Talk:Strong Bad Email By Length

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


[edit] 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. --DMurphy 19:08, 26 Mar 2005 (MST)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
I like this page. It has some cool and interesting info. — talk Bubsty edits 03:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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?


If it gets too bad the numbers can just be deleted. --Joshua 16:10, 26 Mar 2005 (MST)
The numbering hardly takes as long as entering each e-mail... now that the table is complete, it will only take about 10 minutes per e-mail to update, which isn't bad at all. I think the numbers are what make the table, so they shouldn't be removed. --DMurphy 19:07, 26 Mar 2005 (MST)
Yeah, the numbers need to stay. →[[User:FireBird|FireBird]]
As the poor soul who just added long pants into the mix, I must respectfully disagree - there has got to be a better way. I'd be willing to eschew the table format in place of clever usage of bold and italics and the like if it meant not having to do that again every week. It's not hard, but it IS dull and easy to screw up, and it IS relatively time-consuming. --Jay 01:09, 28 Mar 2005 (MST)
Ah ha, I thought so. I found a kind-of solution. By splitting the table into two tables, and putting those tables inside another table, I fixed the problem. It wasn't fun to implement, but from now on it shouldn't be hard to update. -- Tom 02:32, 28 Mar 2005 (MST)
Hey, that works pretty well. Clever. {Jay gives Tom a cookie} --Jay 07:35, 28 Mar 2005 (MST)

[edit] sb_email 22 vs vacation

Do we count easter eggs or not? The way I see it, the five postcards are just as much an easter egg as the last half of email 22. Any thoughts? Thunderbird 21:58, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The list of vacation isn't any more of an easter egg than the links in "one step ahead." They are advertised and obvious to anyone watching. As for the second half of email 22, you'd still have to fish around with the mouse or tab button to find it, making it an easter egg. - Joshua

[edit] Table fix?

Can someone fix the table so the emails match up with the numbers? I'm no good at myself. - KookykmanImage:kookysig.gif(t)(c)(r)

Okay, guess who just got Firefox? - KookykmanImage:kookysig.gif(t)(c)(r)

[edit] Combined vs. A and B

I strongly recommend that retirement A and B be removed from the time list. Its one SBEmail, not three. We dont need them, especialy since they arent on the site anymore. It wasnt seperate toons, just an interesting way to put them out there - S St.

Agreed, there are a lot of places where it still remains. You do know you can make edits too, right? Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 22:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ties

How are we "breaking ties", so to speak? Coming in at 4:01 are both animal] and radio, which I currently have on the spreadsheet as tied for 15th longest (16th once I add retirement to it), but the table offers that animal is longer. I see that we've been going by number of frames, but has that been consistent? — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 23:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Flash goes at 12 frames a second as a default. (TGS's 20 being a notable exception.) So if you divide the frame total by 12 you ought to come up with the exact number of seconds in the toon. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 06:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
But what about the cases where the difference is only one or two and it comes out to the same time? Obviously the one with the extra frames is the longer one, but what I'm asking is did we check that out for every instance of multiple emails with the same time, or do some of them just have the first one alphabetically/chronologically numbered first? I don't mind checking, but if I don't need to spend the time doing it I won't. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 06:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I wonder which would take longer - researching who did the ordering and asking them, or investigating tha source for data. I would probably do the latter. Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 06:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The Running Times get added to the toon pages by various people... just whoever gets to it first, usually. Most people probably time them with a stopwatch, so they're probably only accurate to a couple of seconds anyway... The newer few I've done myself by counting frames... I've been meaning to go through all the old ones and do the same, for accuracy's sake. --phlip TC 08:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
One thing I've always wondered - what exactly is timed? Do we include the Loading screen? Do we include Easter eggs? Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 16:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
No and no. Though, for some reason we do include the "waiting" eggs. Basically it's the time it takes for everything under "Transcript" to happen. --phlip TC 22:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
So, in other words, from the time the Loading screen is gone to the last frame that plays unless you click an Easter egg. I'd also assume we'd exclude, for example, the Homsar scene in dragon, hmm? Qermaq - (T/C) Image:Qermaqsigpic.png 23:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frame count

Okay, as I was going through the ties, I got 1,305 frames for sugarbob and 1,386 for invisibility, both of which we have at 1 minute 47 seconds. Looks like we're going to have to go through all of them again and make doubly sure they're right. I'll finish the ties, but I can't imagine that'll stay on the page very long. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 04:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't actually count the loading screen, which is 15 frames for these two. That makes sugarbob 1:47 and invisibility 1:54.  Loafing 05:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
15? Whoops, I've been calling it 13. Revised numbers: 1,303 and 1,384. — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 05:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WPM

Can anybody tell me Strong Bad's average Words per Minute? Thanks. - 03:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Length vs. Duration

I know they're almost all pretty short emails [in terms of words/characters/sentences], but wouldn't using the less ambiguous word "duration" make more sense for this? 03:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Email Thunder w/ easter eggs?

Can someone please tally it up? Sp0ng3b0b 10:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comic book movie is 3:39

somebody please add that -dr. savage

[edit] 1 step ahead

should we say something on this page about the fact that information was added to 1 step ahead after it was originally released, making it longer than dullard? b/c right now it says that the longest email was #37, and then it was #28, with no explanation as to why that might be. all the others are in the correct order. The Knights Who Say Ni 01:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comp-ay/Lappier

The Compe' era was so short that I think it may be best to have it combined with the Lappier, lest we have an "era" of four or five emails tops. Guybrush20X6 12:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Personal tools