SITE CONTENTS.

Filler 62%
Deliberate falsehoods 23%
Ambiguities 14%
Errata 9%
Misinterpretations 7%
Libel 3%
Weather 2%
Rhyme 1.5%
Reason 1.2%
Sophisticated humor 0.7%
Implausible statistics 561%

Comments

  1. RepubAnon says:

    Wow, this site gives 684%! That’s great effort!

  2. RepubAnon says:

    Well, actually 684.4%… but, hey, who counts?

  3. David Poecking says:

    Does this site contain no due diligence? Doesn’t that mean the site makes you vulnerable to civil action? And speaking of due diligence, ought you not post margins of error with your statistics?

  4. Clay Potts says:

    So, here is case of art imitating science…

  5. Dr. Boli says:

    A candid look at the site would suggest that it does not even contain undue diligence.

  6. Dr. Boli says:

    Although building a table with raw HTML code is not as easy as it looks.

  7. Clay Potts says:

    A brilliant sage once stated (about 15 seconds ago), “building character is much like building a table. If not properly constructed, it will collapse under the slightest weight”.

  8. Jared says:

    Those are dangerously high levels of sophisticated humor, which is known to the state of California to cause insufferableness.

  9. C. Simon says:

    These categories are not mutually exclusive.

    For starters, I’d say that 0.3% of content is sophisticated humor AND libel. The more libelous, the funnier.

    There are whole other categories that did not make it in the table, because they are just subsets of other categories. What I mean is, 215% of content is English of the Future, but there is no need to say so, since it has already been counted as Filler + Ambiguities + Implausibility.

  10. C. Simon says:

    By the way, what site are we talking about? I assumed it was CNN Headline News.

  11. C. Simon says:

    No wait, now I’m sure this is the content breakdown of healthcare dot gov.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.