Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Japanese aquarium urges public to video-chat with eels

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 44 posts

Re: Japanese aquarium urges public to video-chat with eels

#31

Post by TheChaplain »

rjtobin wrote: post #6

Although I think this is wonderful, I wonder is there a non-public outreach reason for not just showing pre-recorded videos of people? I’m also curious about how well these eels can perceive screens. Some animals seem to be able to process things on a screen while others seem to totally ignore it. Is there some biological difference here, maybe the frequencies of light emitted by a TV/monitor being designed for human…

Sure it could be done, but this is also a PR-event to advertise for the Aquarium and a way to show off the eels to people.

At least it worked on me, I spent 2h digging through wikipedia and Youtube about Garden Eels.

Re: Japanese aquarium urges public to video-chat with eels

#32

Post by chongli »

karatinversion wrote: post #28
bartread wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I should try not to because it takes readers away from our site, and they might not come back. > I suspect that many sites have the same line of reasoning. Not your fault, obviously, but FFS: this is the most vapid line of reasoning. If I want to find out more I'm going to leave your site anyway, so surely it's better if I'm not irritated by your lack of citations when I do inevitably go? Does Wikipedia worry about…

Wikipedia’s business isn’t monetising people’s attention.

Thus news should not be a business. The business model of news is diametrically opposed to informing the public. We’re better off sticking to nonprofit journalism.

Re: Japanese aquarium urges public to video-chat with eels

#33

Post by CuriousSkeptic »

karatinversion wrote: post #28
bartread wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I should try not to because it takes readers away from our site, and they might not come back. > I suspect that many sites have the same line of reasoning. Not your fault, obviously, but FFS: this is the most vapid line of reasoning. If I want to find out more I'm going to leave your site anyway, so surely it's better if I'm not irritated by your lack of citations when I do inevitably go? Does Wikipedia worry about…

Wikipedia’s business isn’t monetising people’s attention.

Yet Wikipedia is the one creating actual economic value

Re: Japanese aquarium urges public to video-chat with eels

#35

Post by bartread »

karatinversion wrote: post #28
bartread wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I should try not to because it takes readers away from our site, and they might not come back. > I suspect that many sites have the same line of reasoning. Not your fault, obviously, but FFS: this is the most vapid line of reasoning. If I want to find out more I'm going to leave your site anyway, so surely it's better if I'm not irritated by your lack of citations when I do inevitably go? Does Wikipedia worry about…

Wikipedia’s business isn’t monetising people’s attention.

You've completely missed my point: if you want my attention you're more likely to get it for the longer term if you provide me with what I'm looking for, including citations, because I'll keep coming back. If on the other hand you're obstructive by not providing this, you probably won't. From a monetisation perspective it therefore makes sense to provide those citations.

Re: Japanese aquarium urges public to video-chat with eels

#36

Post by mokus »

bartread wrote: post #35
karatinversion wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia’s business isn’t monetising people’s attention.

You've completely missed my point: if you want my attention you're more likely to get it for the longer term if you provide me with what I'm looking for, including citations, because I'll keep coming back. If on the other hand you're obstructive by not providing this, you probably won't. From a monetisation perspective it therefore makes sense to provide those citations.

Exactly! If a site gives me useful info and leads me to more, the site is much more likely to be the FIRST place I look for similar stuff next time. Otherwise they go on a mental blacklist and I never click on the links to that site in the first place.

Re: Japanese aquarium urges public to video-chat with eels

#37

Post by mokus »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #16
DarthGhandi wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's absurdly common with news articles. They never link the stats/paper/organisation. I often wonder about the amount of collective time spent by individuals simply trying to find the data summarised in an article. For all the lamenting about the media's decline there's plenty of amateur blogs out there that manage to link their sources when writing an article.

It’s not very relevant to a story about eels, but the problem media has with primary sources, is that you can’t spin primary sources. They would rather have you read their editorial account of the primary source, rather than provide it to you, where there’s a greater risk of you making up for own mind about what to think of it.

It’s infuriating how true this seems to be. Especially in politics, so many big-name news sites across the entire political spectrum seem to consistently run stories that collapse instantly when checked.

How on earth do they still exist with a business model that seems to consist solely of making absurd interpretations of YouTube videos and tweets?

Re: Japanese aquarium urges public to video-chat with eels

#38

Post by [deleted] »

som33 wrote: post #29
goostavos wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my biggest pet peeve with news in general. Why does a high school paper have more rigor in terms of citations than the average post from a major news organization? It honestly drives me crazy. How in the world can a majority of major news organizations not overcome the hurdle of... adding links to what they're covering..? It makes digesting political news all but impossible.

>This is my biggest pet peeve with news in general. Why does a high school paper have more rigor in terms of citations than the average post from a major news organization? Because news is not meant to inform, it's meant to indoctrinate and keep you passively under the thumb of the rich. https://www.amazon.com/Manufacturing-Consent-Political-Econo... >It makes digesting political news all but impossible. The question…

[deleted]

Re: Japanese aquarium urges public to video-chat with eels

#39

Post by andrewflnr »

bartread wrote: post #26
nicthesailor wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fwiw, I recently started writing for a well-known website. When I asked if it's okay to link to sources, they told me I was allowed to if absolutely necessary. I should try not to because it takes readers away from our site, and they might not come back. I suspect that many sites have the same line of reasoning.

> I should try not to because it takes readers away from our site, and they might not come back. > I suspect that many sites have the same line of reasoning. Not your fault, obviously, but FFS: this is the most vapid line of reasoning. If I want to find out more I'm going to leave your site anyway, so surely it's better if I'm not irritated by your lack of citations when I do inevitably go? Does Wikipedia worry about…

You're probably an outlier. Most people are lazy (in particular, unlikely to embark on research projects), and accustomed to newspapers not citing sources (no hyperlinks in the dead-tree version, after all). They probably have data showing the rate at which people leave the site via external links.

Re: Japanese aquarium urges public to video-chat with eels

#40

Post by mistersquid »

rjtobin wrote: post #6

Although I think this is wonderful, I wonder is there a non-public outreach reason for not just showing pre-recorded videos of people? I’m also curious about how well these eels can perceive screens. Some animals seem to be able to process things on a screen while others seem to totally ignore it. Is there some biological difference here, maybe the frequencies of light emitted by a TV/monitor being designed for human…

> is there a non-public outreach reason for not just showing pre-recorded videos of people?

The OP delights and your question made me think about how some among the unwashed masses of Internet users will send video to the eels that may harm and/or frighten them.

Post reply on HN