Just a house: Streisand Effect

It doesn't show the trope. Saying it's the thing that caused the effect doesn't mean much if you don't know that.

It shouldn't have been pulled yet, at any rate...the votes aren't nearly enough to justify not letting this crowner run a full week.

edited 8th Jan '12 9:39:31 PM by Willbyr

What harm? Setting a bad precedent.

Specifically, throwing up a picture of the trope namer instead of finding a good image, which people will use as a bludgeon to try and defend an image from their fandom.

The picture is fine. There is no 'bad precedcent' here. The article is about the house, or at least about the over reaction to its being photo'd. The funny comes from it (the house) now being iconic of the failure to forbid people from photoing a building.

edited 9th Jan '12 5:03:08 AM by FastEddie

The bad precedent is that is exactly Just A Face And A Caption.

I thought the article was about the effect, not the house. What is the difference between that image, and this◊ for Xanatos Gambit?

edited 9th Jan '12 10:00:16 AM by rodneyAnonymous

The house is funny.

But it's not about the house. The house is just the Trope Namer. It should be pulled for exactly the same reason Jayne was pulled from I Call Her "Vera" (and, incidentally, both should be renamed for the same reason, too).

The house is only funny for those in the know - making it an exquisite example of JAFAAC and Fan Myopia. And it sets a bad precedent because it's permitting a really, really good example of JAFAAC (well, JAHAAC anyway) to slide.

We put them in the know. The article and image work together real well. Why don't we move on to something that actually needs doing?

It is not JAAFAC. That is rules based thinking.

edited 10th Jan '12 11:03:42 AM by FastEddie

It is not rules-based thinking. I am pretty good at avoiding the algorithm approach and treating each page image as a unique problem, if I do say so myself. And I don't understand how that's not exactly "just a face and a caption".

Seems like the only possible argument would be that JAFAAC is okay here; not that this isn't that, because it totally is. Or "because I said so"...

edited 10th Jan '12 12:51:40 PM by rodneyAnonymous

I'd never heard of The Streisand Effect or this incident before checking out this thread, so I very much doubt my defense of the current image is based on Fan Myopia. But the picture and caption together immediately told me what the trope was and why it was called that, much more quickly than the page description could have done. That's a good image in my book.

^Bingo. The article works as is.

This is absolutely correct.

Fast Eddie: it's your site. If you want to change the rules, that's fine. But under our current definition of JAFAAC, that is what this image is.

You under the impression I wrote JAAFAC? Not the case. I'll remove that sentence, then, since it is causing confusion.

Edit to add: There, that's seen to. I think I'm seeing where the confusion is coming from. Page images are illustrations of the trope, not examples. Seems like the distinction is difficult for some people.

This house illustrates the idea given in the article. A star thinks they can control the media to the extent that something as big as this house, probably visible from space, will somehow go unphoto'd, just because the star doesn't want them to. Hubris to da max. So far out that it virtually assure it will be photo'd.

JAFFAC was written to let me people know that not everyone shares the referents from a given work, so it doesn't illustrate the trope.

edited 10th Jan '12 3:09:01 PM by FastEddie

I will point out that everything on that page is there to prevent fan myopic images from making a comeback.

Do you think there is some contingent of architecture fans that are suddenly going to start using buildings to illustrate tropes? Nope. Everyone is familiar with houses. I don't have to watch a particular show to get it.

edited 10th Jan '12 3:14:13 PM by FastEddie

No (though you never know), but I think it's a bad precedent to set.

It is not a precedent. JAFFAC does not apply at all.

Please give an examplre of how this could have anything to do with JAFFAC.

edited 10th Jan '12 3:15:37 PM by FastEddie

Regarding the earlier comment that this page should be renamed, I would like to point out that "Streisand Effect" is not a term we invented, but is in fact the real-world name for this phenomenon. So no, it should not be renamed.

Eddie, if you wanna declare this one a "keep by admin request", you'll get no argument from me; I've actually come around to thinking this one's not bad enough to pull.

It is not by fiat, though. So, no. It shouldn't change, but for the good reasons given, not that I was giving them.

I'd never heard of The Streisand Effect or this incident before checking out this thread, so I very much doubt my objection to the current image is based on Fan Myopia. I didn't get the picture and caption together until after I understood what the trope was about. That's a bad image in my book.

(Also, it's not just one sentence, it's the whole article.)

Okay, my patience on this is exhausted. I'm going to honor the crowner, pull the pic, and lock this up.

I reversed that. Change was not needed.

edited 12th Jan '12 11:01:11 AM by FastEddie