The Amazing Race   American Idol   The Apprentice   The Bachelor   The Bachelorette   Big Brother   The Biggest Loser
Dancing with the Stars   So You Think You Can Dance   Survivor   Top Model   The Voice   The X Factor       Reality TV World
   
Reality TV World Message Board Forums
PLEASE NOTE: The Reality TV World Message Boards are filled with desperate attention-seekers pretending to be one big happy PG/PG13-rated family. Don't be fooled. Trying to get everyone to agree with you is like herding cats, but intolerance for other viewpoints is NOT welcome and respect for other posters IS required at all times. Jump in and play, and you'll soon find out how easy it is to fit in, but save your drama for your mama. All members are encouraged to read the complete guidelines. As entertainment critic Roger Ebert once said, "If you disagree with something I write, tell me so, argue with me, correct me--but don't tell me to shut up. That's not the American way."
"spoiler or not???? source code"
Email this topic to a friend
Printer-friendly version of this topic
Bookmark this topic (Registered users only)
Archived thread - Read only 
Previous Topic | Next Topic 
Conferences Survivor Spoilers Forum (Protected)
Original message

wildcamper 38 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Beauty Pageant Celebrity Judge"

03-11-01, 05:08 PM (EST)
Click to EMail wildcamper Click to send private message to wildcamper Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
"spoiler or not???? source code"
SORRY THIS SPOILER COMES STRAIT FROM
www.survivorsucks.com


We've received some very interesting information from SurvivorSucks.com
Message Board poster flutiefan227. This news is similar to last season's
CAPLOCK Gervase X "spoiler," which was also first posted on our Survivor Message
Board.

flutiefan227, ever the good sleuth, was poking around on CBS's Survivor Web
site. (Does this sound familiar to anyone?) When viewing the source code for
the Final Words Page and the Chat Archive Page, there's evidence that CBS's
Web designers might have been a little careless.

Specifically, they have imbedded hidden placeholders for the remaining castaways
(those not yet voted out) in the HTML code. There are seven of nine castaway
names hidden in the code. The missing two? Amber and Elisabeth. Why would
these two not need placeholders? Some suspect it's because they are the Final
Two, and have no need for them.

We have since gone to the CBS Web site and verified that the information is true:
flutiefan227's report is accurate. Here's the HTML code in text form for
verification:

Final Words HTML Code
Chat Archive HTML Code

If you look at the code, you'll notice a couple of interesting points. First, the
Final Words Code. Everyone is listed except for Amber and Elisabeth. Those
already voted off, Jeff, Michael*, Kimmi, Mitchell, Maralyn, Kel, and Debb, are
outwardly visible on the Final Words Page, with links to the text and a video of
their Final Words. Hidden in the code, we find those yet to be voted off, minus
Amber and Elisabeth. They are Alicia, Colby, Jerri, Keith, Nick, Rodger, and
Tina. These seven are listed in the code in alphabetical order. If you'd like to
verify this for yourself, view the Final Words Code. It is important to note that the
placeholders for these seven will be "commented out," signified by "<!--" before
their info, and "-->" after their code. These HTML comment tags hide the
information from your browser. It's still there, it just doesn't get displayed. It is
also important to note that this hidden list only appears in this week's pages -
Week Seven. In prior weeks, the remaining castaways are not hidden in the
code, and no one has a placeholder.

Similarly, we have the Chat Archive Code, with one major difference. On this
page, Jeff is still hidden in the code with the other seven remaining castaways, as
his chat has not yet occurred - only the first six voted out who have completed
their chat sessions are outwardly visible on the Chat Archive Page. Jeff, like the
others who are hidden, is listed in alphabetical order. Again, Amber and
Elisabeth are nowhere to be found in the code - they have no placeholders. As
with the Final Words page, this is the first week that has the hidden placeholders.

Now comes the important part: What does this mean, if anything?

The Web designers created the pages in question with the hidden code so that
they merely have to "unhide" the code after each contestant is booted to update
the page. You do your work all at once up front, and making updates is very
simple. But why are Amber and Elisabeth missing? We have several thoughts on
the subject, starting with the obvious. Amber and Elisabeth's missing
placeholders could mean that they won't have final comments or chats because
they are the Final Two. Or it could mean that the CBS Web designers just
accidentally left Amber and Elisabeth off of the pages. Or it could mean that
Mark Burnett is screwing with us. We suspect it's the last.

Scenario One - The Final Two
Suppose Amber and Elisabeth are the Final Two. For this to be true, we have to
assume that the CBS Web designers know the outcome of the game two months
in advance. Not only that, but they would have to be incredibly careless with the
information, tipping their hand in the HTML code that they know is readily
available to ANYONE with a Web browser. We're all well aware of last season's
Gervase X brouhaha, and so are they. It simply doesn't make sense that they
would be this careless.

Scenario Two - Web Designer Oversight
This theory holds that the CBS Web designers created several placeholders, but
left off Amber and Elisabeth as a simple mistake. This could be the case, but it
was done not once, but twice. And this is not a case of the Web designers
possibly making a mistake once, and then duplicating the mistake on another
page: the placeholder HTML differs greatly from the Final Words Code to the Chat
Archive Code. These pages were obviously coded independently with both
Amber and Elisabeth missing. That leads us to believe that this was not a
simple oversight, as Gervase X most likely was.

Scenario Three - Mark Burnett is the Devil
There are several reasons that we lean in this direction - and it's not just that
we're paranoid. (Or is it?) The unlikelihood of the first two scenarios weighs
heavily. The Web designers don't need to know this information this soon, and
they wouldn't be that careless after Gervase X. Also, the omission of Amber and
Elisabeth was coded two separate times, so an oversight is unlikely. But beyond
that, we have telling quotes from Mark Burnett. He has stated numerous times
that he is actively trying to deceive us in our unending quest for the next
bootee. He has claimed that numerous traps have been laid, and yet we've
found none - only a lack of information. And now, suddenly, at the CBS Survivor
Web site, where we last found our "spoiler of the season," we been given a gift -
the Final Two. It just seems a bit too convenient for us. We believe this "spoiler"
is tainted evidence, actively planted at the behest of Mark Burnett.

Ultimately, whether this turns out to be true or not is of little consequence.
Everyone who is going to watch Survivor will watch, regardless of this "news." And
the majority of us skeptics will watch just to see it proven wrong, so we can claim
"we knew it was fake all along." If, on the outside chance, this proves to be true,
then it's a colossal blunder, both on the part of Mark Burnett and the CBS Web
designers. But we've been playing cat and mouse with them long enough to
suspect that they're not that dumb...

  Top

  Table of Contents

  Subject     Author     Message Date     ID  
 RE: spoiler or not???? source code SurvivinDawg 03-11-01 1
   RE: spoiler or not???? source code wildcamper 03-11-01 2
       RE: spoiler or not???? source code jtmorgan61 03-11-01 4
 RE: spoiler or not???? source code namssa 03-11-01 3
   RE: spoiler or not???? source code Kokoro 03-11-01 5
       RE: spoiler or not???? source code heresy 03-13-01 6

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

Messages in this topic

SurvivinDawg 6816 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Playboy Centerfold"

03-11-01, 05:18 PM (EST)
Click to EMail SurvivinDawg Click to send private message to SurvivinDawg Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
1. "RE: spoiler or not???? source code"
You've walked in a bit late to the party here; we've been talking about this for a couple of days now.

The biggest hole in this, IMHO, is this question: If Amber and Lis are the Final Two, who was No. 3 that either of them felt the need to vote off and face Final Jury with the other? In other words, if Amber wins that final IC, she gets to vote off the person she does NOT want to be against in Final Jury. Who in the WORLD would she fear so badly that she'd want to go up against LIS? The same arguments apply to Lis going up against Amber in Final Jury: Who was that No. 3 that she was so scared to go against in the Final Jury?

Time will tell. If the last two ARE Amber and Lis, then I'm declaring CBS web personnel idiots. If not, then I'm declaring somebody an incredibly smart and sneaky person that I'd like to meet some day.

  Top

wildcamper 38 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Beauty Pageant Celebrity Judge"

03-11-01, 05:27 PM (EST)
Click to EMail wildcamper Click to send private message to wildcamper Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
2. "RE: spoiler or not???? source code"
I think it is alicia she is NEXT in the code....
any insight???
is it just alphabetical order
  Top

jtmorgan61 91 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Hollywood Squares Square"

03-11-01, 07:09 PM (EST)
Click to EMail jtmorgan61 Click to send private message to jtmorgan61 Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
4. "RE: spoiler or not???? source code"
Yes, it's just alphabetical order. I think Alicia goes next anyway due to a lot of other factors that point to her.
  Top

namssa 24 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Got Milk? Spokesperson"

03-11-01, 06:45 PM (EST)
Click to EMail namssa Click to send private message to namssa Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
3. "RE: spoiler or not???? source code"
Doesn't the final episode consist of the final 4? So the websight should have missing codes for 4 players not just two. Since there really wouldn't be any final words from the 4th and 3rd contestant voted off since it would be in the same final episode. I don't take much from this "leak". Likely just a websight oversight. I doubt MB would give some websight geeks the answer to the final 2.
  Top

Kokoro 3899 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Thong Contest Judge"

03-11-01, 08:07 PM (EST)
Click to EMail Kokoro Click to send private message to Kokoro Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
5. "RE: spoiler or not???? source code"
The final ep will include 3 players and the third person out does have final words. The theory is that there are 2 missing instead of one because of the lock box....but then I don't buy that either, IMHO it's a really stupid idea and I really hope they didn't do that.

"Oh my God! Meatball subs! I love those! Oh my God!" - "That skinny chick"'s most memorable line

  Top

heresy 94 desperate attention whore postings
DAW Level: "Hollywood Squares Square"

03-13-01, 03:08 AM (EST)
Click to EMail heresy Click to send private message to heresy Click to view user profile Click to check IP address of the poster
6. "RE: spoiler or not???? source code"
>The final ep will include 3
>players and the third person
>out does have final words.


Last season, both Kelly and Richard had "final words" posted on the web site as well. I don't know whether they were taped in advance (Richard's seem to have been taped after the fact).

  Top


Remove

Lobby | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e - p l a c e h o l d e r t e x t g o e s h e r e -
about this site   •   advertise on this site  •   contact us  •   privacy policy   •