Urban Dictionary is stupid...

Well, I knew it was stupid anyway, but I've done a little test to see just how stupid it was.

See, on UD, you can give a definition, and it can either be rejected or accepted. And through my test, it turns out that the process is totally random. Taking influence from a lot of stupid definitions on the site, I wrote the definition for "ubertoast"... which, as you can see, was accepted. Yes, you read that correctly: "ubertoast" was accepted as a definition on UD. Best part is, it was accepted after the exact same definition had been rejected.

Thoughts?

Yeah. It sucks. That's really all that needs to be said.

also, higher listed definitions are those with the most number of positive votes, not those with the highest ratio of positive to negative. So, it might go something like this:

• 1000 positive, 900 negative
• 950 positive, 80 negative

edited 12th Dec '09 7:05:18 PM by wanderlustwarrior

Meh. I find it's actually pretty useful for looking up slang, which is what it's supposed to be about. Yes, there's a lot of crap in there, but the proper definitions are pretty easy to find.

I think you added a zero there.

fix'd.

What process does a proposed definition go through to get approved?

What process does a proposed definition go through to get approved?

I don't know exactly what the process is. I've been told that "the editors" review the entry and decide whether to accept or decline it, but considering that I managed to get "ubertoast" accepted, I don't think "the editors" are people.

edited 13th Dec '09 8:39:42 AM by Lordnecronus

There is porn under the 'sex' definitions. Which is all I need to say.

There is porn under the 'sex' definitions.

Wait, what? I'd better check this out...

EDIT: Haven't found it. Where is the porn?

edited 16th Dec '09 1:50:19 AM by Lordnecronus

"also, higher listed definitions are those with the most number of positive votes, not those with the highest ratio of positive to negative."

I think sorting by highest ratio as opposed to highest number of positive votes would be a nice optional feature. However, if it was the default (or only) sorting method you would have the problem of a lot of newer definitions with one thumb up and zero down being at the top.

edited 16th Dec '09 4:47:59 PM by jaimeastorga2000

Here. Fourth definition. Then thirteenth, fourteenth, etc...

I think sorting by highest ratio as opposed to highest number of positive votes would be a nice optional feature. However, if it was the default (or only) sorting method you would have the problem of a lot of newer definitions with one thumb up and zero down being at the top.

Naive approaches to sorting by ratio have that problem, but there are less naive approaches. Some examples: sort by difference, sort by ratio with a threshold, invent a confidence metric based on ratio and # votes (i.e. 90/3 : 91% confidence; 1/0 : 50% confidence).

edited 30th Dec '09 11:18:09 AM by Nornagest

Instead of making value judgements about the site, I simply use it for what it's worth—explaining slang definitions.

I've been reading this "Urban Dictionary", and I have come to a few conclusions:

1) It is not a dictionary. It's an encyclopedia. A dictionary only deals with words in the English language, while an encyclopedia does all of this, but also gives a summary of people, events, animals etc... The Urban Dictionary fits the definition of the latter.

2) It is a generally unreliable website, since it gives opinions, rather than just definitions. The people on the site are very outspoken, and are quick to throw dirt at Justin Bieber and Twilight. A reliable encyclopedia/dictionary gives neutral, unbiased entries on different subjects, because people gain more knowledge about something when it's neutral than when the perception of something has been warped by people's biases.

3) It is an incredibly rude, derogatory website. The language is coarse like sandpaper, when a more reliable source of knowledge would keep the profanity low so people can access the knowledge more easily.

But the site is useful if you want to know the defintion of the word "sharting". Other than that, avoid. So what do you people think of it?

You can usually find what you need if you apply the right mental filters. I often check it because of slang used in songs, and can generally expect to get what I came for, deducing from the context what definition works.

Read the definition of the first name of someone you know, better yet someone you hate. Apparently, in urban dictionary land, having any name at all gives you more virtues and less flaws than the average Mary-Sue / Marty Stu. Oh, and most of the definitions are ridiculously obscene sexual acts made up by 12 year olds who fail biology forever. (Am I doing this trope name quoting right? >_>) Though it has helped me look up slang a few times.

Of course it's stupid, that's half the fun.

Of course it's stupid, that's half the fun.

Yeah, I do wonder if people go to places like the Onion and say similar.

Since when is The Onion stupid? It's got some of the most amazing, spot-on satire I've ever seen.

'Stupid' in the sense its not meant to be taking seriously. But, eh, this is a website where over half the DMOS pages are jokes people don't find funny. So whatever.

I go there whenever I need a good laugh

The website isn't a proper dictionary; it gives opinions instead of definitions. But it's useful if you want to know what "sharting" means.

Meh, what GMH said. I've never looked at UD for a definition I could find in just any dictionary, I'm even surprised it contains definition for people.

It just works really well at what I expect of it, and that's enough for me to keep it handy.

Urban Dictionary is useful for, by seeing the opinions people throw into it, gauging the general public opinion of things. Like, I have this natural tendency for some reason to have a lot of my characters smoke cigarettes, and often make the mistake of trying to use their preferred brand to define their character more. But what kind of person would smoke what brand?...well, turning to the urban dictionary seems to give some help in this regard. Also really helps with cars...UD gives a good selection of random positive and negative opinions on most types of cars. And bands. And places.

On the other hand, some most of the sex definitions are rather terrifying/absurd and I'm honestly not too sure whether most of them are even real.

For a good laugh (and a surprisingly accurate, if highly critical definition), look up dudebro or dude bro. It's a funny word anyway.

And yes, the rating up/down system makes no sense.