So, I was being annoyed by Norton Antivirus being on a computer, because said computer runs like barely runs at all, and the general opinion I've gathered of Norton is that it is a resource hog, not actually very effective, causes other software to crash, and makes the crashes behave more annoyingly than a crash normally would. So, then I thought, I wonder if there's some way I can measure the general low opinion of various antivirus software. At first I thought maybe just searching for the product and seeing what opinions came up on early pages, but basically all you get that way is shops selling it and some shills. So then I thought, I know, something like a googlewhack game. How about the ratio between the number of occurrences of the software name and the number of pages the software name shares with the word 'fuck', as in "fuck Norton Antivirus"? I also found an antivirus review site to see whether the world's apparent annoyance level matches up with the reviewers' opinions at all. Thus:
| Pages | Fucked | Fuck/Page | Review score | Norton Antivirus | 2660000 | 810000 | 30.5% | 21.5 | AVG Antivirus | 2670000 | 595000 | 22.3% | 22.5 | BitDefender Antivirus | 2220000 | 222000 | 10.0% | 28 | McAfee Antivirus | 2520000 | 399000 | 15.8% | 20.5 | PC-cillin Antivirus | 2160000 | 93700 | 4.3% | 22 |
While performing these searches, though, I noticed that several of the top 'fuck' pages tended to resemble the form "fuck Norton Antivirus, use X instead." So I thought, hm, I wonder what the intersection is. To be fair, there are several that are of the form "fuck Norton Antivirus and fuck AVG" too, for example, but still, the numbers are compelling:
| Fuck | Norton and fuck | Norton/fuck | Norton-unrelated fuckrate | Adjusted fuck/page | AVG Antivirus | 595000 | 311000 | 52.3% | 47.7% | 10.6% | BitDefender Antivirus | 222000 | 204000 | 91.9% | 8.1% | 0.8% | McAfee Antivirus | 399000 | 288000 | 72.2% | 27.8% | 4.4% | PC-cillin Antivirus | 93700 | 61200 | 65.3% | 34.7% | 1.5% |
Draw your own conclusions. Also draw your own graphs.
[20:44]
|