Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CocodaMonkey t1_ixr98lg wrote

Reply to comment by AerodynamicBrick in 22-year-old rescue pup is crowned the oldest living dog on Earth by Guinness World Records by spiritoffff

I wouldn't call them corrupt. Sure they take money to publish your records but they don't lie. The records they have are to their knowledge actually the best. They won't publish you as the best at something if they have other records showing someone is better.

I think you're just putting too much into Guinness. It started as a way to settle bar bets by actually recording records. It's not some fine tuned research organization that does extensive research. They just record the best they see and charge you for it.

66

the_starship t1_ixrzcls wrote

You can buy records that are exclusive to you. If I wanted to I could have the Guinness World Record for most karma awarded to a reddit user with the word Starship in the name. Then if someone else attempts to break that record, Guinness would say they no longer accept submissions for that record

−5

CocodaMonkey t1_ixs0343 wrote

I agree with most of your comment. Your last sentence is wrong though, anyone else could buy that record if they could beat it and Guinness would let them.

4

the_starship t1_ixs0sj5 wrote

There are regular records like the oldest cat and tallest building then there are corporate awards that are used for PR and are created exclusively for that company. No one else can obtain that exact record ever again.

2

CocodaMonkey t1_ixs1e61 wrote

So? Do you have an example of where that's a problem? If the award was first person to get a Guinness record at Microsoft that would be a single time award as nobody else could ever be first but who cares? If someone wants to pay to have that let them.

2

Tietonz t1_ixtoskx wrote

>So? Do you have an example of where that's a problem?

It's not a problem because world records don't really mean anything tangible and they've always been irrelevant, only mattering to people who decide they matter. Which is fine.

It does mean Guinness as a record holding company is illegitimate and any discussion about them should be brought up with that caveat.

1

CocodaMonkey t1_ixv03ax wrote

Your statement doesn't make any logical sense. Listing records you don't care about in no way makes them an illegitimate record holding company. The records they hold are all real and they try to validate them. That's really all anyone wants from a record holding company.

1

AerodynamicBrick t1_ixrayk4 wrote

Yes, it its a meaningless bar betting book. But, we have a responsibility to expect unbiased information in all aspects of our lives though.

At large if we neglect to have conversations like these, greed will cement itself as standard.

−13

CocodaMonkey t1_ixrgg71 wrote

I don't see greed here. They are what they say they are. It's a business, they have ethics and they stick to them. Paying to have a record entered isn't corruption, it's a business.

Doing Guiness in the way people think they want is impossible. It's also not how any records work. Even world records for sports only count if done according to the rules of a major sports body which also costs money. Very few records can we actually say for certain are truly the record, just the best we ever recorded.

18

[deleted] t1_ixrp4y9 wrote

[deleted]

−2

CocodaMonkey t1_ixrq9e9 wrote

Like I said, I don't see a problem. Who cares if they recognize an obscure category? If you want to pay them to recognize you are the best at riding a tricycle on top of a moving bus while eating a hotdog and singing opera then so be it. I see absolutely no problem with that. You get your record, Guinness gets their money and absolutely nobody was hurt.

As for the human rights issue. I've not heard anything about it in regards to Guinness but I could believe it. What organization doesn't accept money from people who violate human rights? I don't think there's a single organization that records records that doesn't.

2

[deleted] t1_ixrrz51 wrote

[deleted]

−2

CocodaMonkey t1_ixrvt9u wrote

What is in stark contrast with how they portray themselves? Nothing you said goes against Guinness branding.

Honestly you seem really mad about Guinness not being a crusader for world peace. They don't claim to be, nobody expects them to be and they aren't. You can be as high and mighty as you want about human right abuses but bear in mind you're typing that complaint on a device which was made at least in part by a company that committed human right abuses so you're also complicit.

Most people (and companies) accept money from people who pay them for a service. Very few actually care how the person/company got the money originally. You can complain about it all you like but you're so far down the chain that it doesn't matter. Literally everyone does it.

3

[deleted] t1_ixsfhgv wrote

[deleted]

1

CocodaMonkey t1_ixthov8 wrote

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say. I think it was "Guinness is bad for recognizing accomplishments from countries you don't like".

I'm really not trying to be mean to you but you're just repeating the same thing over and over with more words. Your point is fine I guess but it's just nitpicky. No sport between countries, no tech company, no multinational company in existence is good under your view. Which is an opinion you can have but if you want to take that hard-line stance what are you doing using a device capable of posting on Reddit? You're betraying your ethics.

I'm not saying Guinness is good. It's just as far as known brands go they aren't even in the top thousand to pick on. Having a Guinness record means pretty much jack shit globally. Best use case is as a pickup line. You're assigning vastly too much responsibility to Guinness.

1