are tasty (5, Funny)

masterwit (1800118) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330082)

Well it seems I skewed the statistic quite a bit..
Now the real question is, how many more hours will it consume talking about how many hours it consumed?
Begs the question doesn't it?

Re:Yum, numbers are tasty (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32330170)

start the game on the penultimate level [neilpearce.com] , level 255 - so yo can experience your own kill screen

Re:Yum, numbers are tasty (4, Insightful)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330278)

These numbers are tasty, but they also are misleading and jump to conclusions. They're assuming everyone who tried GoogleMan was at work? I wasn't ... I guess I'm the only person who uses Google for non-work purposes? They really aught to try to break into the "home users who use search engine" market, who knows, they may be able to significantly expand their user base.

They're assuming 36 extra seconds per visit, too. If you "count to 11" like they suggest, counting to 47 will demonstrate that they're guestimating far too much time was spent on GoogleMan.

Re:Yum, numbers are tasty (2, Insightful)

PRMan (959735) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330384)

I was on vacation also, and all 4 family members tried it.

How many kids played this?

Re:Yum, numbers are tasty (4, Funny)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330692)

These numbers are tasty, but they also are misleading and jump to conclusions. They're assuming everyone who tried GoogleMan was at work?

That's irrelevant if you're a salaried worker. Instead of playing Google Pac-Man at home, you could have spent that extra time at work getting work done for your employer. Wasting your time playing a game like that is like stealing from your employer!

Competition (4, Interesting)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330084)

Still pales in comparison to the average Slashdot Idle story...

Re:Competition (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330230)

The title

Google PAC-MAN Cost 4.8M Person-Hours

is also misleading. At first I shook my head in disbelief that it took 4.8 million of Google's man-hours to code the Pac-Man.

A better title would have been 4.8M hours of productivity lost to Google PAC-MAN

/pedantry

Re:Competition (3, Insightful)

XanC (644172) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330248)

Not only that, "person-hours" is one of the stupidest phrases I've run across in a while.

Look, there's nothing wrong with "man". It referred to "human" long before it referred to "male human". Just live with it: the word is man-hours!

Re:Competition (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330336)

While I don't disagree with the sentiment...

What the hell was wrong with "x hours of productivity" which came long before "man-hour"? Why do we even need a term that refers to gender at all?

Now get off my lawn. :)

Re:Competition (2, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330380)

What the hell was wrong with "x hours of productivity" which came long before "man-hour"?

It fails simple dimensional analysis. N hours of operation of a facility employing M persons obviously is NM person-hours of work, not NM hours of work.

Re:Competition (3, Insightful)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330626)

Maybe it should fail simple dimensional analysis because, hey, smashing people and hours together doesn't always generate productivity, unlike how force and distance always generate work.

It's more subtle, needs certain assumptions, and it's not at all clear what the scaling law should be. Kind of like how in some cases but not all, the effective distance travelled is proportional to the square root of time spent travelling.

Re:Competition (1)

nofx_3 (40519) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330456)

The poster above you was making that point that "man" in man-hour DOESN'T refer to gender. Man in that context refers to human, as in our species.

Re:Competition (5, Funny)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330372)

I still think it's worth going an extra mile to please our politically correct and feminist colleagues. After all it's not like it takes much effort and it does help create a happier and more harmonious workplace. That's why I prefer using the term bitch-hours. I hope it catches on.

Re:Competition (4, Interesting)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330620)

Look, there's nothing wrong with "man". It referred to "human" long before it referred to "male human". Just live with it: the word is man-hours!

Unfortunately, there's a fair bit of evidence that small differences in wording can have a lot of impact. For example, if little children are asked to draw a picture of a "firefighter" they will be more likely to draw a female than if they are asked to draw a picture of a "fireman." So even if "man" can be used to mean person, subtle human irrationality still has an impact.

Re:Competition (5, Insightful)

XanC (644172) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330634)

I would say the irrational thing is to draw a female fireman, whatever the reason.

Re:Competition (1)

Xtravar (725372) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330244)

Yeah, I think most people would have been faffing off at work regardless of Pac-Man. Plenty of good Flash games!

BREAKING NEWS!!!! MICROSOFT FIGHT BACK... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32330290)

BREAKING: Microsoft to make Daikatana playable on Bing.com webpage for 10th anniversary

Re:BREAKING NEWS!!!! MICROSOFT FIGHT BACK... (1)

oatworm (969674) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330518)

Well, at least it'll finally be playable somewhere.

Re:BREAKING NEWS!!!! MICROSOFT FIGHT BACK... (2, Funny)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330708)

I thought, knowing Microsoft, that they would instead make a unique game featuring Clippy or Bob or that little dog. And the object of the game would be to defeat the evil free-software hordes.

Hah! (2, Funny)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330090)

... don't be evil, indeed...

Simon.

What about the 10% unemployment? (1)

chrisj_0 (825246) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330094)

I have a job and I played about 30sec before I got bored and surfed other sites aimlessly

Re:What about the 10% unemployment? (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330216)

So you're saying pacman turns you on.

And it wasn't Mrs. Pacman.

It was Mr. Pacman.

Re:What about the 10% unemployment? (1)

gangien (151940) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330370)

player 2 was ms. pacman.

Slashdot manages that every day (5, Funny)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330096)

You should be ashamed of yourselves for reading my post when you should be off curing cancer or saving orphans or something useful!

Re:Slashdot manages that every day (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330226)

    Well, the fix for both is to kill them all. That's already been handled by the fine corporations around the world. It'll just take a little while for it to finish the job.

    Come on, if one company can single handedly set up to kill all life in the Gulf of Mexico with a single event, what'll happen when more of them have "accidents"?

Re:Slashdot manages that every day (5, Interesting)

antirelic (1030688) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330442)

Unfortunately, the hyper inflated concept of the unflinching, tireless, resolute worker is best left as a relic of the industrial revolution. Never in the course of human history, outside of the industrial revolution, has a human being been expected to produce "something" for 8 straight hours a day, 5 days a week (and for some more than that). Such simple minded focus strips the mind of creativity; creativity which has dramatically advanced and improved the human condition.

I am a hard core capitalist and stalwart industrialist, but I am also a pragmatist. Non stop, widget production, should be left to the factory worker who needs to follow a standard script. Expecting an IT professional, a researcher, or an engineer to simply keep producing something measurable with each minute of the day shows a complete lack of understanding of your resources. I forget what the name of the study was, but it took three sports teams and show the level of performance improvements over a team that 1) vacationed for a week, thinking about the upcoming game, 2) team that unceasingly trained for the upcoming game, 3) team that sporadically trained for the upcoming game. turns out the vacationing team that spent some time visualizing the upcoming game, produced the greatest results, with the team that trained too hard had the smallest improvements.

Long story short, expecting factory worker performance from skilled workers, is as foolish as expecting a successful heart transplant surgery from a line backer.

Re:Slashdot manages that every day (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32330690)

Are you saying orphans aren't useful?

Totally not evil (1)

Daetrin (576516) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330102)

Sucking up $120 million of employee time is _totally_ not doing evil! (Well i don't think so as an employee anyways, the employers may disagree.)

Re:Totally not evil (1)

Dthief (1700318) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330194)

Tony Wright Says:

May 24, 2010 at 10:12 am

Just to be pre-emptive. No, we don’t REALLY think it’s tragic. Leisure surfing is critical to productivity (strangely enough). There are quite a few studies out there to back this up. We just thought it was interesting number-play!

It was probably time you would otherwise be using surfing /., so in the end net neutral

Pac Man (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32330104)

http://www.google.com/pacman/

In other words (4, Interesting)

aztektum (170569) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330106)

People spent 4.8 million hours enjoying life rather than slaving away for the man :P

Re:In other words (0, Troll)

ink (4325) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330198)

The free market frowns upon enjoying life.

Re:In other words (-1, Troll)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330240)

No it doesn't. The free market lets you enjoy life as much as you want it. Government regulated economies don't let you enjoy life.

What makes you happy? Chances are, unless it involves harming others, the free market will let you do it. Government regulated economies, on the other hand, don't let you do it unless it is a certain set of approved activities.

Re:In other words (5, Insightful)

ink (4325) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330284)

The free market can't exist without government regulations.

You earned your +1 Indignant mod though. Congrats! :-)

Re:In other words (0, Troll)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330314)

Other than government regulations of force and fraud (which, count under the "harming others" I mentioned in my post) the free market can, and will exist.

Re:In other words (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330632)

Now if we could only find two libertarians who agree on a coherent system or theory of what constitutes fraud...

Re:In other words (1)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330354)

No it doesn't. The free market lets you enjoy life as much as you want it. Government regulated economies don't let you enjoy life.

Then why is the standard of living higher in certain states which distrust the market than in states which seek as free a market as possible?

Re:In other words (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330426)

Such as?

A lot of it is due to the government pushing for more control in other areas, or where irrationality has taken hold or because the government has taken upon themselves to print worthless money.

With hard currency, low regulation and a rational population you have a recipe for economic sustainability and wealth.

Re:In other words (1)

retchdog (1319261) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330636)

and a rational population

well, fuck. any other ideas?

Re:In other words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32330468)

The set of regulations is finite. The set of activities is infinite. Either regulations are prescriptive (defining everything you are allowed to do) or they are proscriptive (defining everything you are not allowed to do). The 10th amendment to the US Constitution makes clear that US regulations, at least, are proscriptive, and since the set of proscribed activities is necessarily finite, the set of permitted activities remains infinite, even though there are some activities which are not permitted. (OK, the actual set of possible activities is technically finite, but we're talking on the order of like 2^1000000 here, so forget about this nonsense of not being able to do something if there is any regulation!

Re:In other words (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330560)

The problem is things are banned that don't affect others. Things that don't affect others other than yourself should never be legislated or even put to a vote. If you don't like smoking pot, then don't. It doesn't matter if your neighbor does or not. Same with violent video games, porn, etc.

The problem is these laws that do not involve fraud and force are violating the sovereignty of the individual: to do whatever they want so long as it doesn't harm others. By definition, this is freedom without resorting to utopian, unsustainable ideas about having no laws whatsoever.

Re:In other words (1)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330536)

Wait, isn't a fundamental of the free market that each individual does what is best for themselves, which in turn benefits society?

Mod parent -1 Jaded.

Re:In other words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32330628)

I know it's fashionable to knock the markets but what other system has lead to the most happiness. It's hard to argue against the free market. Life was so happy under soviet communism? Feudalism? You have it so good and you can't even see it.

Re:In other words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32330360)

That's one way to look at it. Similarly, one evil-bent google employee can put a useless instruction that wastes a few milliseconds... to KILL someone---or rather, uses up an entire lifetime of aggregated milliseconds.

I'd imagine Microsoft and Apple already do this in their OS. That's why while computers are getting faster, their software isn't... it's mostly those disgruntled employees taking more and more human lives with their bloatware.

There's a whole lot of dead kittens and puppies in there too...

Re:In other words (1)

GlowinOrb (835527) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330392)

I like slaving for the man. Where else can I get paid to play Pac-Man?

Excellent... (1)

Jhyrryl (208418) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330110)

...and I really mean that. How many of those persons had never played that great game before? I don't consider educating people about modern culture "lost" productivity.

Re:Excellent... (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330254)

Honestly, I never thought the original Pac-Man was all that great... on the other hand, Ms. Pac-Man Maze Madness was quite enjoyable.

Woulda wasted the time anyway -nt- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32330114)

Woulda wasted the time anyway -nt-

Ah yes, Rescue Time... (4, Insightful)

yttrstein (891553) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330124)

...monetizing bad math and improperly understood statistics since 2006.

Re:Ah yes, Rescue Time... (1)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330570)

A little bit of down time boosts productivity!

hour of pac-man != hour of lost productivity (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32330128)

This is like all those bogus RIAA/MPAA/etc.-funded studies that assume a pirated copy is a lost sale. Much of the time spent on Google's PAC-MAN would otherwise have been spent on other internet time-wasting, not on productivity.

Re:hour of pac-man != hour of lost productivity (4, Funny)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330422)

This is like all those bogus RIAA/MPAA/etc.-funded studies that assume a pirated copy is a lost sale. Much of the time spent on Google's PAC-MAN would otherwise have been spent on other internet time-wasting, not on productivity.

Great. Now some *AA is busy working on a study to show how much Google PAC-MAN cost them in sales. Way to go (don't expect to get paid for the idea though).

Re:hour of pac-man != hour of lost productivity (-1, Offtopic)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330444)

I'd take it a step further and say the whole thing is just bollocks. Person-hours my eye! I doubt even their lowliest code monkey would take 4.8 million hours to code a Pacman clone in Brainfuck, much less a language that's there to do just this sort of thing. Not that I follow these things but isn't this what canvas is for? No disrespect to Google but I played DHTML Lemmings years ago and Pacman seems easy in comparison.

Probably true. (4, Insightful)

exasperation (1378979) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330130)

But who cares? Sometimes you just have to stop being so serious and laugh a little.

If your company is concerned with this... (4, Insightful)

dmomo (256005) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330142)

Ban the use of Google at work.

Because, I'm sure Google doesn't give back in terms of productivity.

But really. This is hard to quantify. Half of my dev team was looking under the hood to see how it worked. Directly lost productivity? Maybe, but I think over-all it netted positive for the team. I would argue that this sort of thing is good for productivity.

Re:If your company is concerned with this... (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330210)

Because, I'm sure Google doesn't give back in terms of productivity.

I'm sure it does. Just think about everything that would need to be looked up without Google. Want to know the currency conversion between US and Canadian dollars for an estimate? Need to know Pound to Kilogram conversions? Etc.

Google lets you make much more accurate decisions without wasting time.

Re:If your company is concerned with this... (0, Troll)

twidarkling (1537077) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330504)

WOOSH.

Re:If your company is concerned with this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32330528)

I think everyone needs to just know that 2.2 pounds is 1 kg and 2.54 cm is 1 inch. Once people learn the basic conversions between imperial and metric units they will be able to understand values given to them in either system. Maybe this is just me showing bias from an Engineering background.

Re:If your company is concerned with this... (3, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330600)

Why would they need to though? The point is, the internet allows people to get information they need instantly. If you are an engineer, you need to convert things on a daily basis so of course those things are committed to memory, just like a historian might know that the First Battle of St. Albans took place on 22 May 1455. Everyone else though, could just Google the date.

All a human -really- needs to know is how to read/speak a popular language and critical thinking skills. The rest, in the 21st century will fall into place.

Re:If your company is concerned with this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32330694)

Your sarcasm detector is broken.

Re:If your company is concerned with this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32330368)

actually, I think today I noticed them banning https: google... one minute it was working fine, then bang, https google just forwards to regular google... bam.

Umm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32330144)

How much would the person-hour cost of all yawning last Friday buy of Google employees' time? This may be slightly clever advertising, but it's a waste of time as anything else. (Of course, they can help tell us how much time they managed to inspire people to waste.)

Who cares? (4, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330150)

It was on a Friday, it's not like anything gets done on Fridays anyway.

Re:Who cares? (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330320)

It was on a Friday, it's not like anything gets done on Fridays anyway.

      You need to hang around my hospital's ER a little more on a Friday night. You will see that quite a lot gets done. I usually find myself wondering why people don't just stay home... there's never a rush during the football game.

Re:Who cares? (1)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330550)

Depends if you're wearing your optional Hawaiian shirt.

And Jeans.

Humans are not engines (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330164)

Humans are not engines. You can't just give us caffeine and sugar and expect us to work all that time. We require mental stimulation or else our work suffers.

What HR departments don't seem to understand is that we are not robots or programs. Put anyone and have them do a repetitive task, they will quickly get mental numbness and their productivity will suffer. Now take the person and give them some mental stimulation now and then and they won't make those errors.

If you want something that will turn out the same quality of work 24/7, get a robot or program. Humans aren't like that. And saying that it "cost" $4.8 million just isn't understanding humanity.

Re:Humans are not engines (1)

bfree (113420) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330258)

And saying that it "cost" $4.8 million just isn't understanding humanity.

It says 4.8 million hours and $120 million. Not that I think there can be any real validity to their guesstimate, but they could well be closer then 25x out.

Re:Humans are not engines (1)

bug1 (96678) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330386)

"... but they could well be closer then 25x out."

And apples could well be closer than 25x better than oranges ?

The criticism isnt on the result of the measurement, its on the premise underlying it.

If the 4.8 million hours where all time that employee and worked themselves to exhaustion (mental or physical), then 4.8 million hours weren't lost, the workers had already given 100%.

Some employers in the IT field at least say to take a 5min break every hour to relax and help keep them fresh, thats not a wasted 5 minutes as it allows people to work more productively in the next hour or whatever.

It could well be that playing pacman booster productivity...

Re:Humans are not engines (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330572)

You could have made this post 2/3rds shorter and gotten the same affect. That's just not productive enough, so we're sorry but we're going to have to let you go.

Wasted? (4, Insightful)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330180)

Time that isn't spent productively is not necessarily wasted.

Re:Wasted? - RTFA (4, Informative)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330364)

If you read the article, the person who wrote it preemptively replies to the assessment with exactly that observation, except even better since it's backed up by data.

cost calculation? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32330196)

OK, so I'm just a really dumb C programmer, but I'm having a hard time parsing "cost is 1.3 – 2.0 X pay rate" and coming up with a value of $25/hr for any value of "pay rate". And I've wasted more time on this than I did futzing with Google's PacMan...

Re:cost calculation? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330496)

c=1.3-2.0*r
c-1.3=-2.0*r
(c-1.3)/-2.0=r
c=25
(25-1.3)/-2.0=r
-11.85=r

They pay $11.85 per hour to work at google.

To be serious though, I suspect they meant "1.3-2.0" to be a range.

Re:cost calculation? (1)

kalidasa (577403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330562)

(1.3*R)C(2.0*R), where C = O(25*h)

60 seconds (1)

imerso (1445543) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330202)

I spent 60 seconds on that, good to know that I contributed so much!

Nonsense figure (3, Interesting)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330204)

There's all sorts of incorrect presumptions by the original article author, like all the time spent playing Google pac-man was necessarily at work. Like nobody is playing it in their own time.

Another one is that people would do work if it wasn't for pac-man. Hell I'd just find a different distraction to avoid work if the pac-man game wasn't around.

who gives a fuck? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32330236)

at least this isn't more shit about faggot linux.

Wait... (4, Informative)

Foozy (552529) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330256)

it was PLAYABLE?? Oh Damn!

What about urination? (5, Insightful)

AthleteMusicianNerd (1633805) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330260)

How much did people urinating cost?

Re:What about urination? (1)

Mr 44 (180750) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330452)

Well, the folks at http://www.workpoop.com/ [workpoop.com] will calculate how much your company pays you to poop

Re:What about urination? (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330588)

How long before toilets are installed at workstations?

All time not doing work is wasted time, don'tchaknow.

--
BMO

Political Correctness (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32330270)

Google PAC-PERSON Cost 4.8M Man-Hours.

What about "Lost"? (1)

Namarrgon (105036) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330276)

How much of our collective lives did that piss away?

10 significant digits. (5, Insightful)

linuxwrangler (582055) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330300)

I suggest that Mr. Tony Wright learn a thing or two about significant digits. What a glorious heap of bull to take input like "if we assume our userbase is representative", "if we take Wolfram Alpha at its word","approximate cost of", "about 11,000" and then assert a figure like $298,803,988. 10 significant digits?!? Right.

Re:10 significant digits. (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330484)

It is the salescrap idea where you get extra crunchy "truthiness" by having your invented number look more precise than a real derived value.
We can't cure it because the perception of 10^8 plus or minus about fifty percent sounds very unsure versus the marketing lies of picking a number in that range and doubling it unless you've had at least a basic level of education in maths, which the majority is not going to get until funding improves.

I don't think so. (3, Insightful)

Flammon (4726) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330302)

If it wasn't Pac Man, they would have been playing around with something else. No extra time was lost.

Fortunately (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330308)

Life isn't all about productivity, or it would be boring as shit.

Re:Fortunately (0)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330574)

Dunno, you should see my shits -- they're pretty exciting!

Updated Synopsis (4, Funny)

meatpan (931043) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330312)

"The desperate marketing team at Rescue-Time, who spread FUD about how you spend your online time, did a flawed calculation based on wild speculation and concluded that Google's playable PAC-MAN doodle is the reason why we haven't cured cancer."

Value (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32330316)

I'm honored they think my time is worth $25/hr! Try convincing my employer of that...

The first thing I said (4, Funny)

rxan (1424721) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330330)

The first thing I said after wasting 15 minutes on Pac-Man was "I wonder if you could calculate how much money this game cost corporations around the world in wasted time?"

whoah $25/h, hold on there charlie. (1)

chibiace (898665) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330388)

I wish i was getting paid US$25 dollars an hour.
Anyway what would these people have been doing to waste their time if they were not playing it.

GNAxA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32330412)

SlAshdot 'BSD is [goat.cx]

what twit wasted game time writing a report on it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32330420)

I hope they also work out how much time was wasted writing-and-discussing their anti-pac-man report.

I'm sure the're just pissed that everyone else played the game while they had to waste their time writeing a report on it - oh, wait maybe they think that the report was something productive to do!

If they'd just played pac-man instead, I am sure we and they would all be happier.

Cheers - Mark

proxy block FTW (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32330430)

too bad I blocked it at the proxy... no hours of productivity lost here. i am sure they just assumed that anyone browsing a google site was using the game.

Re:proxy block FTW (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330494)

Um, oddly enough humans are not robots. Do a repetitive task over and over again, you tend to make mistakes. Now take a small break, you tend to regain your focus. Mistakes cost far more money than "wasted productivity" ever will because mistakes require redundancy, someone to look at and correct jobs that have already been completed.

Stop being a dick and let people access whatever sites they please, if they don't keep up with the work load, have management fire them. But seriously, don't think you know "productivity" because if I'm doing the same task for an hour or more without a break, I'm not going to be productive. After a few minutes doing another task like checking Facebook, playing a game of Pac-man, etc. I'm back to productivity. Without those breaks, mental numbness sets in and productivity fails.

Wish somebody told me earlier (2, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330490)

I kept wondering how the fuck a Google banner could be responsible for lost productivity. I am on Google all the time searching for stuff and saw it once and thought cool and moved on....

Till today when I found out it was fucking playable.

So yeah, there is going to be some lost productivity due to this, but it will take decades for Google to get anywhere near the records set by Minesweeper and Solitaire.

Re:Wish somebody told me earlier (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330700)

but it will take decades for Google to get anywhere near the records set by Minesweeper and Solitaire

Don't forget Hearts. As a kid, I used to work during the summer at the office where my dad used to work. Every single time I launched MS Hearts, I could easily find a few people on the network to play with without ever inviting anyone. Actually, now that I think about it, because it was the pre-YouTube days and all, I'm guessing Hearts was probably a considerable portion of daily network traffic.

That was predictable, wasn't it? (1)

John Pfeiffer (454131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32330610)

I have to imagine everyone saw that coming, since even an idiot in one of my IRC channels said "inb4 corporate firewalls block google for lost productivity!" when he first heard about it. Hehe.

While we're at it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32330646)

One word, Youtube.

Dammit, is that one or two words?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>