Talk:Strong Bad Email By Length

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 23:10, 26 March 2005 (edit) Joshua (Talk | contribs) ← Older edit		Revision as of 01:59, 27 March 2005 (edit) (undo) DMurphy (Talk | contribs) (→Emails that have yet to be timed are:) Newer edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	==Emails that have yet to be timed are:==	+	==The Table has been completed==
-	*[[kids' book]]	+	As of 3/27/05 at 1:57 am GMT, the table is completed.  Thanks to everyone who helped with timing emails, and with updating the table.
-	*[[couch patch]]	+
-	*[[kind of cool]]	+
-	*[[montage]]	+
-	*[[part-time job]]	+
-		+
-	Times should NOT include clickable easter eggs, but they can include any dialogue which occurs after the paper comes down (for instance, after the delay in e-mail 79, [[the process]]).  Use your best judgement and you'll be fine.	+
-		+
-	I've started a spreadsheet with all the e-mails, so if you time an e-mail, just list it on the e-mail page (start a blank at the top for Running Time, as appears in The Process), but you don't need to update the list, since that is time consuming and unnecessary.	+
	==Timed==		==Timed==

---

Revision as of 01:59, 27 March 2005

Contents 1 The Table has been completed 2 Timed 3 Motivation 4 Numbering

The Table has been completed

As of 3/27/05 at 1:57 am GMT, the table is completed. Thanks to everyone who helped with timing emails, and with updating the table.

Timed

In addition to updating the untimed emails list, I've timed a few myself (via stopwatch, incidentally). However, I have not included them, as I am unsure of the standard being used. I timed them from the beginning of the email to the end of the email, including Easter eggs for which you wait (although none of these were present in these emails), but not clickable ones. Should this be/become the standard, here are the times I recorded: 4:52-dangeresque 3, 4:05-virus, 4:01-animal, 4:01-radio, 3:25-crying, 3:18-pizzaz, 3:16-replacement, 2:54-different town, 2:36-stupid stuff. --Suicune64 17:23, 25 Mar 2005 (MST)

Motivation

I can understand the desire to track who/where info for the various emails but not length. Could someone explain the need this page fills? - Dr Haggis - Talk 18:11, 20 Mar 2005 (MST)

I was curious about what emails were the longest compared to others. If not enough people care about a page like this, it can get deleted. --Joshua 19:04, 20 Mar 2005 (MST)

May be you could start a page to list emails by their number of words, the sum total "Meh"s of the cheat. you could alweys try to count how many times homestar say stupid stuff compared to homsar, or better yet, make a graph out of it? Why not? --Someone Who Thinks You Guys Have too Much Spare Time On Your Hands

And why not create a gigantic Wiki documenting every word of a silly Flash animated website? Oh, wait, that's already been done.

And I like graphs. I say, Go For It! :D :D :D Aurora Szalinski 21:39, 20 Mar 2005 (MST)

The difference is, SWTYGHtMSTOYH, that few are curious about those statistics. However, some probably are curious about the lengths, including me, as well as Joshua up there. By the way, sarcasm doesn't exactly work wonders while attempting to argue a point. Suicune64 17:31, 22 Mar 2005 (MST)

Is length really a good measurement? I'm sensing that it's hard to determine. Would something more concrete like filesize be better? -- Tom 17:31, 21 Mar 2005 (MST)

Length isn't good for being exactly technical, but there are quite a few people out there who apparently find it interesting, like me. That's what you want in a page: interesting information. I don't think file size would be nearly as interesting as length, although it would be more precise. But of course, that's just my own opinion. --Joshua 18:07, 22 Mar 2005 (MST)

Sounds like marginal interest to me, but who am I to judge. Rock, Rock On guys. - Dr Haggis - Talk 17:57, 25 Mar 2005 (MST)

Numbering

The numbering system is a bit cumbersome. Say when Email #127 comes out, it falls into the number 15 spot. Then every email after that will have to be manually changed. Is there anyway to uncorporate the "#" shorthand into the table? -- Tom 14:43, 26 Mar 2005 (MST)

I tried just adding the "#" code into the table and it looks like it isn't going to work. Any other way you can think of? →[[User:FireBird|FireBird]]

If it gets too bad the numbers can just be deleted. --Joshua 16:10, 26 Mar 2005 (MST)