|
United States17042 Posts
On February 02 2009 16:50 SonuvBob wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 16:26 GHOSTCLAW wrote:On February 02 2009 16:09 SonuvBob wrote: Sweet, I'm well over 5 if you don't count MIR, etc.
Haji tops 6 though, I think he wins. Well, his ratio is actually the only one on the site that is getting much much better with time. I'm at 11, and I think that's the highest of any user with a decent number of posts. You're 5ish if you count all 3 names.
oh, cool. I think that the other problem with this system is that *gasp* it doesn't actually mean anything. I think that a lot of the higher numbers are coming from people who have > 1k posts, and a lot of those users have never been banned.
It's a pretty fun exercise though.
|
Can someone find my ratio? I think I'm doing it wrong..
|
On February 03 2009 04:49 Hawk wrote: I have a theory, that this theory isn't very good! why the hate?
seems to me the posters who are generally known to contribute posts with a lot of value score lower, while assholes like hawk get 3s or higher. not that everybody who scores high is an asshole. some of them are really nice guys and contribute in other ways that help the community. and a quote doesn't always mean you made a valuable contribution... it could just mean you're very inflammatory. But there seems to be a strong trend. i think everyone can agree that if everybody had lower ratios, the quality of posts would in general increase and be a lot more interesting to read.
further, an overall low average means that there is more dialogue going on, rather than just people posting one way feedback. the reason i like posting on forums is coz it's fun reading what people say in response to my posts. a low average ratio would suggest a higher rate of member retention, and a faster growing community as a result.
btw you're an asshole hawk, just so you get the message.
|
381 : 135
2.82
Seeing as that isn't especially low, I'm going to jump on the "your logic is flawed" bandwagon. xD
TBH it really is. Your idea of "good" could be a complete troll. It's a good way of identifying "notable" posters though, those whose ideas are exceptionally good OR bad enough to warrant response.
|
There should be some more factors to this ratio, for example I should get some credit for the LR threads that I make.
For example my current ratio is 2490 : 773 = 3.22. Now if I get an extra 'quote' point for each time someone posts in my LR thread I have 5951 points so my new ratio is .41
:D
|
On February 03 2009 05:12 Chezinu wrote: Can someone find my ratio? I think I'm doing it wrong.. This quote will bring you too 222/111 for a perfect 2.0.
Idk, there is so much that could throw this off, theory interesting but relatively useless imo.
Edit: I am 1995 : 733 = 2.72.
I guess I can live with that.
|
302 : 64... 4.71875. I hate you. You just ruined my life.
|
i have a 2.09. not too bad but it clearly shows how faulty this system is considering the trash i tend to post.
|
On February 03 2009 05:23 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2009 04:49 Hawk wrote: I have a theory, that this theory isn't very good! why the hate? seems to me the posters who are generally known to contribute posts with a lot of value score lower, while assholes like hawk get 3s or higher. not that everybody who scores high is an asshole. some of them are really nice guys and contribute in other ways that help the community. and a quote doesn't always mean you made a valuable contribution... it could just mean you're very inflammatory. But there seems to be a strong trend. i think everyone can agree that if everybody had lower ratios, the quality of posts would in general increase and be a lot more interesting to read. further, an overall low average means that there is more dialogue going on, rather than just people posting one way feedback. the reason i like posting on forums is coz it's fun reading what people say in response to my posts. a low average ratio would suggest a higher rate of member retention, and a faster growing community as a result. btw you're an asshole hawk, just so you get the message.
Don't be mad at me that your theory is horribly flawed.
|
See I am a good poster, and you all think I'm an idiot.
Anyways, this is obviously not accurate, because people can quote you for a variety of reasons; when they agree as well as when they disagree etc. I'm sure someone pointed this out.
On February 02 2009 11:15 NoobsOfWrath wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 11:05 gg_hertzz wrote: i thought charlie was a high content poster? his posts always get like 5 pages at least. They get high content because they're stupid and everyone argues over them His highest content posts are the ones where he argues that all this illegal shit should be legal and that he's a badass, and the one where he talks about stealing someone's phone and how to use it
And to respond to this, There are a few other threads that have some really really high view and post/page count other than that thread.
Here are just a few of the threads I've made that have 6k++ views:
Club Day MSL FInals
Save the Gosus
Paint Brush
7CPU challenge
SC GLITCHES
Teenage Shooting/Suicide
Blood Bath Strats
Azn chicks thread
What's worse?
SC desktop icons
Twilight Struggle + Altered Maps
There at least 3 times this with over 5k views
|
On February 03 2009 09:33 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2009 05:23 ahrara_ wrote:On February 03 2009 04:49 Hawk wrote: I have a theory, that this theory isn't very good! why the hate? seems to me the posters who are generally known to contribute posts with a lot of value score lower, while assholes like hawk get 3s or higher. not that everybody who scores high is an asshole. some of them are really nice guys and contribute in other ways that help the community. and a quote doesn't always mean you made a valuable contribution... it could just mean you're very inflammatory. But there seems to be a strong trend. i think everyone can agree that if everybody had lower ratios, the quality of posts would in general increase and be a lot more interesting to read. further, an overall low average means that there is more dialogue going on, rather than just people posting one way feedback. the reason i like posting on forums is coz it's fun reading what people say in response to my posts. a low average ratio would suggest a higher rate of member retention, and a faster growing community as a result. btw you're an asshole hawk, just so you get the message. Don't be mad at me that your theory is horribly flawed. i'm not mad, i'm furious!
|
Osaka27097 Posts
Of course, this includes times people quote other people who have quoted you. It also does not count the times where part of you has been quoted, but someone has edited out the title and non-relavent stuff.
|
Can someone tell me my ratio? I have no idea how to get it TT
|
|
I have 1.3 thats pretty weak ><
**Edit** U want a low score? COOL!
|
On February 03 2009 13:19 nAi.PrOtOsS wrote: I have 1.3 thats pretty weak ><
**Edit** U want a low score? COOL! _ahara chose to take the unintuitive ratio.....if it was inverted, it would simply be the percentage of your posts which are quoted.
|
On February 02 2009 16:49 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: i'm actually pretty terrible
but i just came into this thread to say fuck raithed fuck your mom.
|
On Someday at Sometime HeaderTest wrote: I win!
HeaderTest wins.
0 Posts / 1 Quote = 0.00
Clearly a valuable poster.
On February 02 2009 16:09 SonuvBob wrote: Sweet, I'm well over 5 if you don't count MIR, etc.
Haji tops 6 though, I think he wins.
This quote is not relevant at all. I am just boosting your ratio!
|
On February 03 2009 13:30 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2009 13:19 nAi.PrOtOsS wrote: I have 1.3 thats pretty weak ><
**Edit** U want a low score? COOL! _ahara chose to take the unintuitive ratio.....if it was inverted, it would simply be the percentage of your posts which are quoted. i did this because i like to hurt people.
how the hell did the underscore in my name move over to the wrong side?!?!?!
|
On February 03 2009 13:46 ahrara_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2009 13:30 fight_or_flight wrote:On February 03 2009 13:19 nAi.PrOtOsS wrote: I have 1.3 thats pretty weak ><
**Edit** U want a low score? COOL! _ahara chose to take the unintuitive ratio.....if it was inverted, it would simply be the percentage of your posts which are quoted. i did this because i like to hurt people. how the hell did the underscore in my name move over to the wrong side?!?!?! rofl....sorry
I don't think you like to hurt people, its just the economist coming out in you.
|
|
|
|