Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TimeofSilks

Prim count possibly?

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1341 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts


Pamela Galli wrote:

To me it is only good manners to show respect for other people's time. I avoid asking questions unless I cannot find the answers my self, that just seems polite to me. 
The point is that very few people would even think of using a search engine to find out how many prims an object uses, so the first option would naturally be to ask the community.
(And when someone does take the time to provide useful information, I refrain from shooting the messenger if I dont like the message -- something we see often.)
The messenger in the case was objecionable - '
I'm not going to tell you the answer
on principle
'

Griffins post is not where I see the rudeness. 
It wasn't rudeness. It was unnecessary and uncalled for though. The OP said that s/he had learned from it, which is good, but Griffin specifically stated that he won't "
be an enabler of other people's sheer laziness
", when we all know that there was no laziness in this case, because prim counts are not something that's normally looked for in a search engine.

We may have to disagree on this occasion, Pamela. I saw Griffin's initial post as being intentionally negative, and pretty much accusative, towards the OP, and his replies to me confirm that view. You didn't, and that's where we disagree. Even the link he included was extremely patronising - and utterly stupid. He said he's at home bored out of his skull, and that may be the reason for the way he wrote the posts. It doesn't excuse it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose we will, Phil. :-)

I just clicked that link, looks to me like Griffin took the time to create a little tutorial for those who may not realize how much data Google can find. My very own son has more than once sent me a link to the similar "Let Me Google That For You" page. Yes, he is a smartass, but it does make the point: Google first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've no idea how that page came into being, but it was stupid, and in keeping with his whole negative attitude in this thread. His reply to Talligurl was just the same - negative for the sake of being negative, and without any semblance of sense.

Just out of interest, the first time I saw the page he linked to, I closed the tab because a list of search engines wasn't useful at all. I didn't see the continuation. Whoever created it, and I am sure it wasn't Griffin, it's a piece of bad design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What he linked is very popular. It's called Let Me Google That For You and it's kind of a meme, a joke. A way to point out to someone that they could have had the answer to their question in seconds if they had just tried Google first. "Google" has also turned into a verb, so the exact search engine you use doesn't matter, hence the page you saw illustrating the point that you can choose from several. If you kept watching, it illustrates what happens when you search for these terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

I've no idea how that page came into being 

 

 it's a piece of bad design. 
Which has been in effect since 2008 and you're just now learning about it? Not being condescending or negative, just genuinely surprised, that's all. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


flowersforkain wrote:


 
Not being condescending or negative, just genuinely surprised, that's all. 

Actually, from my time here on this forum, I
am
actually surprised if he hasn't seen it. This seems like something that would pop up often here from veterans tired of giving the same answers over and over. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Nalytha wrote:

This seems like something that would pop up often here from veterans tired of giving the same answers over and over. 


Maybe once or twice. :smileylol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

You talk a load of rubbish. The image that the OP linked to shows a lot of items that appear to go together to make up the treehouse. What appears on the Google results page covers just 3 of them. Therefore you were wrong. Clicking on the listing does come back with a page that lists the items and their prim counts.

Actually, Phil, ~*Buglets*~ 1. Treehouse RARE is one item. The accessories are completely separate items. And ~*Buglets*~ 1. Treehouse RARE (and its prim count) does actually appear on the results page.


Phil Deakins wrote:

P.S. Your link was idiotic. It went to a page that... well, you know what it linked to - stupidity incarnate.

I'm so sorry you don't like everything that is to be found on the internet, Phil. Good thing everything on the internet wasn't created/designed with just you in mind.


Phil Deakins wrote:

Also, you seem to imagine that a search engine is the way to discover how many prims an SL object uses and, therefore, people should use that method. Again you are wrong. On this occasion there was some information to be had but that was just lucky.


I never said that a search engine was "the way to discover how many prims an SL object uses and, therefore, people should use that method." Did I? Please show me where I did and I will correct it immediately!

(Someone did ask, in response to someone mentioning asking the creator, how they could possibly know who the creator was. My reply was: "Google?")


Phil Deakins wrote:

It's not a method that people can use because it's not a method at all, ...

Apparently... it sometimes is. Isn't it.


Phil Deakins wrote:

... and nobody is being lazy by asking SL users about it.

...


Phil Deakins wrote:

P.P.S. I've no idea why you got the 'Recognised Helper' tag...

Oh, I think you know how that works. It's been discussed in the forum ad nauseum.


Phil Deakins wrote:

...but I know that, in this thread, you have shown yourself to be absolutely the opposite. Generally, when someone needs help, and someone else has the answer they need, they will post the answer. If the answer was easy to find, then they would also post how they found it so that it would help the person in the future. Posting that the answer is easy to find and specifically not stating the answer "
on principle
" is stupid.

Do you need help removing that stick? (Not offering, just asking.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

You can't find prim counts through a search engine.


But apparently you (sometimes; many times!) can!


Phil Deakins wrote:

I wouldn't have considered trying it for a prim count either, and I've been here for 10 years.


I'm glad people don't all think alike.


Phil Deakins wrote:

This case is an exception that proves the rule.


Hmmmm. LOADS of exceptions out there. Guess you've not read many SL shopping-related blogs?


Phil Deakins wrote:

You can find lots of stuff through search engines though, so it's always worth trying it.

*choke choke cough cough*

What? You mean my suggestion to use a search engine wasn't totally off??!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phil Deakins wrote:

Griffin was being objectionable on principle. Here is how to
helpfully
do the OP favour:-

The prim counts for all the items are listed in
blog. I found it by searching Google on the name of the item. It's amazing how much can be found by doing a search, so it's always worth trying. I hope that helps
:)

Or something similar.

We are, thankfully, Phil, nothing alike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

We may have to disagree on this occasion, Pamela. I saw Griffin's initial post as being intentionally negative, and pretty much accusative, towards the OP, and his replies to me confirm that view. You didn't, and that's where we disagree. Even the link he included was extremely patronising - and utterly stupid. He said he's at home bored out of his skull, and that may be the reason for the way he wrote the posts. It doesn't excuse it though.


Please read your own replies to and about me, Phil, and assign descriptive terms to them. Then get back to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

I've no idea how that page came into being, but it was stupid, and in keeping with his whole negative attitude in this thread.

Again, I'm so sorry you don't like everything that is to be found on the internet. Good thing everything on the internet wasn't created/designed with just you in mind.


Phil Deakins wrote:

His reply to Talligurl was just the same - negative for the sake of being negative, and without any semblance of sense.

I'm sorry you don't find my replies sensible, Phil. It may be the drugs I'm taking or maybe it's just you.


Phil Deakins wrote:

Just out of interest, the first time I saw the page he linked to, I closed the tab because a list of search engines wasn't useful at all. I didn't see the continuation. Whoever created it, and I am sure it wasn't Griffin, it's a piece of bad design.

Yeah, they changed it. It used to be a very simple design that they've now mangled to add a number of other search engines (it used to be just Google). I'll let the Committee of All Things Internet-related know of your disapproval.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Griffin Ceawlin wrote:

BTW. Thanks, Phil, for making this (HOT!) topic all about me.

It's fun to go away for a couple of weeks and come back to a fight.  ;)

I too have been chastised for refusing to answer a question for someone and suggesting that they use Google.  But we can't always expect everyone to be as smart as us.  Such is life on the Interwebs.  :D

I am a little surprised at Phil's response.  If I recall correctly he claims to have an expertise in Search Engine Optimization.  Hence I'm surprised that he would underestimate so badly the results that a Google search might return. 

But on the other hand I do find the graphics you linked to a bit condescending.  I usually reserve such things for total idiots.  But that is just my Rum induced opinion at the moment.  Normally I drink Bourbon but I was gifted a bottle of this poison.  I should know better than to drink and post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perrie Juran wrote:

I too have been chastised for refusing to answer a question for someone and suggesting that they use Google.  But we can't always expect everyone to be as smart as us.  Such is life on the Interwebs. 
:D

Ain't it the truth.


But on the other hand I do find the graphics you linked to a bit condescending.  I usually reserve such things for total idiots.

So do I. Hence.


But that is just my Rum induced opinion at the moment.  Normally I drink Bourbon but I was gifted a bottle of this poison.

Oh, rum isn't that bad. As long as it's in a Long Island Iced Tea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Nalytha wrote:


flowersforkain wrote:


 
Not being condescending or negative, just genuinely surprised, that's all. 

Actually, from my time here on this forum, I
am
actually surprised if he hasn't seen it. This seems like something that would pop up often here from veterans tired of giving the same answers over and over. 

Maybe it does pop up in the forum quite often, maybe in the Answers section, which is a section I never look in. I'm used to the sentence, "Google is your friend", but that all.

In this case, the question wasn't something that keeps popping up - in this part of the forum, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Griffin Ceawlin wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:

You talk a load of rubbish. The image that the OP linked to shows a lot of items that appear to go together to make up the treehouse. What appears on the Google results page covers just 3 of them. Therefore you were wrong. Clicking on the listing does come back with a page that lists the items and their prim counts.

Actually, Phil,
~*Buglets*~ 1. Treehouse RARE
is
one
item. The accessories are completely
separate
items. And
~*Buglets*~ 1. Treehouse RARE
(and its prim count)
does
actually appear on the results page.

Alright. I understood that the OP wanted to know the prim counts of all in the image, and I assumed that they are all parts of a single object. My mistake.

Phil Deakins wrote:

P.S. Your link was idiotic. It went to a page that... well, you know what it linked to - stupidity incarnate.

I'm
so
sorry you don't like everything that is to be found on the internet, Phil. Good thing everything on the internet wasn't created/designed with just
you
in mind.

I didn't say that the page was stupid. I refered to you for posting it.

Phil Deakins wrote:

Also, you seem to imagine that a search engine is the way to discover how many prims an SL object uses and, therefore, people should use that method. Again you are wrong. On this occasion there was some information to be had but that was just lucky.


I never said that a search engine was "the way to discover how many prims an SL object uses and, therefore, people should use that method." Did I? Please show me where I did and I will correct it immediately!

No you didn't say that, but you DID imply it in the reply to the OP, saying that s/he was too "
lazy
" to look for the prim count in a search engine, when everyone knows that that's not the way to find prim counts.

(Someone did ask, in response to someone mentioning asking the creator, how they could possibly know who the creator was. My reply was: "Google?")

Your reply to the OP was idiotic. I wouldn't expect that sort of reply from anyone, let alone someone who allegedly helps people.

Phil Deakins wrote:

It's not a method that people can use because it's not a method at all, ...

Apparently... it sometimes is. Isn't it.

I said you were lucky this time, but it's not the way to find prim counts. And you know it.

Phil Deakins wrote:

... and nobody is being lazy by asking SL users about it.

...

Phil Deakins wrote:

P.P.S. I've no idea why you got the 'Recognised Helper' tag...

Oh, I think you know how that works. It's been discussed in the forum ad nauseum.

Yep. So it was surprising that a Recognised Helper was so negative towards a person who asked for help - saying that s/he was lazy.

Phil Deakins wrote:

...but I know that, in this thread, you have shown yourself to be absolutely the opposite. Generally, when someone needs help, and someone else has the answer they need, they will post the answer. If the answer was easy to find, then they would also post how they found it so that it would help the person in the future. Posting that the answer is easy to find and specifically not stating the answer "
on principle
" is stupid.

Do you need help removing that stick? (Not offering, just asking.)

Maybe when you've removed your own.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Griffin Ceawlin wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:

You can't find prim counts through a search engine.


But apparently you (sometimes; many times!) can!

You were lucky this time, but it's not normal, and you know it. And still there was no need at all to say that the OP was lazy. Help if you want to help, otherwise it's best to stay out of it, especially when you're bored and looking for something to insult.

Phil Deakins wrote:

You can find lots of stuff through search engines though, so it's always worth trying it.

*choke choke cough cough*

What? You mean my suggestion to use a search engine wasn't totally off??!

Don't be ridiculous. Your post was what was wrong. The way you spoke about the OP was what was wrong. You did it. You can squirm as much as you like but you did it. Read other people's comments about it
;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Griffin Ceawlin wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:

Griffin was being objectionable on principle. Here is how to
helpfully
do the OP favour:-

The prim counts for all the items are listed in
blog. I found it by searching Google on the name of the item. It's amazing how much can be found by doing a search, so it's always worth trying. I hope that helps
:)

Or something similar.

We are, thankfully, Phil, nothing alike.

True. If I want to be objectionable just for the sake of it, I keep quiet. We are not alike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Griffin Ceawlin wrote:


Phil Deakins wrote:

I've no idea how that page came into being, but it was stupid, and in keeping with his whole negative attitude in this thread.

Again, I'm so sorry you don't like everything that is to be found on the internet. Good thing everything on the internet wasn't created/designed with just you in mind.

No lad. I didn't refer to the page. I refered to you.

Phil Deakins wrote:

His reply to Talligurl was just the same - negative for the sake of being negative, and without any semblance of sense.

I'm sorry you don't find my replies sensible, Phil. It may be the drugs I'm taking or maybe it's
just you
.

It must be the drugs you're taking because it's not me. You're the one who did it. Perhaps it would be better if you only replied to those who are looking for help when you are feeling better and not so bored, eh?


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Griffin Ceawlin wrote:

BTW. Thanks, Phil, for making this (HOT!) topic all about me.

It's my pleasure. But if you didn't do things so wrongly, you wouldn't get into HOT water :D

You do have a right to be unpleasant but don't forget that other people have a right to show you up when you do it. You'll no doubt remember that I'm not the only here who found fault with your post. I'm the only one who is sticking with it though, but that's because I enjoy watching someone try to squirm their way out of an error :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Griffin Ceawlin wrote:

No lad. You still haven't got it. It's not the suggestion to try Google, although, for prim counts, it's not really the method. Trying a seach engine is standard and there's nothing wrong with suggesting it. What you did wrong was the way you treated the OP. I'll quote you: "
In fact, OP also could have probably found the prim count (with the help of Google just like I did; but I'm not saying, on principle) in less time than it took them to type out their post.
"
Note that you said the OP could
probably
have found the prim count. When you tried it, you were lucky, but you made the point of not telling the OP what you knew
on principle
.
That was your error, and it's what I and others have found fault with. Soon afterwards you said that OP was lazy. You can't get out of it. You did it.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 1341 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...