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!

Why the Number of O's In LOL Matter On YouTube

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the laugh-a-little-louder dept.

Google 186

karthikmns writes "It turns out that Google uses the number of o's in a lol to weigh how funny a video is. In a blog post Google explains how they came up with an algorithm to gauge a video's comedic potential. So if you want to watch funnier videos, make sure to add some extra o's or help them by visiting their Comedy Slam and voting."

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

so (-1, Flamebait)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995715)

How much does the # of O's in first posts matter?

Re:so (5, Funny)

DemoLiter3 (704469) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995813)

Not much. On Slashdot, only the number of digits in your user ID matters, you 7-digit noob.

Re:so (4, Funny)

stjobe (78285) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995889)

I'll fill in the 5-digit spot; waiting for the 4-digit reply.

Re:so (4, Funny)

MoOsEb0y (2177) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995893)

4 digits as requested.

Re:so (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38995923)

lol umadbro

Re:so (2, Insightful)

leonardluen (211265) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995969)

i believe Mr Anonymous Coward qualifies as the 3 digit...is there a 2 digit in the crowd?

Re:so (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996117)

watch as UID#1 (whichever guy that is) appears and taunts us all

Re:so (4, Informative)

stjobe (78285) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996191)

UID 1 is CmdrTaco.

Re:so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996329)

Which has been demoted :(

Re:so (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996699)

EnsnTaco?

Re:so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996223)

I've been told I'm quite negative. Does that count in this silly game?

Re:so (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996683)

That would be CmdrTaco. He's probably off doing something more productive, like snorting cocaine from a hooker's buttcrack while coding up a new website.

Re:so (5, Funny)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996037)

3 digits. Not once, but twice! Beat that!

Re:so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996373)

I have a very big penis.

Re:so (1)

sinator (7980) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996311)

Present and accounted for.

Re:so (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996341)

You're gonna die soon.

Re:so (2)

leonardluen (211265) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995897)

Darn you, now those creepers with exceedingly lower ID numbers are going to start coming out of the woodwork, calling everyone with a higher ID a noob.

Re:so (2, Funny)

everett (154868) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996825)

noob

Re:so (1)

mooingyak (720677) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996195)

Oh? On second thought, I'd bet you'd notices oodles of other observables who matter.

Re:so (0)

OakDragon (885217) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995937)

I'm sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo glad you asked that question.

Amazing (4, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995725)

From the people that used extra o's in Goooooogle to signal that there are more pages of search results.

I suppose that for certain people, adding o's is the plain text approach to add stars

Little old lady? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38995737)

Why would someone posting Little Old Lady have anything to do with how funny something is?

Of course it matters (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38995745)

If you're over the age of 13 and you use more than one "O", you should kill yourself.

Re:Of course it matters (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996335)

You're a faaaaaaaaaaaag

Re:Of course it matters (5, Informative)

UninformedCoward (1738488) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996479)

If you're over the age of 13 and still use "LOL", you should kill yourself.

Re:Of course it matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996619)

I'm dead!

Re:Of course it matters (2)

tunapez (1161697) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996663)

If you're over 13 and replace your O's with 'u' and throw a 'z' on for plural goodness, you must be L337!
 
And Goog has already blocked your content from their search results.

Re:Of course it matters (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996747)

TrololololoLOL

Re:Of course it matters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996839)

*BANG*
FTFY

Re:Of course it matters (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996857)

SpongeboooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOB! Get back to work!

Recipe (1)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995755)

Take the comedy up for votes focus of FunnyOrDie, mix in the everybody voting on everything of Digg and use the expanding O's in Google and the result is???

Re:Recipe (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38995943)

Take the comedy up for votes focus of FunnyOrDie, mix in the everybody voting on everything of Digg and use the expanding O's in Google and the result is???

Reddit.

Well slashdot obviously isn't funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38995769)

The obvious comment was to respond 'Looooooooooooooooool!', but Slashdot's robotic speech Nazi won't allow it.

Re:Well slashdot obviously isn't funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38995895)

Loooooooooooooooool!

Re:Well slashdot obviously isn't funny (1)

Dan Dankleton (1898312) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996161)

In Soviet Slashdot, site LOLs you.

13'000'000'000'000.00 looollipooops of US debt. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996173)

In Quantum Mechanics, $100'000 is an infinitesimal measurement value that is 99.9999% statistically undetectable respecting to the current relative totality of the current U.S. debt of >$13'000'000'000'000.00

JCPM: looolli-pooops!

LOOOOOOOOOO... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38995829)

...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

This is now the funniest Slashdot comment in history.

Re:LOOOOOOOOOO... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996709)

Filter error: That's an awful long string of letters there.
Filter error: ... It's like YELLING.
Filter error: I hate you.

This is truly a first... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38995833)

This must be the first time I've seen an algorithm pulled directly from the anus of a goat. The idea itself, however, is fool-proof.

Looooooooooooooooooooooooooool.

What *does* LOOL mean? (5, Interesting)

91degrees (207121) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995837)

So, we have loool, lolololol and lollll. The acronyms seem to break. Especially the first one.

Laugh Out Out Out Loud, Laugh Out Loud Out Loud Out Loud Out Loud, and Laugh Out Loud Loud Loud Loud Loud.

I suppose the middle one could be Laugh Out Loud Out Laugh Out Loud Out Laugh, or possibly the recursive Lololol Out Loud (where Lololol is Lolol Out Loud and Lolol is Lol Out Loud),

Re:What *does* LOOL mean? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38995885)

laughing over obscure optical objectivism over Ontario oval, out loud

It almost makes sense for some odd video of Candian egg jokes.
looooooool

Re:What *does* LOOL mean? (2)

yurtinus (1590157) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996491)

Jot those down - I think you may have just created the lyrics to Justin Beiber's next hit single!

Re:What *does* LOOL mean? (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996889)

Don't you remember porn->pr0n->n0rp? It doesn't have to make sense.

LOOOOOOOOL!!!! (1)

in10se (472253) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995841)

So LOOOL (Laugh Out Out Out Loud) is as funnier than LOL (Laugh Out Loud)? While the attempt at an algorithm to discover funny videos is interesting, I hope they are keeping in mind how low the bar is when studying YouTube comments.

Re:LOOOOOOOOL!!!! (4, Insightful)

Anrego (830717) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995953)

I hope they are keeping in mind how low the bar is when studying YouTube comments.

Behind every terrifying comment on a youtube video is a member of the youtube audience. The very same audience this rating system is supposed to speak to.
I’ll accept that youtube comment section has such a bad rap that a lot of people who would make intelligent comments don’t bother, but I think in general youtube reminds us that there are a huge number of very unintelligent people out there and they probably make up the bulk of youtube viewership!

Re:LOOOOOOOOL!!!! (2)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996017)

Or just the bulk of people who would bother commenting on random totally insignificant videos (i.e. most of Youtube).

Stand back... (1)

zrbyte (1666979) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995867)

... Google knows regular expressions! :)

Re:Stand back... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996731)

Indeed. Google should detect these mangled 'lol' instances and replace them with a statement that reads to the effect of "I am a raging idiot, so I tried to put too many O's in my LOL."

Of course O's matter... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38995875)

Brought to you by Marky Mark's older brother (and NKOTB):

Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh, Oh Oh Oh Oh Oh the right stuff.

April fools already? (1)

eggsurplus (631231) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995877)

...

LOOOOOOOzer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38995887)

OMGWTFLOL

What's the point of this story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38995901)

Slashdot: "We like stories".

What about alternative spellings ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995921)

like "lul", "lulz" or "lullaz" ? or "lolzors", for that matter ?

Re:What about alternative spellings ? (4, Funny)

MagicM (85041) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995981)

Anybody who's anybody knows that the ultimate lol is the ROFLCOPTER.

Re:What about alternative spellings ? (1)

HapSlappy_2222 (1089149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996789)

Way to ROFLSTOMP the discussion.

Re:What about alternative spellings ? (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996807)

I'm trying to cut down my comic carbon footprint, so I only use lollerskates.

Re:What about alternative spellings ? (1)

bickerdyke (670000) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996415)

No one wants to factor in the comments of those lamers who think they're l33t.

Bad vs. Baaaaaaad (1)

khr (708262) | more than 2 years ago | (#38995999)

This isn't unlike an episode of Elvira's Movie Macabre from the 80's where between scenes of some bad horror movie she was asking a guest to comment on the ghetto slang used. He explained the difference between "bad" and "baaaaaad" that "bad" means bad and "baaaaaad" means good.

His example was funny. "The movies you show are bad, but your cleavage is baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad!"

I'd like to buy a vowel! (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996007)

_OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO_

Uh, hmm... can I buy an E?

Gmail Too (5, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996023)

Google also measures the numbers of X's and O's in your emails to determine how much you love your mother.

Re:Gmail Too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996171)

Google also measures the numbers of X's and O's in your emails to determine how much you love your mother.

Thank god for Safe Search. The last thing I need to see is you loving your mother.

Re:Gmail Too (2)

JohnnyBGod (1088549) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996639)

That immediately reminded me of this [youtube.com] .

Re:Gmail Too (4, Funny)

Sir Holo (531007) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996693)

Mod this commenter up. A++++++! Will buy from again.

Re:Gmail Too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996725)

What is an appropriate number of XOs to send ones mother anyway?

Length isn't everything... (5, Funny)

defnoz (1128875) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996079)

I think they've got the relationship wrong. The number of 'o's is inversely proportional to the IQ of the target audience.

Re:Length isn't everything... (1)

Johann Lau (1040920) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996137)

ex-fucking-actly.

Re:Length isn't everything... (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996763)

I think they've got the relationship wrong. The number of 'o's is inversely proportional to the IQ of the target audience.

And directly proportional to their proximity to a cat [xkcd.com] .

Wait (2)

eternaldoctorwho (2563923) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996099)

So "lawl" doesn't count? Or "lal"?
Data would be so disillusioned... (Brownie points if you get the reference!)

It would seem there can only be one "O" (1)

ravenscar (1662985) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996131)

in "LOL". If any additional "O"s are added it ceases to be "LOL" and turns into something else.

On a side note, I always thought that true expression of 'super funny' is to leave the last "L" off "LOL". "Laughing out" is like "bleeding out" but with laughing. If that doesn't convey just how out of control your laughter is nothing will.

Re:It would seem there can only be one "O" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996299)

Levels of funny

heh - barely a laughter sound
lol - laughing out loud
rfol - roll on floor laughing

That covers most basis. This post has been bought to you by the online laughing committee. Ensuring laughing is properly portrayed online one laughter at a time.

Re:It would seem there can only be one "O" (1)

yurtinus (1590157) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996539)

I prefer

BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

But I can't use it often on slashdot, it's too much like yelling.

I have only one thing to say to this (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996133)

Next we needed an algorithm to rank these funny videos by comedic potential, e.g. is “Charlie bit my finger” funnier than “David after dentist”? Raw viewcount on its own is insufficient as a ranking metric since it is biased by video age and exposure. We noticed that viewers emphasize their reaction to funny videos in several ways: e.g. capitalization (LOL), elongation (loooooool), repetition (lolololol), exclamation (lolllll!!!!!), and combinations thereof. If a user uses an “loooooool” vs an “loool”, does it mean they were more amused? We designed features to quantify the degree of emphasis on words associated with amusement in viewer comments.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Re:I have only one thing to say to this (5, Insightful)

mortonda (5175) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996207)

LL

Re:I have only one thing to say to this (1)

cis4 (2565359) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996499)

LL

Lint Licker, like in the Orbits gum commercials?

Re:I have only one thing to say to this (1)

HapSlappy_2222 (1089149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996647)

Agreed... what the french, toast? Also, we know all about you and your cootie queen, mortonda.

Re:I have only one thing to say to this (1)

Twintop (579924) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996805)

LL

Laughing Loudly?

Re:I have only one thing to say to this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996837)

Lady lover?

Re:I have only one thing to say to this (1)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996315)

Yeah the level of retardation being shown in this study is awe inspiring.

Re:I have only one thing to say to this (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996419)

A typical Slashdot response "anybody who thinks that comments have any connection whatsoever, however loose, to the thing being commented on, is obviously totally retarded".

Re:I have only one thing to say to this (1)

masternerdguy (2468142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996503)

No. Counting the number of o's in lol to calculate a coefficient of funniness is retarded.

No. (1)

Translation Error (1176675) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996141)

I flat-out refuuuuse to encourage this asinine trend.

Re:No. (1)

HapSlappy_2222 (1089149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996735)

"Holy shit, O, come look at this post!! I was algo-writhing about the tubings, and ran across the most refusing comment the internet has ever seen!! What should I do with it, do you think?"

"Shit, I don't care, U. Give it a higher ranking for searches coming out of Uruguay, or something. Just make sure you catalog it; G won't like it if anything slips through the cracks."

America are fagets (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996175)

They say "O O O" when faget stick pennis up there faget asshole haha.

How about zeroes? Or case? (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996245)

LO0ol

Re:How about zeroes? Or case? (1)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996995)

Hva hvis du er norsk?

løøøl

Prior Art (1)

walkerp1 (523460) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996247)

That's funny. For years I've used that same method to determine how vacuous a video is.

Re:Prior Art (1)

yurtinus (1590157) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996555)

Prior art only matters if somebody is trying to make a patent claim...

/pedant

Please Lord ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996255)

... let them also estimate the blondness of users by the pinkness of their writing and the number of curvaceous hearts on top of "I"s. Then I can rest at peace ...

Directive 3? (4, Funny)

Spykk (823586) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996449)

So google has developed artificial intelligence that is forced to read YouTube comments all day? I wonder how many lines of code it took to keep it from commiting suicide.

Is this actually... (5, Funny)

Jafafa Hots (580169) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996513)

... a measure of how funny a video is, or actually a measure of how stupid its viewers are?

Wait, this is YouTube comments, right? I think I just answered my own question.

YouTube - the only place where a kitten video can ignite a verbal race riot.

Google research is rather shetty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996521)

It says "Posted by Sanketh Shetty, YouTube Slam Team, Google Research". As an actual researcher, I would say this research work is rather shetty.

Hrrm.... (1)

HapSlappy_2222 (1089149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996633)

I don't see why Goggle just chooses to count the letter "o" when the number of letter "g"s in a word is just as important. Shrug.

A++ article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996677)

a+++++ great article, so true

Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Filter error: Please use fewer 'junk' characters.
Important Stuff

        Please try to keep posts on topic.
        Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
        Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
        Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
        Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)

Thanks for the SEO advice, Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38996787)

LOOOOL, now all they have to do is find the optimal number of 'O's. Surely the Google algorithm wouldn't be fooled by a few thousand of them, and would eventually determine that some number just shy of ridiculous is optimal. Then the SEOs will pick that number. Metric approaches uselessness in... about... Now!

Finally! (1)

ilsaloving (1534307) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996809)

I'm so glad someone has finally figured out how to extract something of value from some of the idiocy that's on the net.

Similar to... (1)

SkOink (212592) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996879)

The Haha Meter [fjcdn.com]

LOL (1)

CptPicard (680154) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996895)

LoOoOoOooOoooOooooOOOooL

And we have now seen... (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 2 years ago | (#38996955)

...the origin of the most popular TV show of the 26th century, "Ow, My Balls!"

Same rule applied for football / soccer? (4, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#38997027)

The importance of a score is determined by the number of O's in "Gooooooooooooooooooooal!"

Searching by loooool (2)

mattr (78516) | more than 2 years ago | (#38997059)

"So if you want to watch funnier videos.."

It seems that if you type in a long looooooooooool to google then it will only give you videos with that exact number of o's.
Or at least, it shows search results from long looooooooolz to short looolz

This is getting dumb.
- We need scientific notation for lol, lulz, etc. like lol^50, lulz^150, etc. it's just not elegant now.
- We need a way to tell google to show ALL of them, funniest first. Google: video lol^50 to lol^40 desc
    Otherwise what's the point of encoding video this way.
- Diminishing returns... and yet Google can't search beyond around 130 o's.
I calculate the funniest thousand videos or so are locked away from us in the long tail beyond google's search capability!

Google: looooooooool video

10 o's: 875,000 results
20 o's: 209,000
30 o's: 60,900
40 o's: 31,200
50 o's: 10,600
60 o's: 5,220
70 o's: 2,790
100 o's: 1,830
120 o's: 728
unfortunately many more than this and the word is too long and not allowed.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?