# Dan Brown's New Video



## talonryanicecreambar (Dec 24, 2009)

I'm sort of excited to see how many new cubers there are going to be. Alot of my friends at school watch his vlogs so I might actually have some cubing friends. So my question is do you want more people that know how to solve the Rubik's Cube or do you like being unique?


----------



## tkcube1 (Dec 24, 2009)

I think more people would be better. We would get noticed more and maybe something good would come out of it. Im not sure though it could go either way.


----------



## talonryanicecreambar (Dec 24, 2009)

Yeah, hey if I'm starting to get tired of cubing should I just take half a week for a break or what should I do?


----------



## tkcube1 (Dec 24, 2009)

Learn something like blindsolving. Or for 2x2 if you dont know it learn ortega or cll. Learn ortega first though. Also learn more oll's. If this doesn't work take a break yea.


----------



## talonryanicecreambar (Dec 24, 2009)

Thanks I'm gonna learn ortega.


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 24, 2009)

The problem with learning Dan Brown's method is that once you learn that, people either tend to not want to be faster, or they don't want to learn a faster method (like CFOP, Petrus, Roux, etc.). In some cases, his tutorial is just plain fantastic, but if he branched off form F2L into a semi-4LLL, then his tutorial would be optimal for transition into the widely used CFOP.

So, here is my list of pros and cons:

Pros:
-Excellent remastering. I just hope he doesn't delete the original.
-Good camera angles, lighting, articulation, etc. Dan's always great at that.
-More user-friendly--lots of annotations and things to help a wandering noob.
-Correct notation! Finally!
-A bit moar in-depth.

Cons:
-Still the crappy ol' method he uses. Not good at all for CFOP transition, and NO WAY for a foundation on block-building (block-building in CFOP ftw!).
-Moar to come, but that's about it.

"Lolwut"s:
-People are giving him NEGATIVE feedback for using "prime". What noobs.
-Moar to come.


----------



## Sa967St (Dec 24, 2009)

umm, what new video?


edit: nvm, found it 








wow, I'm glad that he started using '/prime instead of i/inverted, but... 2F instead of F2? :fp


----------



## Innocence (Dec 24, 2009)

I was hoping he would improve the method, but no such luck. Apparently even he is too lazy to learn a new one. >.<


----------



## waffle=ijm (Dec 24, 2009)

Sa967St said:


> umm, what new video?
> 
> 
> edit: nvm, found it



lol
and lol dan brown


----------



## Ranzha (Dec 24, 2009)

Oh sh*t, I didn't notice he used the wrong 180 degree notation.
I failed.


----------



## Innocence (Dec 24, 2009)

Me neither. :O, it's a conspiracy. Seriously, he should have a contact in the speedcubing underworld to point these things out.


----------



## miniGOINGS (Dec 24, 2009)

Um, what method does he use/teach?


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 24, 2009)

miniGOINGS said:


> Um, what method does he use/teach?


How about looking at his video description?


----------



## Sa967St (Dec 24, 2009)

I just watched the whole tutorial, I don't think it was any better than the original. I guess he made it more entertaining, but he doesn't explain some parts too well (e.g. he used the word 'orient' several times without explaining what it means) and it still goes by way too quickly.

Badmephisto's tutorial is still so much better than Dan's


----------



## Lucas Garron (Dec 24, 2009)

> Hello Dan Brown,
> 
> In your new tutorials, you chose to use 2U to represent a double turn of the U-layer. The overwhelmingly standard notation for this is U2, and 2U, if anything, has a different meaning. Every Rubik's cube expert in the world, every world record holder, even every intermediate cuber, would tell you this, and if you really want, I can have them tell you.
> I don't think you realize this, but by telling this to a lot of beginners (your videos, if not accurate in notation, are still appealing to new people with a cube), you are making things very difficult for us. It's like teaching children the wrong order of operations for arithmetic.
> ...


----------



## PEZenfuego (Dec 24, 2009)

Sa967St said:


> I just watched the whole tutorial, I don't think it was any better than the original. I guess he made it more entertaining, but he doesn't explain some parts too well (e.g. he used the word 'orient' several times without explaining what it means) and it still goes by way too quickly.
> 
> Badmephisto's tutorial is still so much better than Dan's



After watching a tutorial from Badmephisto, every other tutorial on the subject sounds like it's in Chinese.


----------



## Innocence (Dec 24, 2009)

Go Lucas!


Sa967St said:


> I just watched the whole tutorial, I don't think it was any better than the original. I guess he made it more entertaining, but he doesn't explain some parts too well (e.g. he used the word 'orient' several times without explaining what it means) and it still goes by way too quickly.
> 
> Badmephisto's tutorial is still so much better than Dan's



What I never get is people say he goes too fast, when I think that's not really a factor. You can go back and watch it as many times as you want, and it saves youtube and people's computers on download. It may not be as efficient learning-wise, but it definitely helps with the internet connection.


----------



## Sa967St (Dec 24, 2009)

Innocence said:


> What I never get is people say he goes too fast, when I think that's not really a factor. You can go back and watch it as many times as you want, and it saves youtube and people's computers on download. *It may not be as efficient learning-wise*, but it definitely helps with the internet connection.


this.


----------



## Innocence (Dec 24, 2009)

Only marginally inefficient. I have to reiterate, *you can watch the video more than once. Speed is never an issue on youtube.*


----------



## Sa967St (Dec 24, 2009)

Innocence said:


> Only marginally inefficient. I have to reiterate, you can watch the video more than once. Speed is never an issue on youtube.


but it's frustrating and hard to understand when you have to keep re-watching a video many times because something was poorly explained and/or rushed through.


----------



## Innocence (Dec 24, 2009)

Maybe, but you assume the target audience is geriatric or infant. The majority of Dan's audience would have no trouble understanding him, as most of his other videos are a LOT harder to follow than this.


----------



## Rook (Dec 24, 2009)

I have mixed feelings about him re-making these vids. 

The good thing is that he's introducing more people the cubing. The bad thing is that he's teaching (well, reteaching) a slow/inefficient method. He's also going way too quickly, which in turn is going to frustrate viewers/make them give up with the cube. Then again, the method is just for someone who wants a simple and easy way to solve it.

I have a feeling that he really just wants more views. These new vids are using the same method, only making things more clear. Putting them in several parts (what, 8?) = about 8 times as many views.

~Rook


----------



## Hiero (Dec 24, 2009)

The reason Dan Brown's video is so popular is because he doesn't use too much technical language and his method is very easy. Most people new to the cube are just impressed if they can do it at all, whether it's in 5 or 10 minutes. A lot of people don't know that it can be solved or that there is a method at all. When people say that it goes too fast sometimes they mean that all their questions were not answered. Also sometimes people say "just do this" and then kind of whip through it without the viewer understanding what the cubies are doing. 

Badmephisto's videos are very good because you understand what he is talking about and he never seems to go his full speed. You can clearly see what is going on. His beginner method has a good transition to speedcubing, but most people just want to solve the thing and aren't really worried about their average of 5, pll time attacks, finger tricks... 

Every year I teach about 25-30 students to solve the cube but I don't really recommend any beginner tutorials. If students do watch any they usually tell me they didn't understand what the heck any of them were talking about. I really think you guys would be suprised at the failure rate of youtube videos to teach the average person to solve the cube. Most people figure it's not worth the trouble. Using the numbers I have now, about 10% of students can learn from an online video and about 60% learn from coming to my cubing classes. Most don't succeed because they didn't realize you actually have to learn something and they think it's too hard so they just don't come anymore.

I think getting more people to solve it in general will be good for cubing, they don't need to learn a method that transitions them into competitive speedcubing if it causes 90% of people to not even follow through with learning how to solve the cube.

When students get kind of fast (1:00-1:30) and they ask me what shortcuts can I show them then I tell them about badmephisto. I haven't had much trouble transitioning those who want to be faster from Dan Brown method to a faster method. 

Anyway, that's my 3 cents. Sorry if it's kind of long, but I try to get as many people as I can to be able solve the Rubik's Cube and I worry about their speed when they are ready to move on. Many are happy just to be able to solve one and will not go to speedcubing, but they do appreciate cubing more in general. I think any videos about cubing are great, but none of the beginner method videos have everything that I look for to teach students.


----------



## Dene (Dec 24, 2009)

Dan Brown ftl.


----------



## Innocence (Dec 24, 2009)

I really can't see much difference in speed between his tutorial and badmephistos. I think there may just be some prejudice going on, his tutorial is completely valid, except for the horrible method.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Dec 24, 2009)

Innocence said:


> I really can't see much difference in speed between his tutorial and badmephistos. I think there may just be some prejudice going on, his tutorial is completely valid, *except for the horrible method.*



What else would people be not liking?


----------



## Muesli (Dec 25, 2009)

Lucas Garron said:


> > Hello Dan Brown,
> >
> > In your new tutorials, you chose to use 2U to represent a double turn of the U-layer. The overwhelmingly standard notation for this is U2, and 2U, if anything, has a different meaning. Every Rubik's cube expert in the world, every world record holder, even every intermediate cuber, would tell you this, and if you really want, I can have them tell you.
> > I don't think you realize this, but by telling this to a lot of beginners (your videos, if not accurate in notation, are still appealing to new people with a cube), you are making things very difficult for us. It's like teaching children the wrong order of operations for arithmetic.
> > ...


I don't even think he's going to look twice at that message amongst the thousands of thankyou letters from his fans. Maybe you should send him a letter? Also, you should address him calling cubies "cubelets". That made me cringe.


----------



## Hakan (Dec 25, 2009)

> So my question is do you want more people that know how to solve the Rubik's Cube or do you like being unique?



Remember, you are always unique. Just like everyone else.


----------



## vgbjason (Dec 25, 2009)

I wish more of my friends knew how to cube well so i could talk about cubing to people. I have a few friends who can solve the cube but none of them are speedcubers.


----------



## Innocence (Dec 25, 2009)

PatrickJameson said:


> Innocence said:
> 
> 
> > I really can't see much difference in speed between his tutorial and badmephistos. I think there may just be some prejudice going on, his tutorial is completely valid, *except for the horrible method.*
> ...



He goes too fast, he's not qualified to teach, the notation is wrong, he told people to lube with vaseline(more of a reason why it's obvious not to watch his videos), Dan Brown hate.


----------



## richardzhang (Dec 25, 2009)

Its pissing me off every time he says cubelet. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!


----------



## ChrisBird (Dec 25, 2009)

Dene said:


> Dan Brown ftl.



This post is made of pure truth.


----------



## lilkdub503 (Dec 25, 2009)

A thorn in our sides has to be coming up from me right now:


> The puzzle consists of twenty-six unique miniature cubes, also called *"cubies" or "cubelets"*.


That's from the official Wikipedia page. Look it up yourself. I got the idea to look again about a week back when I thought to myself, "Hey, some noob called it a cubelet." Turns out he was correct.


----------



## LNZ (Dec 25, 2009)

I viewed all the parts of the videos.

There is quite a few ways to cube notation. He for example, would use 2F, while the rest us use F2. Also I've seen F(power of -1 thing) for F' and Fi.

And he does not show the notation for the back side either. 

I did not use his method to solve a 3x3x3, so I can't vouch for the method. But I use his method exactly for the top layer to solve the top layer of a megaminx though.


----------



## CubeDust (Dec 25, 2009)

is it cubesmith stickers?


----------



## Neroflux (Dec 25, 2009)

Lucas Garron said:


> > ...and if you really want, I can have them tell you.



wow, please do this


----------



## Me (Dec 26, 2009)

Well I suppose everyone makes mistakes. Some more incorrect than others.


----------



## Rikane (Dec 26, 2009)

I learned from his old vid 2-3 years ago and I don't see why everyone is STILL bashing on him. 
Yes, "cubelets" may annoy you, but I personally find that it sounds less juvenile than "cubies".
Okay, the 2F thing DID annoy me, but it doesn't take that much time to learn to switch from reading 2F to the more commonly used F2.

Okay, I do agree that the LL system he teaches isn't the best, but I think in terms of number of algs, it's not too bad. Also, if the person really wants to get faster, then they'll go through with learning more algorithms. 
If they aren't going to learn new things to solve the cube faster, then how do they really expect to get faster? It's the same with school, you get as much out of it as you put in. "No pain, no gain"

I'd just rather people have a REAL reason to hate on him, not what I'm feeling like I'm seeing is a bunch of people thinking "Oh everyone hates him, let's do that too"

I'll break the trend and say what I need to because it's not really fair.


----------



## Neroflux (Dec 26, 2009)

But Rikane, his vids give misleading info, which is bad for us actually.


----------



## V-te (Dec 26, 2009)

Neroflux said:


> But Rikane, his vids give misleading info, which is bad for us actually.



But the person who is learning doesn't know that. They just want to learn. Like he said, if they really wanna get faster, they would go through the effort like a number of us have. We shouldn't blame him. He is just a person on youtube trying to teach. That's it.


----------



## riffz (Dec 27, 2009)

V-te said:


> Neroflux said:
> 
> 
> > But Rikane, his vids give misleading info, which is bad for us actually.
> ...



The problem I have with it is that it does not transition smoothly into a faster method. When people learn that they need to throw away most of those algorithms and relearn the LL, they often lose interest in getting faster. I still think badmephisto's video is much better because if they want to get faster they can learn one more algorithm. Then another when they feel like it.


----------



## badmephisto (Dec 28, 2009)

Rikane said:


> I'd just rather people have a REAL reason to hate on him, not what I'm feeling like I'm seeing is a bunch of people thinking "Oh everyone hates him, let's do that too"



I unloaded on him in the Video's section thread on this same topic. Go there if you want to see MANY good reasons to "hate on him". I even posted twice that angry i was
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17944&page=3
http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17944&page=4

Just because you learned from him should not make you feel you have to somehow defend him, or that you owe him something. When I meet the person that wrote the beginner's method tutorial I learned from, I will kick him straight in balls. That *******.


----------



## Jokerman5656 (Dec 28, 2009)

Dan Brown = :fp


----------



## Rikane (Dec 28, 2009)

badmephisto said:


> Rikane said:
> 
> 
> > I'd just rather people have a REAL reason to hate on him, not what I'm feeling like I'm seeing is a bunch of people thinking "Oh everyone hates him, let's do that too"
> ...



Yes, yes, I understand your points as I've read them already in the other thread. Thanks for pointing it out again here though so you were sure that I'd read it .

All I'm saying is that I didn't find it that hard to switch the fridrich after learning the method that he teaches. Yes, a little effort needs to be used, but I still ended up doing decent anyway. Hell, I'm using roux now.

anyway, all I wanted was a good reason for someone to hate on him, something logical. Instead of "I hate him for whatever reason", you have at least given a thought out answer to my question and for that, I can't argue. It is YOUR opinion and I'll do nothing to change it. Though, I thank you for giving a real reason.


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Dec 30, 2009)

I say Dan Brown is funny and amusing. Sure it isn't a faster method, but he STARTED a LOT of people into speedcubing. He probably doesn't have time to learn Fridich.
Also, he's awesome at juggling.


----------



## DAE_JA_VOO (Jan 4, 2010)

Bleh, it's actually quite ridiculous how some of you guys hate Dan.




Innocence said:


> PatrickJameson said:
> 
> 
> > Innocence said:
> ...


Not QUALIFIED? Now how exactly would one become "qualified" to teach someone how to solve a cube. As far as I'm concerned, if you can solve a cube, you're "qualified" to teach someone else how to solve it. All Dan is doing is teaching a total n00b how to solve a cube. He's not teaching them a speedsolving method, he's teaching them a basic solving method, and it WORKS. That's how many of us here (including myself) learned how to solve.

I think Dan's doing a great thing. While my transition to Fridrich would most certainly have been easier with Badmephisto's method, the fact that I learned using Dan's method didn't make life any tougher. 





V-te said:


> Neroflux said:
> 
> 
> > But Rikane, his vids give misleading info, which is bad for us actually.
> ...


Couldn't agree more.


----------



## AvidCuber (Mar 2, 2010)

1) Dan Brown is funny and I guess it's good for him to get more views while he's funny, and teaching at the same time.
2) It's a pretty good tutorial.
3) Though the previous two points may have seemed like I'm endorsing him, I am by no means doing so.
4) The notation thing irritated me greatly, but I'm at least glad he switched from "inverse" to "prime".
5) Dan Brown is just a guy who knows how to solve a Rubik's cube, but he is by no means experienced nor good enough to teach it (meaning, he doesn't know what those algorithms really do...like the thing he does on LL when you're permuting the last layer, it's actually a SUNE but he uses it to PERMUTE the LL edges. What?!?!?!?)
6) But I suppose the method he teaches is the one that comes in a little marginally helpful booklet thingy when you get a storebought, so I guess it's legit that he's teaching that method...but it's kind of unoriginal.
7) I had a friend who learned how to solve it just from that booklet, so I guess Dan Brown isn't the only reason for slow cubers these days...

The bottom line: Dan Brown is completely unqualified to be teaching how to solve a Rubik's cube, it just seems like he applies algorithms blindly, without a care as to how they work or what other things that they do. But it's not entirely his fault, I suppose.

Sorry for the long post haha, I had a lot to say. xD


----------



## Chapuunka (Mar 2, 2010)

AvidCuber said:


> ...he switched from "inverse" to "prime".



Who knows? Maybe he did some research, but was too stubborn to switch methods.


----------



## Edward (Mar 2, 2010)

Chapuunka said:


> AvidCuber said:
> 
> 
> > ...he switched from "inverse" to "prime".
> ...



To properly teach a new method, he'd have to learn it (inside and out). I don't think alot of people would do that just to make a few youtube videos (especially since he doesn't care that much about cubing).


----------



## RyanO (Mar 2, 2010)

I'm going to start calling cubies cublets becaues it makes me chuckle.


----------



## Chapuunka (Mar 2, 2010)

Edward said:


> Chapuunka said:
> 
> 
> > AvidCuber said:
> ...



That's kinda what I was getting at--maybe he found the whole speedcubing world, but didn't want to put the work into actually learning a better method and stuck to his.


----------



## blakedacuber (Mar 2, 2010)

I like many, lerned from Dan's original video which at the time i tought ws gret but once I solved it two or three times i didnt feel the need to get faster.That only changed because i tought it ws impressive and the it might come in handy some time!!so when i went and watched videos to get fatser i learned f2l but didnt find the last layer that big of a problem but it was only then i saw badmephisto's vid which i think is much better for anyone who intends to get faster but as a basic method i think Dans is perfectly fine except for thos few little mistakes he made i.e cublets(sounds posh compared to cubies), nd 2F(that annoyed me alot because as a noob people like to learn but when you lern something you dont want to relearn things!so if you recommending someone who is interested in just learning to solve send them to Dan but if someone wants to be a relativly decent cuber send them to badmephisto.



also how cn his subscribers say this is confusing compared to all the other crap he goes on about??


*And the whole inverse thng i think is ok because its catchy for a noob,maybe not correct but nobodys perfect*


----------



## jiggy (Mar 2, 2010)

blakedacuber said:


> so if you recommending someone who is interested in just learning to solve send them to Dan but if someone wants to be a relativly decent cuber send them to badmephisto.


I don't think I'd even do that, meph has a fantastic beginners' tutorial.


----------



## infringement153 (Mar 3, 2010)

Dan Brown is not evil.

Just trying to teach people how to solve a cube.

/topic


----------



## Stefan (Mar 3, 2010)

AvidCuber said:


> he doesn't know what those algorithms really do...like the thing he does on LL when you're permuting the last layer, it's actually a SUNE but he uses it to PERMUTE the LL edges. What?!?!?!?



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Yeah, well, you're an idiot.


----------



## DavidWoner (Mar 3, 2010)

StefanPochmann said:


> AvidCuber said:
> 
> 
> > he doesn't know what those algorithms really do...like the thing he does on LL when you're permuting the last layer, it's actually a SUNE but he uses it to PERMUTE the LL edges. What?!?!?!?
> ...



Hahahaha oh that's golden.


----------



## ~Phoenix Death~ (Mar 3, 2010)

To me, Dan's mistakes were:
-Using i instead of '
-VASALINE. I think
-Almost all of the 4x4 notation -_-


----------



## Muesli (Mar 3, 2010)

jiggy said:


> blakedacuber said:
> 
> 
> > so if you recommending someone who is interested in just learning to solve send them to Dan but if someone wants to be a relativly decent cuber send them to badmephisto.
> ...


So does Dan Brown.


----------



## lorki3 (Mar 3, 2010)

I love gerald moves


----------



## jiggy (Mar 3, 2010)

Musli4brekkies said:


> jiggy said:
> 
> 
> > blakedacuber said:
> ...


That's fair enough, so let me explain why I would send a beginner to badmephisto over Dan.

My biggest issue with Dan is the method he teaches. Ok, it's the same method you can find in a Rubik's cube booklet, but that doesn't make it good. Meph, however, teaches a beginners' method which naturally leads onto what is currently the most popular speed solving method in use.

Secondly, as a beginner, why would you settle for learning from someone who can teach you "just to solve the cube" when you could just as easily learn from someone who could teach you to be "a relatively decent cuber"? Dan isn't a speed cuber, so he doesn't really know what he's talking about. He shows this frequently with mistakes in notation and advising people to use Vaseline on their cubes (a tired and overused point, perhaps, but still true).

To be fair to him, he has that slightly over enthusiastic attitude which keeps a lot of people interested, and he's clearly having fun as he teaches. On the other had, if you look through the comments on any of meph's videos you'll always see viewers saying what a good teacher he is and he manages to do it without that annoying bubblegum voice Dan uses. 

Another thing is his cross colour convention. He teaches beginners to solve the cross on the green side. Ok, in theory, there isn't much difference between solving for green or for white but the fact remains that it's convention to solve a white cross. Not such a big deal, but a beginner who learnt to solve on the green face and then goes on to learn F2L (etc) will most likely see tutorials using a white cross (and, thus, different middle layer colours) and will have to either translate it in their own head or wrestle with a new colour scheme. Neither is particularly ideal for a beginner.

I really don't mean to start an argument or lose a friend before I make one so I'll finish by saying that Dan gets the job done and has a good attitude. But I'd still send a friend learning to solve the cube to a better teacher, teaching a better method in a more competent manner any day.


----------



## Innocence (Mar 3, 2010)

Jiggy said:


> He shows this *frequently* with mistakes in notation and *advising people to use Vaseline on their cubes*



Last time I checked, he only did that once or twice. Who knows, maybe he knows now that it's a bad thing.

Not saying he's the best, but he's ok.

Another thing I like about Dan Brown is he teaches beginners that every fast speedcuber is colour neutral . At least, he did in his old tutorial.


----------



## qqwref (Mar 3, 2010)

How is teaching false things a positive? I'd rather learn something once from a decent teacher than learn something from a great teacher and have to relearn it later.


----------



## jiggy (Mar 3, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Jiggy said:
> 
> 
> > He shows this frequently with mistakes in notation and advising people to use Vaseline on their cubes
> ...



Yeah, ok, fair point. Let me rephrase that. What I was trying to say was that he frequently makes mistakes, examples of which are incorrect notation and bad cube maintenance advice, not that he frequently tells people to use Vaseline in their cubes. That was poorly worded of me! Having said that, people are allowed to make mistakes, but he has such a huge audience I just wish he could do a better job.


----------



## DT546 (Mar 3, 2010)

DavidWoner said:


> StefanPochmann said:
> 
> 
> > AvidCuber said:
> ...



the sune algorrithms are a perfectly good way of permutating edges in a behiner methos, they are reasonably short and easy to remember, and i think a lot of people use them for edge permutation on the megaminx


----------



## riffz (Mar 3, 2010)

Innocence said:


> Jiggy said:
> 
> 
> > Another thing I like about Dan Brown is he teaches beginners that every fast speedcuber is colour neutral . At least, he did in his old tutorial.
> ...


----------



## lorki3 (Mar 4, 2010)

jokerman5656 said:


> Dan Brown = :fp



Dan Brown is not:fp He's method=:fp


----------



## adimare (Mar 5, 2010)

lorki3 said:


> Dan Brown is not:fp He's method=:fp



I really don't get why the method Dan Brown teaches gets so much hate from you guys. I don't know about most people, but when I first started trying to figure out how to solve the cube I didn't have in mind solving it as fast as possible; understanding how it could be solved was much more important to me.

I've taught a lot of people how to solve the cube, most of them have been interested in understanding exactly what's going on and how a solution works as opposed to just applying algorithms without having a clue of how they do what they do. A slight modification of the method Dan Brown teaches has been by far the best way I've found to explain to someone how a solution works.


----------

