×

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!

AptiQuant Browser/IQ Study Was Likely a Hoax

CmdrTaco posted more than 2 years ago | from the or-maybe-it-just-fooled-the-dumb-people dept.

News 185

A steady stream of people have submitted notes this morning saying that the story we (and the entire internet, and even NPR's Marketplace) mentioned recently talking about browser platform correlating with IQ looks like a hoax. Of course, if you read the Slashdot discussion, you probably would have known this already, but now everyone knows. The company responsible for the survey, AptiQuant, looks to not be real.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

185 comments

Appearances (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36972402)

They look not to be real?!

Re:Appearances (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972796)

They look not to be real?!

Statistics, like tits, are still fun to play with.

Re:Appearances (4, Funny)

Coolhand2120 (1001761) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973064)

Statistics are like a bikini. What they reveal is great, but what they conceal is essential.

Re:Appearances (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973112)

Statistics are like a bikini: they should be taken off as soon as possible.

I don't really think I had a point there, but nonetheless... BOOBIES!

Re:Appearances (1)

daktari (1983452) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973380)

They look not to be real?!

Statistics, like tits, are still fun to play with.

Fun, irrespective of whether they are real or not?

Re:Appearances (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36973454)

Look best with artificial rounding?

Already did this study a long time ago (3, Interesting)

suso (153703) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972854)

Back in 1997/1998 when I ran a fan website. For a period of time I had shamefully turned away IE users for a time because of a website incompatibility from the site and received angry e-mails. Then, about 6 months later, I turned away Netscape users with the same reasoning. What I found is that the e-mail from IE users tended to be much shorter and use simpler words with more mistakes in grammar. Its one of things that I did, but alas never published. I still have all the e-mails though. My thoughts about it at the time were that people who choose to use IE at the time don't really think about their choices much and just go with what is given to them.

Re:Already did this study a long time ago (1)

zget (2395308) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973104)

At the time Netscape was more widespread and in fact Netscape users were the ones that used whatever was given to them by ISP's. Even if it changed later, IE was the one people who wanted a better browser chose.

Re:Already did this study a long time ago (2)

obergfellja (947995) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973384)

My thoughts about it at the time were that people who choose to use IE at the time don't really think about their choices much and just go with what is given to them.

If you have paid attention to the past 10 years of browsers wars (from when FF 1.0 hit the market on) and the lawsuits in the 90's against the very company which gave Internet Explorer (as we all know is M$FT), you will see this trend to hold up true. People (buyers) tend to not invest in new things when "Experts" pre-package a set of tools together when the buyers just buy and not look deep into maximizing their purchases. The majority of the buyers just don't care. They hope someone else will think for them on set concept. This goes not just for computers, but also for the medical field, food industry, or anything else where it is "too complected" for set people to really give a care. It is a shame, but Society prides on people being an expert in one set thing and not care about the rest of the world outside of expecting others to know everything about it all. (ie: expecting a sales clerk @ your local Walmart or equivalent doesn't know enough to decide for you on the purchases you make @ set store, they are overworked and under paid to care).

Those who take the time to investigate in such products (ie: Netscape, FF, Chrome, Safari, etc), they are more likely to display a well informed and well organized letter of complaint towards the lack of development towards their browser over others. When I develop websites and web tools for the company I work for, I do all the functionality testing in my browser of choice (non IE version whatever) and than worry about ascetics in IE due to the fact that the majority of my users use IE. It is the IT departments request that everyone uses IE, especially for working with the tools IT gives everyone. If you are a business catering to the audience at large (populous), it makes sense to worry about all browsers or posting on your site that you design for set browser(s), but if you are internal coder, you or your department can set the standard at what will be accessed and used (like my department in my company).

If anyone has points, Mod up this parent comment by suso.

Duh? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36972408)

Duh. Everyone knows that using FOSS is a sign of being a poor fag with a low IQ.

I knew immediately (5, Funny)

airconswitch (2038108) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972424)

After all, I use Opera.

Re:I knew immediately (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36972954)

If it is on the internet, it must be true.

Let's face it, we all hoped it explained what we've known all along.

Hilarious (1)

cshark (673578) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972442)

It's still very funny. This whole business of calling it a "study" though is bad to begin with. A study requires some work. What this was at best was metrics, or "analysis."

In other news... (2)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973088)

Modern journalists really do have a sub-100 IQ, because their widespread publishing without question of this story proved it.

Hoax? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36972476)

Story with the most sense packed into it this decade.

So... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36972502)

I swear, Homer Simpson is right, you can find a study to prove anything. He conducted a study to prove that.

So what. (1, Insightful)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972510)

They results still look true to me, even if it was a hoax. Think about it. Many of you know IE users.

Re:So what. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36972568)

Yep and they are the ones with high paying jobs and hot wives whilst people like you are lardos whose closest association with a girl was with a fleshlight or pulling some girls bra strap in high school.

Re:So what. (2)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972632)

Well... some of that may be true, but as anyone that has worked out there knows high paying job != intelligence. In most places it's actually a reverse correlation.

Re:So what. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36973340)

The point is that they are enjoying a great life whether or not they have a low IQ while people like kurt555gs is flailing around in the basement about how superior his IQ is when he's unemployed and a fat greaseball.

Re:So what. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36972624)

I can't really speak to that, but based on your fascinating logic I now know that N900 users who like "kitty pictures" are fucking retarded.

Re:So what. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36972630)

Yeah, and many of us also know that hipsters who always use the latest software just because it's new and must be cool aren't necessarily any better.

(this doesn't imply that any of the newer browsers are bad in my opinion)

Re:So what. (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972750)

The study said that the average IQ for IE users was 80. If they'd said 95, then it might have been plausible, but 80 means functionally illiterate and basically unable to function in society. Same at the other end. Opera users with an average of 120? Opera's market share is pretty small, but it's still larger than the bit of the bell curve with an average of 120.

Re:So what. (0)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973124)

I take it you haven't actually met MS' core demographic group. People that are too stupid to be able to handle computers and too stupid to be able to switch to OSX.

Re:So what. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36973554)

Or, even better, linux.

Re:So what. (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973126)

but 80 means functionally illiterate and basically unable to function in society.

You just described most of my coworkers. We use IE at work....

Re:So what. (1)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973164)

Yeah, I caught the NPR bit, and knew something was amiss when they quoted "Firefox" as the browser with the highest-IQ users instead of Opera.

Yay for reporting what people want to hear.

Re:So what. (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973210)

Opera's market share is pretty small, but it's still larger than the bit of the bell curve with an average of 120.

{Citation needed}

CC.

Re:So what. (1)

RMingin (985478) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973298)

I think you misuse or misunderstand averages. You don't need the majority of people to be at the stated level to make an average, a few outliers can drag the average way up for you.

For 120 average, you can have 5 120s, yes, or you can have 4 100s and a 200. Practicality and the Bell curve lean more towards the former, but the latter is possible (though unlikely).

Re:So what. (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972786)

Surely only IE users were fooled by this story, they're always getting tricked into downloading malware after all. And maybe old Opera users, they can't think outside the frame.

Re:So what. (1)

cmv1087 (2426970) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972806)

Well, the big problem with most IE users is that IE, to them, simply is the Internet. The computer is simply this mysterious black box that they play Mahjong and read emails on. If they're really savvy, they use Microsoft Office and know how to print documents. So whenever you're asked to troubleshoot a problem for them, it's a bit like fixing a child's favorite toy. All they know is that you, the nearest geek type, is the only one they know of that regards the computer as something other than the Magic Black Box and can magically fix it. They don't care that most problems are easily fixed, the equivalent of just popping the arm back on a Barbie. They just want it to work. As long as it works, they never have the drive to learn anything more about their computers. I've explained to people what I've done to their computers to fix it all the time and all I get is a blank face and "Ok." The net effect is that they look incredibly dumb most of the time to those of us who do take the time to learn something more than how to turn the computer on and open Internet Explorer, even if they're incredibly smart otherwise.

Re:So what. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36973038)

Oooh, can I be you?

Seriously, you sound pretty smug. Knowing a whole lot about a pretty friggin' narrow piece of hardware/software is hardly a good reason to feel so superior to people who know less about it.

Would you put up with that attitude from your physician? How would you feel if you read an email between your doctor and their colleagues about how you're obviously inferior because you don't really understand how your own body works?

A little humility and perspective goes a long way.

Re:So what. (1)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973152)

Or, if you read an email between your doctor and his colleagues saying, "Well, the patient uses IE as his browser, so......"

Re:So what. (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973294)

Would you put up with that attitude from your physician? How would you feel if you read an email between your doctor and their colleagues about how you're obviously inferior because you don't really understand how your own body works?

But we do. We understand that 23 Twinkies a day is bad.
We do not drink drain cleaner because it came with some neat stickers that we really wanted.
We understand about basic nutrition and exercise.

They can not distinguish between the internet and a program.
They can not read before clicking "Ok".
They do not want to know or try anything.

They lock up the "Tools" of their profession so that we can not try to fix ourselves.

We should take the internet from the stupid for the same reasons.

Re:So what. (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973348)

They results still look true to me, even if it was a hoax. Think about it. Many of you know IE users.

This is how you do a hoax... you provide results that "everybody already knows", such that it will confirm what people want to believe.

Though in this case it might well be true.

Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36972524)

I'm using IE like I always have and I don't understand.

The real story... (2)

Coisiche (2000870) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972548)

AptiQuant CEO: "Shit we've offended all the IE users and there's uncountable legions of those bottom feeders. You, minion! Spin something!".

Re:The real story... (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973156)

He must be an internet explorer user then. An opera user would have merely put up a website where those offended could complain, but then make the site incompatible with IE, and suggest they download opera or firefox. THEN when they do, they'll become smart enough to realize the study was right, and won't complain.

Ad Clicks! (2)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972572)

No one has yet mentioned the "post the hoax and earn revenue then post the retraction and earn more revenue" angle.

Re:Ad Clicks! (1)

alex67500 (1609333) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973102)

Sounds like a Ryanair strategy: leak a false (or illegal) idea to the press and never deny it. The whole "you'll have to pay 1 pound to go to the toilet in our planes" is not allowed by aviation laws around the world. But who cares, it was free advertising for Paddy O'Leary's airline...

Intelligence decrease (2)

Dan East (318230) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972578)

Well that sucks. I swear my intelligence increased the instant I switched to IE with Chrome Frame and Camino. Damn placebo effect.

Re:Intelligence decrease (1)

daktari (1983452) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973512)

Browser placebo. Hmmm, yes--love it. Wish I could think of something clever to write, but I've configured Opera's "Browser Identification" to "Mask as Internet Explorer".

It speaks volumes that we all believed it (3, Insightful)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972602)

The "results" seemed to fit all our pre-established notions of IE users in general - they don't know any better, because they are stupider than the rest of us. Now I would like to see someone do a legit study using this methodology and see what the actual results are. My confirmation bias says they'll actually be pretty close to the fake results.

Re:It speaks volumes that we all believed it (0)

magamiako1 (1026318) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972742)

I use IE. I'm one of the smartest IT people in my circles, and when I speak, people listen. I'm fairly humble about what I'm capable of for the most part and almost never flaunt this. You will almost never hear me say one OS is better than the other, the most you will hear me say is "I like the way they do this particular feature more than it's done in other operating systems."

I'm posting this from IE9 right now, on a Windows laptop.

*USERS* in general are stupid. You could put Firefox or Chrome in front of them all the same and that doesn't make them more or less intelligent than if they used IE.

More importantly, the zealots out there are even more dumb. I can take dumb users who don't know what they're doing. It's not their job to know how computers work. I've learned to deal with them. It's the people who act like they know better, and in some cases, should know better, that I have a problem with.

Re:It speaks volumes that we all believed it (1, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972846)

Your post reads exactly like what dumb people think about their own intelligence. Seriously.

"*USERS* in general are stupid. "
WTF? Oh, I see mister " I'm one of the smartest IT people in my circles" doesn't know what the word stupid means. Well done, moron.

Re:It speaks volumes that we all believed it (1)

magamiako1 (1026318) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973376)

You act as if a simple, one-line statement made on a comment forum is the best representation of my personal character. It was obviously more of a generalization. I make no claims as to how much or how little knowledge I have or don't have in the grand scheme of things. Just that, for all intents and purposes, amongst the circles that I have, it's generally pretty solid, or at the very least a bit more developed in certain areas.

I take it all in stride.

Re:It speaks volumes that we all believed it (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972944)

*USERS* in general are stupid.

But not stupid enough to bring the average down to 80. I could see someone with 80 using a browser, but not someone with 50 IQ.

Re:It speaks volumes that we all believed it (1)

magamiako1 (1026318) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973426)

Was the average IQ on the report really at 80? That's quite a bit low for any sort of real "study", lol. There are people with high IQs that don't know jack shit about computers and may be using IE for the simple fact of internal business use, and nothing more.

Re:It speaks volumes that we all believed it (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36973128)

I use IE. I'm one of the smartest IT people in my circles

There's no-one else in that basement, is there?

Re:It speaks volumes that we all believed it (1)

kuiperbelt (2427618) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972886)

From the BBC article on this [bbc.co.uk]:

The BBC sought alternative views for the original story, including Professor David Spiegelhalter of Cambridge University's Statistical Laboratory, who said: "I believe these figures are implausibly low - and an insult to IE users."

And I agree. No way will measuring the IQs of a large number of people using a very widespread, mainstream web browser produce an average anywhere near 80. My prediction: average user IQs of all browsers with more than a few per cent market share will be within a few points of each other. No way will you get figures like 80 and 120.

Confusing story and source (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36973058)

Or the "results" are true, but this particular source, for that result is bogus. Which is what has actually happened here.

It reminds me of the Bush trick, where they fed a reporter a 'typed' letter that could be debunked, then they debunked it, thus discrediting the whole line of "Bush got out of Vietnam war duties because of his dad". Yet Bush did get out of Vietnam war duties thanks to Pappa.

So the source is bogus the report is bogus and yet IE users are dumber.

Re:It speaks volumes that we all believed it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36973116)

Yep, idiots fall for fake data when it confirms their prejudices.

Not sure what they will prove. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972604)

It seems like a lot of work to be a fake. To give peoples browser preferences and their average intelligence doesn't really prove anything useful. As the only thing I could think of would be to poke fun at Microsoft and say Yes you have the higher market share but you got the market share of idiots. It is not like if you switch browsers you will become smarter.

Re:Not sure what they will prove. (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973214)

You could potentially design your website to different tiers of intelligence then. Internet explorer detected? Load up the "whack a mole" flash ads and celebrity gossip references. Opera or firefox detected? Hide the the "LIKE THIS ON FACEBOOK!!!" buttons.

Re:design your website to different tiers (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973564)

I am actually planning on doing this, though at the user's choice rather than automatic. We've seen the "I didn't read the article" / Teal Deer effect for so long, that no one page fits anymore, if it ever really did.

Instead, depending on the type of method I decide upon, there would be "easy" "medium" and "advanced" levels of the same pages, so the folks who want the sound bites can get those, and the gang who wants to discuss the limitations of null bits in C can get the other level of detail.

My basic inspiration is the Ski Slope system.

Bigger story (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36972608)

The bigger story is that most mainstream news sites don't do any fact checking!

Does anyone really give a shit? (0)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972610)

dumbas troll article based on game show science might be fake, in other news a sea erchant died the president will be speaking at its funeral

Re:Does anyone really give a shit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36972830)

You must be using IE.

Re:Does anyone really give a shit? (2)

Aryden (1872756) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973302)

urchin... not erchant

IE spellchecker not working right?

Re:Does anyone really give a shit? (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973416)

Thanks I will go correct that right now

no I wont cause A) I fucking cant so whats your point and B) I really dont care

no duh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36972642)

Anyone could tell this was just pretentious assholes wanting to make themselves feel better on the internet.

article was a sim for trekking the Himalayas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36972646)

The realistic part was losing thousands of brain cells by the second.

You know what? (2)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972672)

Well played, whoever did this. Sure, a lot of /.ers are no doubt going to play the "I suspected it was fraudulent from the second I heard of it!" card, but they essentially trolled the entire internet and caught out enough big news agencies (from slashdot to the BBC) to make their efforts worthwhile.
I just wonder why, though? Was it as simple as trolling the internet, or was there some other purpose to it? Can anyone think of a legitimate reason for this, other than a cheap laugh?

Re:You know what? (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973022)

Whoever it was, they put a lot of work into it. If you visit there webpage [aptiquant.com], you can see "articles", contact info (all generic email addresses. Telling, but not proof in any way) and bios for the personal working there (all faked, apparently). It would be difficult on first blush to tell that it was a fake. Even the name is well chosen (Aptitude Quantification). Maybe it was some kind of college psychology project? A masters thesis, even. Enough work went into it that I suspect there was something beyond "for teh lulz!" here.

Re:You know what? (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973182)

Exactly, a lot of work for what people are dismissing as a cheap laugh. Maybe they were just being thorough, but I suspect that they put the effort in for a reason.

Re:You know what? (1)

captain_sweatpants (1997280) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973024)

A clever Opera marketing ploy would seem the obvious choice for a cynic. The previously mentioned ad click revenue for the authors is probably a more likely explanation.

Re:You know what? (2)

v4gr4nt (788897) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973100)

"I just wonder why, though?"
.
Maybe all the inbound links from news websites would increase the page rank for the [2 week old] aptiquant.com page, then the link to the [5 week old] atcheap.com site at the bottom of the page would transfer some of that PR over.

Re:You know what? (1)

neokushan (932374) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973206)

I suspect you might be on to something there, that certainly does seem to be a very out of place link (to the point where it took me a while to find it, knowing that it was there).

Re:You know what? (2)

v4gr4nt (788897) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973252)

Also both domains are registered with dynadot and are hosted on adjacent IP addresses

Re:You know what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36973296)

I just wonder why, though? Was it as simple as trolling the internet, or was there some other purpose to it? Can anyone think of a legitimate reason for this, other than a cheap laugh?

At the beginning of the SCO nonsense when Baystar(?) began funding their jihad and we realised who was ultimately pulling the strings, a firiend and I came up with a drunken plan. We decided that the fight between corporate psychopath "Microsoft" and the linux community was unfair and amused ourselves by devising a suitably underhand way to fight back.

The idea was to produce a false CDROM containing test data showing that the gamma of Microsoft Windows caused a high incidence of brain tumours in a test group of monkeys. Obviously XWindows and OSX results would have been presented as harmless (default display gamma has changed since then). We considered sending the CDROM anonymously to animal rights groups , media outlets or just leaving it on a train. Our plan never got further than a drunken joke, amusingly the individuals behind the false IE research were actually motivated to follow through.

Corporate PR and for-pay research organisations openly engage in such activity (eg: Microsofts very own "get the facts" campaign, Ballmers "linux is a cancer"). My personal opinion is that parties spreading malicious lies deserve and should expect to have the tables turned. As my mom used to say, "treat others as you would have them treat you"!

I am shattered.... (1)

_john_i_ (598097) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972676)

next you will be telling me PowerPoint doesn't make you dumb after all either ;)

Oh,.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36972678)

While the company may not exist, I suspect that the majority would buy into just about all that it said. Far too much practical experience of seeing that Window users are stupid losers.

Ssssh! (4, Insightful)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972704)

Don't spoil it now! I'm fully expecting a significant drop in IE6 users in the next round of the various stats put out each month because of this. Anything that gets users off that nightmare and onto something newer, even just a more recent version of IE, is a good thing in my book!

Not real?!! (3, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972718)

Say it ain't so Ms. Zuckerburg. They have a web page [aptiquant.com] with a Facebook link. They've got to be real [slashdot.org]. Right?

Using different browsers (1)

grimmjeeper (2301232) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972794)

I wondered about that study when I saw it the first time. But then it started to make sense. My former workplace still uses XP/IE6. I knew I felt dumber every time I walked into that building. My new job lets me run Firefox and I certainly feel a lot smarter here than I did at my old job.

suckers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36972816)

Media outlets everywhere duped by some joker. Awesome. Who cares what browser someone uses? Nobody ran that story though huh.

Funny I thought it was misleading. (1)

BetaDays (2355424) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972928)

Funny I thought it was misleading. I fell for the hype. I haven't done that since the Blair's Witch Project http://www.blairwitch.com/ [blairwitch.com] and other info here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0185937/ [imdb.com] Either way I just looked it up and the domain name was created on 2011/07/14 UTC. So if they have been around wouldn't they have been on the web a lot sooner, since they were to have been an intuition about the web?

So, it's a study on conventional media? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36972932)

And they failed.

A follow-up study showed... (5, Funny)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972936)

...Internet Explorer users, on average, fell for the hoax the most, with IE6 users most likely to believe it was real and IE8 users being somewhat less gullible. Firefox, Chrome and Safari users fared somewhat better as they tended to not believe it as much as the IE users. IE with Chrome Frame and Camino users almost never believed the hoax, while Opera users immediately new it not to be true.

Wiki-Journalism has its limits (1)

retroworks (652802) | more than 2 years ago | (#36972940)

Horizontally, information is getting better and better. We can find information and news in many countries and languages within a few keystrokes. Vertically, the inflationary impact of "free news" is decimating the editors. /. is free, but the model of submitting stories which are weakly edited and commenting on them is going to be correction-based after publication.

because we (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973000)

as individuals feel the need to find identity in all that we do, our browsers in the digital age have become that next natural extension to our endless search for the perfect definition.

people are smart,
people are stupid,
browsers are software.

suckers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36973240)

Also Lot of older/business folks have decent enough intelligence not to waste their time getting suckered into fixing everyone's computer or switch browsers every week while some ie6 jock steals away with their secret love interest.

Dang. And here I was feeling all superior (1)

joeyblades (785896) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973290)

I use IE, FireFox, Chrome, Safari, and Opera... which, by my calculations would have put me at the top of the IQ heap (they are additive, right?). Now I guess I'll have to look for some other metric to prove how intellectually superior I am.

IE users reaction to study proves they're stupid.. (1)

Karellen (104380) | more than 2 years ago | (#36973388)

...even if the study itself didn't, or was faked.

According to the BBC article [bbc.co.uk], "IE supporters, who have threatened AptiQuant with legal action."

Right. Threatening the authors of a study with legal action, rather than pointing out flaws in the study, or doing a better study, or doing research into the possible reasons why the link might have existed, really makes it clear that those IE supporters are complete morons, who have no clue what research actually is, or how it works.

People showing off their stupidity proves that they're stupid.

Re:IE users reaction to study proves they're stupi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36973550)

"IE supporters, who have threatened AptiQuant with legal action."

That was a story from the hoaxers themselves.

Marketplace is not produced by NPR (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36973496)

It's produced by APM, American Public Media, aka, Minnesota Public Radio.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...