The Global Institute of Goonability Research

Through independent anonymous assessments conducted across the Internet, the Institute continuously measures the perceived goonability of food, technology, entertainment, cultural artifacts, public entertainers, fictional entities, consumer products, Internet phenomena, and other subjects requiring investigation.

Our mission is simple: Measure everything. Explain nothing.

Goonability is treated as an objective property of everything in the universe. The Institute makes no attempt to justify this position. It measures.

Every subject is assessed on a single integer scale from 0 to 10. Aggregate results retain decimal precision, because rounding destroys the comparisons that make the dataset worth keeping. The full statistical procedure is documented separately.

Read the methodology.

One assessment per anonymous session per subject. Assessments may be revised; a revision replaces the previous figure rather than adding to it. Skipped subjects are recorded as activity but are never counted as assessments, and no subject is publicly ranked by how often it was skipped.

Automated submissions are rejected where detected. The Institute would rather publish a smaller honest dataset than a larger contaminated one.

The Index is the Institute's central instrument: the arithmetic mean of all valid current assessments for a subject. A score is displayed from the first assessment onward, but official ranking positions are withheld until a subject has accumulated a sufficient sample. A confident number derived from four responses is not a finding.

An average conceals disagreement. A subject rated 7 by everyone and a subject rated 0 by half the population and 10 by the other half can report identical means while describing entirely different cultural situations.

The Institute therefore measures dispersion independently of the average, and publishes it as the Controversy Index.

Assessments are timestamped and preserved. This allows the Institute to answer questions that a single snapshot cannot: whether a seasonal product recovers each autumn, whether a dormant meme has re-entered circulation, whether an item's standing moved after an external cultural event.

Historical research is an active programme. Its published outputs remain in preparation.

The Institute does not investigate politicians, political candidates, office holders, parties, campaigns or ballot measures. This is a permanent exclusion, not a temporary one.

Person-based subjects are restricted to verified adult public entertainers and public figures. No minor is ever a subject of assessment. The Institute does not host explicit sexual imagery, and does not publish cruel, degrading or defamatory claims about any real person. Ratings are opinions held by anonymous members of the public. They are not findings of fact about the subject.

Rights holders and subjects may raise concerns through the rights and content requests channel.

Is this serious? The methodology is. The subject matter is a matter for the reader.

Who funds the Institute? Nobody. This has not affected our output.

Can a subject's score be corrected? Not by request. The Index reports what the public assessed. Errors of metadata, attribution or rights are corrected; errors of public opinion are not.

Why does an item show a score but no rank? Because it has not yet reached the sample threshold required for ranking. The score is real; the rank would not be.

Would You Goon? is an independent satirical opinion and entertainment project. Ratings represent anonymous user opinions and are not factual claims. No person, company, artist, performer, franchise, product, or other subject featured on this site sponsors, endorses, or is affiliated with Would You Goon? unless expressly stated.

Would You Goon? does not host explicit sexual imagery and does not permit minors as subjects of person-based ratings.