>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^shuac:
So much more charming than that dullard Stewart.

I was about to comment as much, but I actually like that Stewart doesn't give a fuck about this shit. Should we really be complimenting people who are good at navigating bullshit talk shows well? I can't think of a more useless skill.
Also to be completely fair The Hunger Games is a much less horrible thing to be attached to than Twilight.
EDIT: It's also nice that Jennifer has some thickness to her, she reminds me of a young(er) Lindsay Lohan...ya know when she was in Mean Girls and wasn't awful.

I agree with both of you. She is much better and more engaging than Kristen Stewart, but I also love that she's terrible at it, that she's far too awkward and weird of a person to be able to be polished and refined in interviews. I really think KS is a down to earth soul and gets too much of a hard time. Jennifer Lawrence is just cool.

Oh Fuck off and pick a side! Team Bella or Team Katniss?

No you fuck off! Ok, I pick Team Katniss. (Fuck you for asking)


Fuck you for answering!

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^alien_concept:
>> ^Yogi:
>> ^shuac:
So much more charming than that dullard Stewart.

I was about to comment as much, but I actually like that Stewart doesn't give a fuck about this shit. Should we really be complimenting people who are good at navigating bullshit talk shows well? I can't think of a more useless skill.
Also to be completely fair The Hunger Games is a much less horrible thing to be attached to than Twilight.
EDIT: It's also nice that Jennifer has some thickness to her, she reminds me of a young(er) Lindsay Lohan...ya know when she was in Mean Girls and wasn't awful.

I agree with both of you. She is much better and more engaging than Kristen Stewart, but I also love that she's terrible at it, that she's far too awkward and weird of a person to be able to be polished and refined in interviews. I really think KS is a down to earth soul and gets too much of a hard time. Jennifer Lawrence is just cool.

Oh Fuck off and pick a side! Team Bella or Team Katniss?


No you fuck off! Ok, I pick Team Katniss. (Fuck you for asking)

>> ^alien_concept:

>> ^Yogi:
>> ^shuac:
So much more charming than that dullard Stewart.

I was about to comment as much, but I actually like that Stewart doesn't give a fuck about this shit. Should we really be complimenting people who are good at navigating bullshit talk shows well? I can't think of a more useless skill.
Also to be completely fair The Hunger Games is a much less horrible thing to be attached to than Twilight.
EDIT: It's also nice that Jennifer has some thickness to her, she reminds me of a young(er) Lindsay Lohan...ya know when she was in Mean Girls and wasn't awful.

I agree with both of you. She is much better and more engaging than Kristen Stewart, but I also love that she's terrible at it, that she's far too awkward and weird of a person to be able to be polished and refined in interviews. I really think KS is a down to earth soul and gets too much of a hard time. Jennifer Lawrence is just cool.


Oh Fuck off and pick a side! Team Bella or Team Katniss?

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^shuac:
So much more charming than that dullard Stewart.

I was about to comment as much, but I actually like that Stewart doesn't give a fuck about this shit. Should we really be complimenting people who are good at navigating bullshit talk shows well? I can't think of a more useless skill.
Also to be completely fair The Hunger Games is a much less horrible thing to be attached to than Twilight.
EDIT: It's also nice that Jennifer has some thickness to her, she reminds me of a young(er) Lindsay Lohan...ya know when she was in Mean Girls and wasn't awful.


I agree with both of you. She is much better and more engaging than Kristen Stewart, but I also love that she's terrible at it, that she's far too awkward and weird of a person to be able to be polished and refined in interviews. I really think KS is a down to earth soul and gets too much of a hard time. Jennifer Lawrence is just cool.

>> ^shuac:

So much more charming than that dullard Stewart.


I was about to comment as much, but I actually like that Stewart doesn't give a fuck about this shit. Should we really be complimenting people who are good at navigating bullshit talk shows well? I can't think of a more useless skill.

Also to be completely fair The Hunger Games is a much less horrible thing to be attached to than Twilight.

EDIT: It's also nice that Jennifer has some thickness to her, she reminds me of a young(er) Lindsay Lohan...ya know when she was in Mean Girls and wasn't awful.

>> ^HugeJerk:

J.J. Abrams does a good job of finding interesting show ideas, putting together a decent cast, getting a budget for a good looking production... and then leaves the shows to writers who have no idea on where they are going to take it, so it ends up a confusing mess that never has a satisfying pay-off.


I was thinking the same thing. When the preview first started I was like 'oh this is a good idea!' But by the end I was thinking 'contrite, cliched, waste of an idea with some useless Hunger Games adaptations.'

I just have a feeling this is Walking Dead all over again. For fans of that show this is IMHO but they took a great comic and a good starting point and threw it out of the window in favor of horrid acting, massive plot-holes and soap opera style cliched writing.

And people wonder why I prefer british TV. Better writing, better acting, shows actually feature mature plot lines with depth and character. Shows like Walking Dead would have been fantastic if a UK producer had gotten a hold of it.

>> ^Engels:

Oh look, formulaic drek leaping in to exploit the hunger games mania! Yay!

I need another girl with a bow like I need another arrow to the knee. THUNK, OW!
Okay, I might have deserved that.

and while I'm at it, Chevy Chase sucks!

actually, no, I can't say that. He's awesome on Community

>> ^Fletch:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^Fletch:
>> ^Engels:
Oh look, formulaic drek leaping in to exploit the hunger games mania! Yay!

Requisite nonsensical contrarian vomitus. I'm guessing SNL hasn't been funny since the seventies, either.

IMHO, SNL was never funny. It had funny people, some of whom went on to do funny things, but the show itself was always mediocre.

[whoosh!]

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^Fletch:
>> ^Engels:
Oh look, formulaic drek leaping in to exploit the hunger games mania! Yay!

Requisite nonsensical contrarian vomitus. I'm guessing SNL hasn't been funny since the seventies, either.

IMHO, SNL was never funny. It had funny people, some of whom went on to do funny things, but the show itself was always mediocre.

[whoosh!]

>> ^Fletch:

>> ^Engels:
Oh look, formulaic drek leaping in to exploit the hunger games mania! Yay!

Requisite nonsensical contrarian vomitus. I'm guessing SNL hasn't been funny since the seventies, either.


IMHO, SNL was never funny. It had funny people, some of whom went on to do funny things, but the show itself was always mediocre.

>> ^Engels:

Oh look, formulaic drek leaping in to exploit the hunger games mania! Yay!

Requisite nonsensical contrarian vomitus. I'm guessing SNL hasn't been funny since the seventies, either.

Oh look, formulaic drek leaping in to exploit the hunger games mania! Yay!

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

You make some good points. I've thought about it quite a bit too. The first thing we should stipulate is that *a lot* of Google searches are about sex. The other point is that most of the time when people do search for sexy stuff on Google - they don't realise that Google Safe Search is enabled by default.

VideoSift doesn't have adult content so it falls in the realm of the Safe Search "Safe" sites. What people are really looking for are the search results that come up when Safe Search is disabled. The set of pages returned with sexual keywords that are "safe" is a much smaller set, so we rise to the top of the list. That's whay I think is going on.

>> ^Sagemind:

Hmm, I'm shocked that those are the top search words that bring people here.
BUT I want to know why. What is it about our search results in Google that makes us the destination for those searches?
People search for all kinds of crap, and I know šë× is one of them. But there must be something in the site that makes us a target for those search results.
I think some search strategies are needed here. Of all the videos people search for, I know those are not the only video searches. So why are those specific ones, the ones that result in VideoSift? Has anyone looked into this? Seven of the top 10 search words were rape related. No one is looking for other stuff? That seems strange to me.
Rape and Hunger Games. Really?
Something is broken - look closer at Google, don't blame the audience. Why are those searches not being led to sites that include that sort of content (does that exist?) - why are they being routed here?
The Google search is broken if it's sending those requests here to this site - that doesn't have that content.
>> ^dag:
Top 10 Google search terms that lead people to VideoSift. Here we go, for the past 30 days in descending order of popularity:
rape videos
rape video
hunger games trailer
rape scene
rape
irreversible
irreversible rape scene
rape scenes
inside vagina
There's our non-logged-in audience and it's kind of depressing. Google is 45% of our traffic. Fuck them.

Hmm, I'm shocked that those are the top search words that bring people here.
BUT I want to know why. What is it about our search results in Google that makes us the destination for those searches?
People search for all kinds of crap, and I know šë× is one of them. But there must be something in the site that makes us a target for those search results.

I think some search strategies are needed here. Of all the videos people search for, I know those are not the only video searches. So why are those specific ones, the ones that result in VideoSift? Has anyone looked into this? Seven of the top 10 search words were rape related. No one is looking for other stuff? That seems strange to me.

Rape and Hunger Games. Really?
Something is broken - look closer at Google, don't blame the audience. Why are those searches not being led to sites that include that sort of content (does that exist?) - why are they being routed here?

The Google search is broken if it's sending those requests here to this site - that doesn't have that content.

>> ^dag:

Top 10 Google search terms that lead people to VideoSift. Here we go, for the past 30 days in descending order of popularity:
rape videos
rape video
hunger games trailer
rape scene
rape
irreversible
irreversible rape scene
rape scenes
inside vagina
There's our non-logged-in audience and it's kind of depressing. Google is 45% of our traffic. Fuck them.

Anyone else curious about the ranking for "irreversible hunger games rape inside vagina scene"?