YTMND talk:Definition of a fad

Jump to: navigation, search

What makes a fad to me

Personally, I feel like fads are things that come along naturally and are generally approved of at their inception. I also think it officially becomes a fad after 5 sites that are generally approved of have been made by different people . I define "generally approved" as "gets onto the U+C with more than 20 votes.
A FORCED fad is when 1 or a few individuals make dozens of a site despite the general audience disliking those sites and just continuing it until it becomes known, like with Moonman. Gabbly is another good example. The sites, if they make the U+C, rarely stay long due to general disinterest or dislike from the voting community. --MrStump 01:34, June 15, 2009 (CDT)

The purpose of this page

The reason why I'd like to know what a fad specifically is is because there is none — technically, anything with enough search results qualifies as a fad. As a result, there are about fifty seven billion fads, some more faddy than the other. There are some that are undeniably fads, and those that are questionably fads. This is confusing. Using this discussion page, I'd like to come up with the single definition of a YTMND fad. Please list your ideas below (and sign each of your comments by typing "~~~~" without the quotes). Messedrocker 01:36, July 22, 2006 (CDT)

Reparodied many times

When it's reparodied many times, I see it as a fad. It's Smiddle, LOL | What is Talk Page? 01:58, July 22, 2006 (CDT)

Well, that's a given. I believe that when the final definition is laid out, that should be like the preamble or something. What I'm looking for is specific figures. Messedrocker 02:15, July 22, 2006 (CDT)


Fad of The Moment. Truely there will be sites that will be popular one moment, then suddenly be taken out by some new fad. They'll still be around, and overkilled. Much like lol, ___ and Epics. Yet Eon8 was once a Fad of the Moment, then it was replaced with another. Inventigation YTMNDs are pretty laid back now, because around the time Smoothmedia made his YTMND on Scientology, people parodied it. Not occuring anymore. Scientology as a whole seem to be down on YTMND. Stuff in your stuff is popular Fad of the Moment. Rest the stuff seems to be NARV stuff, or just not funny. --Zepear 20:02, September 14, 2006 (CDT)

Repeated ad nauseum

I'd say a fad is something that used to be funny but has been repeated so many times that it now boils your blood to even think about it, let alone see it. Max 19:58, July 22, 2006 (CDT)

That's actually something that could be added to the definition: "YTMNDs incorporating basic elements of a fad are bound to attract at least a small level of criticism for including the fad." Messedrocker 20:01, July 22, 2006 (CDT)

anything i hate is a fad. j.s. bach would have used the phrase "variations on a theme." Jon 20:34, July 22, 2006 (CDT)

it's like pornography: i know it when i see it. Jon 14:07, July 23, 2006 (CDT)

I think that's the gist of the definition of a fad. IMO, there's a difference between a fad and a trend. Where a fad gets so popular that it becomes redundant and annoying. A trend is a fad, without the drop of popularity most fads get. --LBMixPro<lol, talk page> 21:24, July 23, 2006 (CDT)
Yeah, but try introducing "trend" into the YTMND lexicon. Messedrocker 19:35, July 25, 2006 (CDT)
So the term fad is basically YTMND slang. k --LBMixPro<lol, talk page> 20:46, August 2, 2006 (CDT)


I think what's more important than the repetitiveness of a fad is the, well, fad-like nature of a fad's popularity. People make Cosby sites these days because Cosby sites are the cool thing to do, and when Cosby sites stop appearing on Up and Coming and the Top 15, people will make sites about something else. On the other hand, DYTMND was never a fad because even though there were fifty of those damn things, it was all the same guy making them trying to convince people it was the next big thing. For that matter, "The internet is for porn" isn't a fad either--as popular as it is, it's never really inspired a lot of spinoff sites. --Jim Smith 20:12, July 22, 2006 (CDT)

Fads shouldn't be excluded because it was primarily one person -- the Cosby fad was primarily motivated by Kassius's constant Cosby YTMNDs. Though it can be argued that there was a cosby fad before Kassius's reincarnation, and that after he got involved, everyone else did. However, I agree that there needs to be plenty of spinoffs and it has to be featured as Up-and-Coming, Top Rated, or Top Viewed. However, what needs to be disambiguated is the number of people that need to get involved in order to make it a fad. Messedrocker 20:39, July 22, 2006 (CDT)
I'm not saying we should excluse fads driven by a single user, only the ones that never managed to attract more than a handful of imitators. If I remember correctly all the Cake Song YTMNDs were initially by the same user, but eventually it won users over until it became a true fad. That's what separates fads from Joshcube's failed attempts to start fads. --Jim Smith 20:45, July 22, 2006 (CDT)
Yeah, I managed to grasp that, but I'm just making sure. Would you like to respond to the other suggestions? Messedrocker 20:52, July 22, 2006 (CDT)
About forporn, even if it's not a fad, it's still an important YTMND, and part of many YTMND fad compilations. Fads become important YTMNDs through repetition, while others like TIIFP and Picard become important without that.
Personally, I think something becomes an "official" YTMND fad when it gets included with other YTMNDs in compilations like bushdoesntcareaboutytmnd. Both Picard and TIIFP are in there, even without a billion sites about them. It's all about acceptance. TTEchidna 14:50, August 1, 2006 (CDT)

Specific figures

Would anyone like to make specific figures of a fad? Like how many page views the original got? Or number of pages of results? Messedrocker 20:53, July 22, 2006 (CDT)

Pages of results doesn't always work, for example the lol fad and the What is love fad. Searching lol YTMNDs gets you more than "lol internet" YTMNDs, and what is YTMNDs brings you nothing. It's Smiddle, LOL | What is Talk Page? 05:07, July 23, 2006 (CDT)
Perhaps then we can use a meticulously-planned Google Test involved instead of YTMND search? 62,900 results for "what is" restricted to YTMNDs (and excluding meta content like profiles or YTMND wiki). Messedrocker 12:55, July 23, 2006 (CDT)
Addendum: While naturally, some non-fads that use the term "what is" will leak through, a majority will probably relate to the fad. But Google hits is not the only specific figure I'm looking for — what about other things like page views? As a last resort, we may force the "lol internet" fad into the definition because we acknowledge the fad status but there's no way of testing it. Messedrocker 13:02, July 23, 2006 (CDT)

Suggested Fad Criteria

Apologies if I screw this up. I've never commented to a wiki discussion before.

Sacrelige as it may be, I disagree with Max that fads must be, by definition, annoying. For example, I consider any and all sites featuring Sean Connery and the "You're the man now, dog" soundbyte to be part of one massive fad based on the original YTMND. Obviously, folks must not find this too irritating, or they wouldn't keep visiting the site that inspired it.

This is just me shooting the breeze, but I'd define a fad by the following criteria:

1) It has to be somewhat widespread. The other day, I created a site and someone made their own NEDM version of it an hour later, saying it was part of a "fad" I'd started. I'm flattered, of course, but one site does not a fad make. I don't know what the magic number is, but it's definitely greater than two. And they can't all be made by the same guy. That's not a fad, it's a motif, or an unhealthy obsession.

By definition, a fad is a trend which gets very popular for a while before suddenly becoming redunant and unpopular -- a dead fad to say. --LBMixPro<lol, talk page> 21:21, July 23, 2006 (CDT)

2) The sites that are part of that fad all have to have common elements. "Epic Manuever" is an obvious fad because all the sites have the same features in common: the title, the music, and the the outlandish action going on in the image. You could make an Epic Manuever site that only involved some of these elements and still be recognized as part of the fad, but this is why users will inevitably leave comments demanding you change the music to "Nighwish" or get the title right.

By contrast, Darth Vader has inspired at least two noteworthy fads on YTMND: "NOOOOOO!" sites, and "Vader Sings!" sites where the music is altered to resemble his deep voice. Just because Vader is involved with both concepts doesn't make them the same fad. The same goes for all the Superman-related YTMNDs. You don't look at a Supercat site and think of "WRONG!", or the infamous artwork of Clark Kent undressing behind a young boy.

3) The fad has to be identifiable. This is kind of self-evident, but I point it out because one could technically describe "animated gifs" as one giant superfad. I don't think this counts, because the description is too general. "5'ed for using a 22khz mp3." No one ever says that. "Crappy inside jokes" are widespread and all feature the same elements, but this isn't a fad, it's just coincidence. For a group of sites to be a fad, there has to be something deliberately the same about them that you can immediately notice.

This is what separates PTKFGS from YESYES. While they both use the same joke, each fad uses different watermarks and page titles to distinguish one from the other. Meanwhile, the so-called "4th Universe" has never crystallized into anything specific, because there's no consensus on what to call it. No identity, no fad. I find it kind of dumb that we should even have three different "alternate universe" fads, but that seems to be the way it works.

Anyway, that's my two cents on how fads work, for what it's worth.--Mike Smith 10:01, July 23, 2006 (CDT)

I like all these suggestions by people, because they don't contradict each other. Instead, they can work together to help define a central definition for a YTMND fad. Messedrocker 13:03, July 23, 2006 (CDT)


I have drafted a definition of a YTMND fad. Please make corrections and copyedits when applicable and tell me what you think of it. Messedrocker 00:16, August 6, 2006 (CDT)

Killing off current events

We're going to need a rule to not catalog each and every fad based on a current event or else this whole wiki is going to get bloated with So and So Got Owned, Person X Said Funny Shit on TV, This Guy Lost an Election/Football Game/etc. YTMND wiki isn't a news source and on the off chance that there's somebody who doesn't realize that "NEW ORLENS GOT PWNT BY A HRUCIANE," there are thousands of sites dedicated and better equipped to explain that. It also separates true YTMND fads from two-day flash in the pan shit that isn't worth commenting on from a YTMND perspective. Can I get some love on this?

People still find them funny because they remember the event. Most of these current events don't spawn lasting fads anyway. Gerkuman 13:24, September 6, 2006 (CDT)

So you agree we can kill the current event articles?--Inkdrinker 13:30, September 6, 2006 (CDT)

Simultaneous creation vs. true fad for news sites

Most news sites aren't fads, even if there are tons of them out. They don't latch onto an idea or theme and run with it like YTMND fads. Instead, it's just 20 people all commenting simultaneously on the same thing because they saw it on the news. I think we should kill articles over news-related "fads" when there's very little YTMND added to the style of these sites.

Example: England Got Owned - a few soccer fans comment on England's loss in the Cup simultaneously. None of it influences the other sites or exists outside this brief blip on the radar. Not a fad.

Hurricane Katrina - frequent use of "Rock You Like a Hurricane," the looter/finder split (and the looter himself) were used in Non-Katrina sites, etc. In this case, YTMND left a mark on the sites that continued into others. Fad.--Inkdrinker 09:56, September 7, 2006 (CDT)


So I suppose you could say a fad is:

A high profile, widespread collection of sites made by several, unaffiliated users based upon a central meme. The collective creation and/or existence of aforementioned sites influences the basis of the original meme and subsequent sites made in reference of it.

I think this covers most fads pretty well. Poland -> Polend. NEDM. You could elaborate on further points. Ex - "high profile" reads: multiple sites on the front page at a time etc. Ex: User like/dislike of fads. Or whatev'.--605Scorpion

Standards for classification of fads on the Wiki

I think what messedrocker is asking for, and what would be good for us to have, is a standard for officially classifying things as fads here at the wiki. Here's my proposal:

A full-blown fad must have at least 30 sites by at least 10 different users.

A mini-fad must have at least 8 sites by at least 4 different users.

What do you guys think? ScndPistonHonda 02:48, December 8, 2006 (CST)


I like the proposal, Honda, but don't you think thats a bit lenient? How about say;

A full-blown Fad must have 40 sites by 25 different users

A Mini-fad must have at least 12 sites by at least 10 different users