pattern:if OP image has atleast 1 irl human face in it, then the thread is hot garbage 90% of the timeif not, it's hot garbage like 30% of the time
>>23921082only retards would post anything but drawings on an anime website ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>>23921082what if it has only half a human face?do we LERP to 45% hot garbage, or is there a gore exception?
>>23921182it's a special casei'd place it in the "doesn't have a human face" category for the purpose of this pattern, which does hold if anyone gives a shitthe focus of a gore image is the gore, not the face per seyoutube thumbnail face & obnoxious 'jak faces would be the most obvious of the "has a human face" category, i think, and they focus on the facea landscape shot of a city which CONTAINS a human face in the background might be a special case in the same way
>>23921186>the focus of a gore image is the gore, not the face per sewell what if it's a close zoom of the half-face, and that's really what makes this particular gore image so striking and disturbing?it could be argued that the human (half-)face is the focus of the imagelet's say the half-face appears to convey a certain expressionit's undeniably a face, and being used like a reaction imageLERP to 45, gore exception, or tenuous application of the "not a face" rule, even though it's literally and effectively a face?
>>23921220this is a VERY rare/special case...>it could be argued that the human (half-)face is the focus of the image>let's say the half-face appears to convey a certain expression>it's undeniably a face, and being used like a reaction imagei guess you're right>LERP to 45, gore exception, or tenuous application of the "not a face" rule, even though it's literally and effectively a face?i think there should be a "shock exception" in general, for reasons which i think are more central to what i was trying to get at with this pattern, but which i'm too tired to have the words for right now...i gotta think about this more, but i think it's actually practical & there are reasons behind itthere was a period after which all youtube thumbnails HAD to have a face, which i think is similar to TV/movie promotion previouslybefore this, thumbnails & their foci were a lot more random/unpredictable(i think that early period was better, for reasons i can't explain properly right now)this sorta coincided with youtube having much more advertising & marketingi gotta think about all this morei fucking hate psyop faggots, i guarantee there's tons of internal research & formalization of these things which people can only grasp at
your hypothetical category of "face reaction images with different gore & shocking features" freaks me out, though, and i'm glad i've never seen any examples of it
>>23921237>i think there should be a "shock exception" in generalthat works finethere's definitely something to what you're sayingI wonder if you'd consider expanding the rule beyond faces to a definition which also includes things like the>lust-provoking imagebecause it really seems like a similar base arousal of specific brain regions being employed, between faces and e.g. boobsmaybe... people click on faces and boobs more readily... because both automatically hijack our attention away from our prefrontal cortices, thus lowering our ability to consciously reject whatever is being shilled?they force an attentional shift to lower, less critical regions of the brain?>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attentional_shift
>>23921241I'm glad too, I apologise for introducing the concept
>>23921260nah it was interesting, i mean it had a point>>23921257>maybe... people click on faces and boobs more readily... because both automatically hijack our attention away from our prefrontal cortices, thus lowering our ability to consciously reject whatever is being shilled?>they force an attentional shift to lower, less critical regions of the brain?o.o>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attentional_shifttyty>I wonder if you'd consider expanding the rule beyond faces to a definition which also includes things like the>>lust-provoking image>because it really seems like a similar base arousal of specific brain regions being employed, between faces and e.g. boobsmaybesomething about the fact that it's faces interests me, idk why...i wonder how similar the phenomenon is between boobs/faces & why, how much of a distinction can be made in this context or others, practically or otherwisefor one, if they both DO do the same thing, then using faces would certainly be subtler & easier to intentionally force things with, without bypassing rules or anything>>i think there should be a "shock exception" in general>that works fine>there's definitely something to what you're sayingi'm sure shock would have some sort of effect on posting/reply/"response" behavior, and maybe gore & other things would have different effectsbut it seems like its own separate issuefuck, i don't have the words...
i don't mean to imply most posts with human faces aren't organic, obviouslybut, demographics...some people more easily post slop which they wouldn't actually have posted with their own free will than others arebut also, if you DO find a glowie post, take a look at the image & see if any of this applies
>>23921287>i don't mean to imply most posts with human faces aren't organic, obviouslyoh, I think I got too fixated on your>i fucking hate psyop faggotsyou did mention youtubers doing it too—and legacy media promotion—so perhaps it's the same effect the glowies use, but normal people are doing it to get engagement without understanding the precise mechanism?or they've just heard it's how you get clicksmaybe as it pertains to low-quality organic threads made by idiots on 4chan, it's still the attention-shift effect causing them to click that image when they're creating the thread?a face produces more of a reaction in their brain so they also thoughtlessly click it?as though they're 'clickbaiting' themselves when choosing an image
>>23921306>>i don't mean to imply most posts with human faces aren't organic, obviously>oh, I think I got too fixated on your>>i fucking hate psyop faggots>you did mention youtubers doing it too—and legacy media promotion—so perhaps it's the same effect the glowies useyeah, i'm sure it's in SOMEBODY's arsenal, maybe all those groupsi just didn't want somebody to hit me with "so every post with a HUMAN FACE is a glowie post? ok schizo">but normal people are doing it to get engagement without understanding the precise mechanism?>or they've just heard it's how you get clicksi think a lot of people online are kinda softlocked into that un-imaginative attention-grabbing stuff, without realizing it, and they end up saving/posting the same stuff intuitivelyi doubt most people making obnoxious posts do it with that much conscious intent, but yeah, maybe some have a sense it'll be more engagingthis all in the context of 4chan, i mean...>maybe as it pertains to low-quality organic threads made by idiots on 4chan, it's still the attention-shift effect causing them to click that image when they're creating the thread?could be, and also a much bigger bias because the pool of images they've saved will be weighted towards that stuffsort of a self-feeding process which the user is a component of
>>23921322>the pool of images they've saved will be weightedPROBABLY will be weighted*
