3 ms·

So if I'm understanding correctly, then what's the difference between (X,Y) being (least,most) and (most,least). Whats the criteria for the former vs latter?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ksaj 7y ago
I suspect they would have a room full of folks grading each one semi-arbitrarily based on a picture of one version of the logo. You'll notice they did tally percentages of specific flaws. And indeed it is those very flaws that I point out in another comment here, because it is clear the "judges" only had one specific version of a logo in mind to compare with. A LOT of the examples people drew up are actually faithful to existing versions of the logos. Eg: They faulted some for not having the word PUMA with the jumping cat logo. But many of the Puma sports shirts do only have the jumping cat on them, as do at least one pair of their shoes. They faulted another one for having the cat jumping in the wrong direction. Here's a single photo showing BOTH of these supposedly incorrect logo memories: https://www.ebay.ca/itm/New-Puma-Men-Tee-Sports-Training-football-Running-GYM-T-Shirt-Crew-Neck-Drycell-/112320007537 https://www.ebay.ca/itm/New-Puma-Men-Tee-Sports-Training-foo...
- RegnisGnaw 7y ago
  Thank you. I didn't even think of the logo variations, just the graph was confusing to me.
  - ksaj 7y ago
    I personally think the whole thing was bad science. The graph with arbitrary "data" just adds to the overall effect. The only result I think that would be valid from this, is that when asked about remembering logos, people are not mind readers. They do remember logos quite accurately for the most part, but what they remember is not necessarily the specific one the questioner remembers. I think both the links (Lego and Puma) I posted demonstrate this, while interesting enough, was pretty much a fluff article with very little scientific merit. Unless you were studying bias - then there's a whole lot of stuff worth studying in it.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ksaj 7y ago

I suspect they would have a room full of folks grading each one semi-arbitrarily based on a picture of one version of the logo. You'll notice they did tally percentages of specific flaws. And indeed it is those very flaws that I point out in another comment here, because it is clear the "judges" only had one specific version of a logo in mind to compare with. A LOT of the examples people drew up are actually faithful to existing versions of the logos. Eg: They faulted some for not having the word PUMA with the jumping cat logo. But many of the Puma sports shirts do only have the jumping cat on them, as do at least one pair of their shoes. They faulted another one for having the cat jumping in the wrong direction. Here's a single photo showing BOTH of these supposedly incorrect logo memories: https://www.ebay.ca/itm/New-Puma-Men-Tee-Sports-Training-football-Running-GYM-T-Shirt-Crew-Neck-Drycell-/112320007537 https://www.ebay.ca/itm/New-Puma-Men-Tee-Sports-Training-foo...

RegnisGnaw 7y ago
Thank you. I didn't even think of the logo variations, just the graph was confusing to me.
- ksaj 7y ago
  I personally think the whole thing was bad science. The graph with arbitrary "data" just adds to the overall effect. The only result I think that would be valid from this, is that when asked about remembering logos, people are not mind readers. They do remember logos quite accurately for the most part, but what they remember is not necessarily the specific one the questioner remembers. I think both the links (Lego and Puma) I posted demonstrate this, while interesting enough, was pretty much a fluff article with very little scientific merit. Unless you were studying bias - then there's a whole lot of stuff worth studying in it.