Most active commenters
  • sjsdaiuasgdia(3)

←back to thread

I'm absolutely right

(absolutelyright.lol)
648 points yoavfr | 22 comments | 05 Sep 25 12:36 UTC | HN request time: 0.635s | source | bottom
Show context
latexr ◴[05 Sep 25 13:14 UTC] No.45138173[source]▶
As I opened the website, the “16” changed to “17”. This looked interesting, as if the data were being updated live just as I loaded the page. Alas, a refresh (and quick check in the Developer Tools) reveals it’s fake and always does the transition. It’s a cool effect, but feels like a dirty trick.
replies(6): >>45138194 #>>45138198 #>>45138206 #>>45138881 #>>45139583 #>>45146849 #
1. tantalor ◴[05 Sep 25 13:16 UTC] No.45138198[source]▶
It's a dark pattern
replies(8): >>45138235 #>>45138298 #>>45138348 #>>45138605 #>>45138692 #>>45138986 #>>45139237 #>>45140033 #
2. stuartjohnson12 ◴[05 Sep 25 13:19 UTC] No.45138235[source]▶
You're absolutely right!
3. diggan ◴[05 Sep 25 13:25 UTC] No.45138298[source]▶
Maybe I'm old or just wrong, but "dark pattern" for me means "intentionally misleading" which doesn't seem to be the case here, this is more of a "add liveliness so users can see it's not static data" with no intention of misleading, since it seems to be true that the data is actually dynamic.
replies(3): >>45138362 #>>45138576 #>>45147217 #
4. coldtea ◴[05 Sep 25 13:31 UTC] No.45138348[source]▶
Nope.
replies(1): >>45138478 #
5. sjsdaiuasgdia ◴[05 Sep 25 13:32 UTC] No.45138362[source]▶
I wouldn't go so far as to call this specific implementation a dark pattern, but it is misleading. It suggests the data updated right when I loaded the page, which obviously isn't true as I can see the same 16->17 transition on a refresh.

I'd prefer a "Data last updated at <timestamp>" indicator somewhere. Now I know it's live data and I know how old the data is. Is it as cute / friendly / fun? Probably not. But it's definitely more precise and less misleading.

replies(2): >>45138712 #>>45139518 #
6. ◴[05 Sep 25 13:42 UTC] No.45138478[source]▶
7. ◴[05 Sep 25 13:50 UTC] No.45138576[source]▶
8. the_af ◴[05 Sep 25 13:53 UTC] No.45138605[source]▶
> It's a dark pattern

No, a dark pattern is intentionally deceptive design meant to trick users into doing something (or prevent them from doing something else) they otherwise wouldn't. Examples: being misleading about confirmation/cancel buttons, hiding options to make them less pickable, being misleading about wording/options to make users buy something they otherwise wouldn't, being misleading about privacy, intentionally making opt in/out options confusing, etc.

None of it is the case here.

9. jstummbillig ◴[05 Sep 25 14:00 UTC] No.45138692[source]▶
I am missing a victim
replies(4): >>45138786 #>>45138796 #>>45139533 #>>45139810 #
10. stronglikedan ◴[05 Sep 25 14:02 UTC] No.45138712{3}[source]▶
the way the website has it implemented is better
replies(1): >>45139056 #
11. lemonberry ◴[05 Sep 25 14:08 UTC] No.45138786[source]▶
They're everywhere these days.
12. arduanika ◴[05 Sep 25 14:08 UTC] No.45138796[source]▶
Truth
13. pessimizer ◴[05 Sep 25 14:24 UTC] No.45138986[source]▶
No, it's just the kind of dishonesty that people who create dark patterns start with. It's meant to give the believable impression that something that is not happening is happening, to people hopefully too ignorant to investigate.

Of course, in the tech industry, you can safely assume that anyone can detect your scam would happily be complicit in your scam. They wouldn't be employed otherwise.

-----

edit: the funniest part about this little inconsequential subdebate is that this is exactly the same as making a computer program a chirpy ass-kissing sycophant. It isn't the algorithms that are kissing your ass, it's the people who are marketing them that want to make you feel a friendship and loyalty that is nonexistent.

"Who's the victim?"

14. sjsdaiuasgdia ◴[05 Sep 25 14:31 UTC] No.45139056{4}[source]▶
That's your opinion. Mine differs.
15. zeroxfe ◴[05 Sep 25 14:49 UTC] No.45139237[source]▶
jeez, this is a fun website, can't believe how quickly we're godwining here!
16. boredtofears ◴[05 Sep 25 15:12 UTC] No.45139518{3}[source]▶
On that note, the font isn't symmetrical and the bar graph itself uses jagged lines. This makes it hard to read and much less precise. I'd prefer all websites in monospaced fonts with only the straightest of lines.
replies(1): >>45140540 #
17. umanwizard ◴[05 Sep 25 15:14 UTC] No.45139533[source]▶
Deceiving someone and breaking their trust already counts as victimizing them, inherently, even if they suffer no other harm.
18. recursive ◴[05 Sep 25 15:37 UTC] No.45139810[source]▶
If I see it and get misled, I am the victim.
19. jamesnorden ◴[05 Sep 25 15:58 UTC] No.45140033[source]▶
This has to be the most over/misused term in this whole website.
replies(1): >>45141033 #
20. sjsdaiuasgdia ◴[05 Sep 25 16:37 UTC] No.45140540{4}[source]▶
Those are stylistic choices that don't really impact the ability to view the data and do not mislead like the fake data update on page load.

You're able to hover a bar to see its exact value. Very precise there. No misleading info.

21. y-curious ◴[05 Sep 25 17:19 UTC] No.45141033[source]▶
You're absolutely right!
22. zestyping ◴[06 Sep 25 06:57 UTC] No.45147217[source]▶
It is indeed misleading. It is showing an untruthful value, and an untruthful change in value, on purpose. A small lie, perhaps—but nonetheless a lie.