Talk:Zug (website)/Archive 1

Deletion?

Why is this page allowed to exist, but The Sneeze was deleted? Makes absolutely no sense. The Sneeze is much more notable, and was much better organized. Thanks for the healthy dose of Hypocrisy. Cherryeater987 23:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The Criticism section is incredibly unnecessary. Seems like it's just the user's need to blast on Zug. Weasel words, opinion. Sixtimes 23:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It is necessary, the fact that every page of his site mentioned the book is worth noting, and the completely idiotic 'hacking' of the superbowl is the same. --Plankton5005 01:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this page could use a little cleanup. However, it's necessity cannot be denied; the article discusses a popular website which many users may feel compelled to 'look up'. As for the criticism issue, 'criticism' is inherently subjective. It should, and as far as I can tell, does, express the thoughts and feelings of various subgroups of individuals. Ghostwo 07:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Recently, Mr. Hargrave himself (or perhaps a site admin) created a link to a non-existent wikipedia entry [The "Super Stunt"] from the Zug.com homepage, I suppose as an attempt to use wikipedia's services as promotion for his own stuff. It was a dead link, so I had it redirect here. With front-page coverage on a major site, expect a ton of vandals over the days to come. Also, I did a bunch of work on the article last night, but somebody removed

"Recently, several fans and critics have claimed the continuous advertising of Mr. Hargrave's new book on the site has caused many of his former fans to turn away in disgust due to what they perceive as shameless self-promotion."

from the criticism section. It is a large piece of relevant text, and I disagree with its removal. It also puts the remaining text out-of-context; But I'll leave it out for now. Ghostwo 14:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that the "Super Stunt" article was not non-existent when it was linked on Zug.com -- I created the article yesterday, it was vandalized repeatedly, proposed for deletion, and then completely deleted by an admin, all in the space of a few hours. I was given no chance to address any of the issues mentioned on its AFD page due to the speed of the deletion (despite not a single vote for Speedy Deletion nor a Speedy Delete Template). --Notmydesk 15:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Zug.com has an Alexa ranking of 27,670 as of right now. Obviously this is speculation on my part because I don't have time to look up facts, but I would imagine that there are a number of websites ranked higher than that which do not warrant a wikipedia page, regardless of any Super Bowl "prank" pulled. This really does seem to me to just be another source of promotion for Mr. Hargrove. While I do personally enjoy the website in question, I don't feel that this article has much merit. --mradigan

Agreed on most points, but as for the merit of the article, if it ain't broke, why delete it? Ghostwo 03:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Then why was The Sneeze deleted? John Hargrave is a dumbshit and this article is worthless. --Plankton5005 08:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sir John Hargrave is a genius. You're just a bunch of worthless Wiki nerds. Must make you feel like a tough shit ripping on celebrities doesnt it? Bet you love bragging to all your friends about how you ripped Hargrave a new one on Wiki eh? Hahaha, just kidding, you don't have any friends.

Very neutral discussion here, haha Family Guy Guy 22:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Illegible message?

From the YouTube videos, it looks to me like the message was a fairly obvious "ZUG.COM"

That's because it's been photoshopped - look at the original image [1] --J2thawiki 11:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Super Stunt Hoax

It is obvious that Zug.com didn't cause a legible message to be shown in the stands of the Super Bowl. This is not disputed by them. However, they have an elaborate "how we did it" set of web pages and video purporting to show a failed attempt to do so. In all likelihood, the failed attempt itself didn't happen at all.

Through careful editing, they created an illusion of a Super Bowl security breach, then claimed the purpose the breach was thwarted by poor spectator participation (people didn't turn on their necklaces). They claim to have had thousands of light-up necklaces made, and have many pictures of boxes allegedly full of them, but only ever show one or two in any image at a time. They show the prank crew distributing necklaces at the Super Bowl by showing one guy with a box handing one package to one spectator. No image of a row of people examining the packages they've been handed or wearing the necklaces. Even the image of the stands which is supposed to show a pathetic handful of scattered lights is probably photoshopped.

People don't come to this conclusion right away because it's two-layered. The first layer is to claim they succeeded in showing a message at the Super Bowl. Then if you look around their pages, you'll see they admit the message wasn't successfully shown. At this point, the skeptic may be satisfied: he has found a lie. It is understandable that someone would try to do a big prank, and then would lie and claim to have succeeded. But he has only penetrated the first layer.

It is less expected that they would lie about even attempting a prank, and make such an elaborate effort to create the illusion of a failure. After all, these are supposed pranksters. Well, this isn't a prank. It's a hoax, and it's viral marketing for the site and the book. Sneaking big boxes into the Super Bowl, posing within as official staff, and getting out without a hitch would be an impressive and newsworthy accomplishment. It's also about ten times more expensive, thousands of times more likely to result in arrest on criminal charges, and infinitely more doomed to failure than making a web presentation merely claiming to have done so. Their goal is to get attention, any attention for any reason.

I can't prove all of this beyond any doubt (and until they admit it, I don't think this kind of explanation belongs in the entry), but material offered by admitted hoaxsters on a comedy website should be branded as such in the article, not referenced as if they were from a reliable source. Wikipedia got hoaxed, and we shouldn't let that happen. That's why I've been editing, and why I marked my edits with warnings to guard againt reversion or vandalism. Zug people or Zug admirers may continue to attempt to subvert Wikipedia for their viral marketing purposes. 24.79.7.152 17:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You may be right, however there are enough blurred images / videos showing some lights in the audience. Either way, it's not very good viral marketing as no media outlet cares (and not for reasons of "national security"!). The wiki article gets a bit hard to read tho if we have "alledgedly" everywhere so the less said about the hoax the better really - especially as there aren't any reliable sources. --J2thawiki 18:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to self righteous Wikipedia nerds to decide what did and did not happen.

Well said. Ghostwo 04:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

They tried to show a message, failed and are trying to cover it up. By showing a message that isn't there and saying "well we could have so there". --Plankton5005 06:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You are just jealous that you suck at Comedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.178.197 (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sir John Hargrave

I don't think he was officially knighted; according to sources I can find (Washington Post and Yahoo News), it appears he changed his name for a prank. —Snigbrook 13:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You'd be correct. --ToyoWolf (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

He wasn't officially knighted. He legally changed his first name to "Sir John". That's the whole point of his stunt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.229.130 (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)