|
one way to weed out bad and low content posters is to see how often people quote them by doing a content search for their name and find the ratio of post count to quote count. the theory is, the lower this ratio, the higher quality posts you have
edit: it's more accurate if you type "xxxx wrote" with the quotation marks. i revised my numbers below to reflect this change.
moltkewarding: 3651 posts, quoted 2398= 1.52
kwark: 6367 posts quoted 2737 = 2.33
savio: 911 posts quoted 787 = 1.16 (holy shit :|. savio is a pretty good poster but a lot of this can be attributed to his conservative positions on the current events threads)
Choros: 390 posts 206 quotes = 1.89
jibba: 5242 posts 2770 quotes = 1.89
ahrara_: 1473 posts and 824 quotes = 1.79 (BRAG BRAG BRAG)
charliemurphy: 12074 posts, 4188 quotes = 2.88
blackstar: 3029 posts, 1364 quotes = 2.22
raithed: 5363 posts, 1231 quotes = 4.36 (O_O)
folca: 1767 posts, 520 quotes = 3.40
in other news, it's sunday evening, plans fell through, and i have too much time on my hands. how you doing?
 
|
Not bad.. and yourself?
Hopefully I get quoted for this post =).
|
do me! XD
i'm probably like 90% !
|
im' quoted 1457times............ gg..........
|
i thought charlie was a high content poster? his posts always get like 5 pages at least.
|
i think his post count was frozen for a while
|
So... what is the point of this blog?
|
i slept with your mother last night, that's the point
|
On February 02 2009 11:08 ahrara_ wrote:
i slept with your mother last night, that's the point
Pics or it didn't happen
|
On February 02 2009 11:11 KimTaeYeon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 11:08 ahrara_ wrote:
i slept with your mother last night, that's the point Pics or it didn't happen
HIV test or it didn't happen.
|
Omg I have a terrible ratio haha: 2.30! I like the idea though and it seems to work reasonably well.
|
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
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
search for "(name) wrote" instead of just "(name)"
|
790 posts. 184 quotes.
4.3 ratio.
Uh oh.
|
Mine's less than 1 and I don't think this works at all. People are likely to quote you to say you're wrong or an idiot more than anything else. 
|
doh, I was hoping to make the list of your favorite posters 
EDIT: gonna start quoting myself more often
|
that's a good point, asshole.
seriously tho, lemme revise my original numbers with motbob's suggestion.
|
Woot! 1.15 under "new algorithm" and .883 under the original!
I fully support your theory
|
On February 02 2009 11:23 Savio wrote:doh, I was hoping to make the list of your favorite posters EDIT: gonna start quoting myself more often
i was actually going to use you but your results were distorted coz of savior. lemme update with savio wrote.
conservative <3 baby
|
On February 02 2009 11:22 ShadowDrgn wrote:Mine's less than 1 and I don't think this works at all. People are likely to quote you to say you're wrong or an idiot more than anything else.
i was just about to say the same thing. oh, and i didnt quote you because for that reason, either
|
For me ,
561 posts 314 quotes
1.78
|
United States24676 Posts
You might find some trends but overall this is a very unreliable way of determining the quality of a poster...
|
I agree with what you wrote about me. I post mostly on political topics that spark debates and most TLers disagree with me and we debate rather than just post comments (so we quote a lot). I am mostly a debater as opposed to a random poster.
|
|
|
On February 02 2009 11:32 micronesia wrote:
You might find some trends but overall this is a very unreliable way of determining the quality of a poster...
i think there's a pretty strong correlation. if the moderators could compile a list of people with the highest ratios, it'd be a good place to start to weed out the morons.
|
i found a theory about bad posters too.
a low ratio of good posts to bad posts is pretty indicative of poor posting.
edit: 5138/1275 = 4.02
fucking dota thread lol
|
Calgary25980 Posts
Um... haha I have a ratio < 1 because of my name
|
On February 02 2009 11:44 Chill wrote:Um... haha I have a ratio < 1 because of my name
Searching for "Chill wrote" gives a ratio of 2.34
|
|
|
Umm people quote terrible posters all the time.. EG Ki_Do
|
4.90
I'm the winner of this thread (or the loser w/e).
|
856 posts, quoted 624 times> 1.37
Does this make me a horrible poster or a good poster? If its a good poster, this system is blatantly false, cause I was banned until like a week ago.
|
Someone should check all of carlodajin's accounts. I would wager that he has a pretty low ratio.
|
Err.. can someone clearly explain how you're supposed to do this
Ain't working for me
I tihnk i'm doing it incorrectly
Nevermind I got it
|
2 more posts and my ratio will be close to pi!
|
|
|
Let's see... 1909 posts, 40 quotes for me. Ouch.
Edit: Hm... I retyped it and now I get 485 quotes. Maybe I mistyped. So 3.94.
|
hahahahaha
how is that even possible?!?!?!
|
wouldn't good posts be quoted too? Like where people agree and what not
|
|
|
On February 02 2009 12:51 Divinek wrote:
wouldn't good posts be quoted too? Like where people agree and what not
that's the point
the more quotes you get, the lower your ratio, the better poster you are
you should thank me for lowering your ratio
|
My ratio is 10.45
i always thought i was a bad poster I'm just not sure how to improve...
perhaps suggestions are needed
|
owow I had that backwards
457 posts / 33 quotes = 13.85
I think i'm just too boring to quote
|
On February 02 2009 13:16 anotak wrote:
My ratio is 10.45
i always thought i was a bad poster I'm just not sure how to improve...
perhaps suggestions are needed
Your fine...this is like googling a name to see who is a better person.
personally I know I quote a lot of RETARDED people as well as good people. This is so flawed
|
630 results.
Not too bad, I don't think.
|
United States22883 Posts
On February 02 2009 13:18 DamageControL wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 13:16 anotak wrote:
My ratio is 10.45
i always thought i was a bad poster I'm just not sure how to improve...
perhaps suggestions are needed Your fine...this is like googling a name to see who is a better person. personally I know I quote a lot of RETARDED people as well as good people. This is so flawed
Results 1 - 10 of about 190,000 for jibba
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,770,000 for DamageControL
|
i got like 2.85...
i don't think this makes a lot of sense though...
|
11613/4334=2.67
thats good right?
|
United States24676 Posts
On February 02 2009 13:27 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 13:18 DamageControL wrote:On February 02 2009 13:16 anotak wrote:
My ratio is 10.45
i always thought i was a bad poster I'm just not sure how to improve...
perhaps suggestions are needed Your fine...this is like googling a name to see who is a better person. personally I know I quote a lot of RETARDED people as well as good people. This is so flawed Results 1 - 10 of about 190,000 for jibba Results 1 - 10 of about 2,770,000 for DamageControL
Results 1 - 10 of about 68,100,000 for micronesia
Look how much better I am!
|
On February 02 2009 13:30 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 13:27 Jibba wrote:On February 02 2009 13:18 DamageControL wrote:On February 02 2009 13:16 anotak wrote:
My ratio is 10.45
i always thought i was a bad poster I'm just not sure how to improve...
perhaps suggestions are needed Your fine...this is like googling a name to see who is a better person. personally I know I quote a lot of RETARDED people as well as good people. This is so flawed Results 1 - 10 of about 190,000 for jibba Results 1 - 10 of about 2,770,000 for DamageControL Results 1 - 10 of about 68,100,000 for micronesia Look how much better I am!
Results 1 - 10 of about 2,200,000,000 for H
you got owned by H
edit: we all did
|
request name change to 'a'
|
You fail to take nested quotes into account. If I make a comment, and a someone responds and quotes with an utterly retarded comment, all responses directed towards the reply will also have "CDRdude wrote" in a nested quote, even if they weren't directly replying to me. I'm not sure if you'll be able to account for that without looking at each individual reply. Also, if someone quotes a discussion that I participated in, the nested quote spoiler would contain multiple iterations of "CDRdude wrote". Oh, and this post ads 3 to the "CDRdude wrote", and only 1 to my post count, so it's further skewing my statistics.
|
On February 02 2009 13:27 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 13:18 DamageControL wrote:On February 02 2009 13:16 anotak wrote:
My ratio is 10.45
i always thought i was a bad poster I'm just not sure how to improve...
perhaps suggestions are needed Your fine...this is like googling a name to see who is a better person. personally I know I quote a lot of RETARDED people as well as good people. This is so flawed Results 1 - 10 of about 190,000 for jibba Results 1 - 10 of about 2,770,000 for DamageControL
Results 1 - 10 of about 4,320,000 for savio
EDIT: lol at results for "H"
|
Results 1 - 10 of about 6,070 for FragKrag
IT JUST MEANS I'M MORE SPESIAL, you conformist bastards!
|
FuDDx
United States5008 Posts
Im unsure how you go about looking to get those stats T_T
Anyone willing to get mine, im sure they are not very good.
|
I'm 3.347
FuDDx, you're 4.41
|
My ratio's 2.917
That's actually better than I thought. I never thought about myself as a crappy poster, but I have a tendency to post random crap that noone really gives a shit about.
|
Edit: nvm sleepy, didn't realize you were using google instead of TL search.
|
We're using TL search actually, google is just for kicks.
|
4.9k quotes, about 40k posts for haji
lol
|
On February 02 2009 10:55 ahrara_ wrote:
the theory is, the lower this ratio, the higher quality posts you have
Good, good.
|
Isn't it better to determine who's a moron by just reading what they write?
|
On February 02 2009 14:07 FragKrag wrote:
We're using TL search actually, google is just for kicks. I realize that for the actual ratios, before I edited I commented on how some people were coming up with results in the hundred thousands or even millions.
|
|
|
United States17042 Posts
Oh dear. I think that I have the highest ratio on the site. I don't think that this is a particularly good way of measuring.
For example, if you quote yourself in a discussion/quote thread, that's obviously going to make your ratio better.
Or maybe I'm just a really really bad poster. Entirely possible.
|
This would make much more sense if the ratio was inverted. Typical economist...
|
mines quoted 60x of 41 threads = 0.68. im awesome.
|
I was browsing through old topics where people quoted me.
My findings: I was a shitty poster back in the day. And I couldn't distinguish between the words progamer and programmer.....
|
Big posts rarely get quoted, while pretty shitty posts, one liners or just "lol"s get quoted pretty often.
|
On February 02 2009 14:29 GHOSTCLAW wrote:
Oh dear. I think that I have the highest ratio on the site. I don't think that this is a particularly good way of measuring.
For example, if you quote yourself in a discussion/quote thread, that's obviously going to make your ratio better.
Or maybe I'm just a really really bad poster. Entirely possible.
I think it is because you post a lot in LR threads.
Although I did get quoted 21 times in the SKT vs eSTRO thread, no idea why. I think that if you say inflammatory things you would have a good post to quote ratio. I figured if I posted things like "Lol Boxer sucks" that I could have a pretty good ratio.
Mine is 2490 : 773 = 3.22
Not so great.
Edit: my post had a random smiley in it.
|
I come pretty close to losing this with 5.0 something
|
I really don't get this. The more you're quoted, the better a poster you are? There are plenty of shitty posters that people quote just to be like "Haha what a loser." or something of the like. This really doesn't make much sense at all.
|
i'm wasting my 793rd post to say i've been quoted 270 times
i guess i need to troll harder
|
On February 02 2009 15:07 TheNikeYork wrote:
I really don't get this. The more you're quoted, the better a poster you are? There are plenty of shitty posters that people quote just to be like "Haha what a loser." or something of the like. This really doesn't make much sense at all.
Haha what a loser
|
CA10828 Posts
i have a pretty sick 2.75 ratio...
|
|
|
CA10828 Posts
oh so this thread made me do a quick google search of my username... pretty cool to see me cited on various chinese boards etc.
|
seriously? funkie has 4.90 ? i dont believe that shit. BS. he cant beat me. he couldnt.
|
oh and whyd you ban me from your blog, douche. I THOUGHT WE WERE PALS.
|
Just argue a lot and you'll have a nice ratio 
|
Sweet, I'm well over 5 if you don't count MIR, etc.
Haji tops 6 though, I think he wins.
|
United States17042 Posts
On February 02 2009 15:00 Fontong wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2009 14:29 GHOSTCLAW wrote:
Oh dear. I think that I have the highest ratio on the site. I don't think that this is a particularly good way of measuring.
For example, if you quote yourself in a discussion/quote thread, that's obviously going to make your ratio better.
Or maybe I'm just a really really bad poster. Entirely possible. I think it is because you post a lot in LR threads. Although I did get quoted 21 times in the SKT vs eSTRO thread, no idea why. I think that if you say inflammatory things you would have a good post to quote ratio. I figured if I posted things like "Lol Boxer sucks" that I could have a pretty good ratio. Mine is 2490 : 773 = 3.22 Not so great. Edit: my post had a random smiley in it.
Actually (yes, I did think about this and come back) it's at least partly because I had a username change. Those will really screw this number up, as anytime i was quoted with my old name wouldn't count. (I probably had about 1k posts with my first username, 3k posts by my second username, and now i'm at my third username).
|
United States17042 Posts
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.
|
On February 02 2009 15:37 Raithed wrote:
oh and whyd you ban me from your blog, douche. I THOUGHT WE WERE PALS.
this is awkward
|
also, a high ratio means you probably don't contribute as much to discussions, but it doesn't mean you don't contribute to the site in general.
|
i'm actually pretty terrible
but i just came into this thread to say fuck raithed
|
On February 02 2009 16:26 GHOSTCLAW wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
people don't quote me because i intimidate them
|
On February 02 2009 17:04 mahnini wrote:
people don't quote me because i intimidate them
I think people don't respond to me because they think I'm a troll
|
333 posts, 118 quotes
about 3
|
On February 02 2009 15:29 LosingID8 wrote:
oh so this thread made me do a quick google search of my username... pretty cool to see me cited on various chinese boards etc.
Half the stuff with my alias isn't even me... some deviantart account, and lots of other really random things. On the other hand, you can kind of figure out what games I have played.
|
|
|
i was going to say this is stupid because people quote others to tell them theyre wrong or dumb or whatnot just as often
but then i saw that i have a 1.9
excellent system~
|
Oh yeah I had it backwards. Around a 2.0
|
Since people have quoted me about 500 times and I have 2000 posts I have a vague feeling I'm generally too intelligent for you mortals
|
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
You may be onto something here!
|
2.899
|
I have a theory, that this theory isn't very good!
|
I have been quoted 1337 times, so I win regardless of ratio.
|
On February 03 2009 04:55 lololol wrote:
I have been quoted 1337 times, so I win regardless of ratio.
not anymore
|
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!
|
Osaka27148 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.
|
|
|
Of course, you can't do the test on people with very low post counts because there is no significance (in the statistical sense).
It probably becomes a pretty good estimator at around 300 posts (just a guess).
Also, am I so far the most quoted poster (per post)?
/ego fed. Thx.
Also, ahrara, I had another idea of evaluating people's contribution or "goodness" or whatever you wanna call it. I think that if someone has created more than say...20 threads or so, look at the mean number of responses to that thread. That would tell you something about how good of threads they make. Most dumb threads get ignored after about a day. Other interesting ones like this, get 7 pages and beyond very quickly.
Although, we might all get whooped by agame (Election thread), and whoever made the "high thread" and the dota thread. LoL. and some other threads that I am sure other people could name.
|
|
|
remember that facebook thread where that guy tried to "show off his 200 friends" or something? that was pretty stupid, but got a lot of responses because of that.
and man.. LR threads win
oh, and just because you start a thread, doesnt mean you're a good contributor or even the main contributor. most of the time it's an argument/discussion between a few others
|
On February 03 2009 15:05 29 fps wrote:
remember that facebook thread where that guy tried to "show off his 200 friends" or something? that was pretty stupid, but got a lot of responses because of that.
and man.. LR threads win
oh, and just because you start a thread, doesnt mean you're a good contributor or even the main contributor. most of the time it's an argument/discussion between a few others
hahaha rpf is silly
|
rofl i have a ratio over 4
|
On February 03 2009 13:19 nAi.PrOtOsS wrote:
I have 1.3 thats pretty weak ><
**Edit** U want a low score? COOL!
so much for the theory
|
hahaha my ratio is over 4.5
|
Checking post count.
1837 quotes.
4029/1837 = 2.19
|
conversely if you write really stupid shit you'll get quoted as well
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the quote ratio should show posting distribution by forums/thread type, rather than the poster's own ability to generate discussion. aside from a few popular posters, whether a particular post is quoted and discussed may just be determined whether the post occurs in a discussion thread.
although it does not reflect ability to create discussion per se, it does reveal actual discussion generating performance in the past. the trouble is that this performance can be a result of choices independent of posting quality.
|
someone start a quote train so we can up our quote-a
HAHAHAHAHAHA
|
On February 04 2009 06:30 mahnini wrote:
someone start a quote train so we can up our quote-a
HAHAHAHAHAHA
sounds fun.
|
On February 04 2009 06:49 Falcynn wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2009 06:30 mahnini wrote:
someone start a quote train so we can up our quote-a
HAHAHAHAHAHA sounds fun.
I'm in, but only one time, I am getting dangerously close to 2000 and my I want to do something big.
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
1500 something to 956. About 1,5. Eat that capitalists!
EDIT: Wtf when did I get 2500? Omg omg omg!
|
3830 posts, quoted 1170 = 3.3 fuck you all bitches
|
United States17042 Posts
On February 03 2009 13:38 LTT wrote:HeaderTest wins. 0 Posts / 1 Quote = 0.00 Clearly a valuable poster. Show nested quote +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!
I don't think that quoting sonuvbob once will help you much- He has so many posts that just 1 more quote won't move his ratio around that much.
|
2.238
Your theory is as bad than my posts.
|
On February 04 2009 11:20 Boblion wrote:
2.238
Your theory is as bad than my posts.
Lol.
fanatacist wrote
fanatacist wrote
fanatacist wrote
fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote
Ratio overwhelming!
|
Spenguin
Australia3316 Posts
Ahh how are you guys finding this ratio??!?! I still can't understand T_T
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On February 04 2009 12:01 fanatacist didn't write:Show nested quote +On February 04 2009 11:20 Boblion didn't write:
2.238
Your theory is as bad than my posts. Lol. fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote Ratio overwhelming!
Do you understand that all this copypaste (unless you typed it manually) is exactly one entry for search?
The best way to go is quoting yourself.
|
United States17042 Posts
On February 03 2009 15:05 29 fps wrote:
remember that facebook thread where that guy tried to "show off his 200 friends" or something? that was pretty stupid, but got a lot of responses because of that.
and man.. LR threads win
oh, and just because you start a thread, doesnt mean you're a good contributor or even the main contributor. most of the time it's an argument/discussion between a few others
he managed to get a star because of it if i remember correctly. Not totally sure though.
LR threads don't really increase your quote count, they just increase your post count.
|
United States17042 Posts
On February 04 2009 17:52 BluzMan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2009 12:01 fanatacist didn't write:On February 04 2009 11:20 Boblion didn't write:
2.238
Your theory is as bad than my posts. Lol. fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote Ratio overwhelming! Do you understand that all this copypaste (unless you typed it manually) is exactly one entry for search? The best way to go is quoting yourself.
or if you're having a discussion with another person, go make sure you quote the whole discussion thread. The whole thing is moot though, as there's been shown to be some correlation, but no causation, which makes this kind of useless.
|
United States17042 Posts
On February 04 2009 17:05 Spenguin wrote:
Ahh how are you guys finding this ratio??!?! I still can't understand T_T
search for "spenguin wrote" including the quotes. Scroll down to figure out how many results you have. Take your post count, divide that by the number that you just researched, And you have your results. The lower the number you get, then better poster you seem to be (apparently anyway, i'm not sure how many people would agree. obviously the best way is if someone remembers something that you wronte. Then obviously you were a good poster (or you have no idea what you're talking about, and everyone is trying to correct you >.>)
|
Spenguin
Australia3316 Posts
2064 with 710 quoted = 2.9 >>
thanks GHOSTCLAW!!!
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
On February 04 2009 18:23 Spenguin didn't write:
2064 with 710 quoted = 2.9 >>
thanks GHOSTCLAW!!!
I wonder if anyone notices.
|
omg i have a theory that if you're not banned then you're not a "bad" poster.
|
On February 04 2009 20:40 BluzMan flabadabdab:Show nested quote +On February 04 2009 18:23 Spenguin didn't write:
2064 with 710 quoted = 2.9 >>
thanks GHOSTCLAW!!! I wonder if anyone notices.
Good post.
|
you guys are so hard on my theory
but i can tell you're really jealous.
|
On February 04 2009 23:02 Loanshark wrote:
omg i have a theory that if you're not banned then you're not a "bad" poster.
Lol you clearly haven't been here long enough.
|
On February 04 2009 17:52 BluzMan screamed from Hell:Show nested quote +On February 04 2009 12:01 fanatacist didn't write:On February 04 2009 11:20 Boblion didn't write:
2.238
Your theory is as bad than my posts. Lol. fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote Ratio overwhelming! Do you understand that all this copypaste (unless you typed it manually) is exactly one entry for search? The best way to go is quoting yourself.
You ass.
|
On February 04 2009 17:52 BluzMan writificated:Show nested quote +On February 04 2009 12:01 fanatacist didn't write:On February 04 2009 11:20 Boblion didn't write:
2.238
Your theory is as bad than my posts. Lol. fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote Ratio overwhelming! Do you understand that all this copypaste (unless you typed it manually) is exactly one entry for search? The best way to go is quoting yourself.
Seriously, when you make a post the search function remembers HOW it was entered?
|
^^Best way to get more quotes imo it to go back to all your old posts and edit in "[username] wrote"
On February 04 2009 17:55 GHOSTCLAW wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2009 15:05 29 fps wrote:
remember that facebook thread where that guy tried to "show off his 200 friends" or something? that was pretty stupid, but got a lot of responses because of that.
and man.. LR threads win
oh, and just because you start a thread, doesnt mean you're a good contributor or even the main contributor. most of the time it's an argument/discussion between a few others he managed to get a star because of it if i remember correctly. Not totally sure though. LR threads don't really increase your quote count, they just increase your post count.
rpf was just banned by Kennigit.
That account was created on 2007-01-29 08:47:18 and had 2685 posts.
Reason: For Inciting Riots
It's like a star.
|
On February 05 2009 02:39 Lemonwalrus self-righteously announced:Show nested quote +On February 04 2009 17:52 BluzMan writificated:On February 04 2009 12:01 fanatacist didn't write:On February 04 2009 11:20 Boblion didn't write:
2.238
Your theory is as bad than my posts. Lol. fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote fanatacist wrote Ratio overwhelming! Do you understand that all this copypaste (unless you typed it manually) is exactly one entry for search? The best way to go is quoting yourself. Seriously, when you make a post the search function remembers HOW it was entered?
He didn't mean it that way, he meant that I might be stupid enough to write it every time.
|
4459 : 1205
3.7 ratio. Im not that bad, am i?
|
If you don't get quoted all the time it just means you're white noise, owned.
|
ppl has quoted me 666 times
i was told i was satan once by a priest in disguise
does that mean i have 2.3 ratio?
this is bs tho
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
for post in myposts() do
post = post:gsub ("%w+ wrote:", "BluzMan wrote:")
end
|
United States17042 Posts
On February 05 2009 03:04 Fontong wrote:^^Best way to get more quotes imo it to go back to all your old posts and edit in "[username] wrote" Show nested quote +On February 04 2009 17:55 GHOSTCLAW wrote:On February 03 2009 15:05 29 fps wrote:
remember that facebook thread where that guy tried to "show off his 200 friends" or something? that was pretty stupid, but got a lot of responses because of that.
and man.. LR threads win
oh, and just because you start a thread, doesnt mean you're a good contributor or even the main contributor. most of the time it's an argument/discussion between a few others he managed to get a star because of it if i remember correctly. Not totally sure though. LR threads don't really increase your quote count, they just increase your post count. Show nested quote +rpf was just banned by Kennigit.
That account was created on 2007-01-29 08:47:18 and had 2685 posts.
Reason: For Inciting Riots It's like a star.
oh oops, nvm then -_-;; bad memory fails me again
|
I think what is more apropriate is how many times people mention you, because that doesn't necessarily include quoting you.
I've been mentioned 3498 times, which is almost as much as I have posts, so I'm clearly the best poster on tl and probably I'm gonna have an even lower than 1.00 ratio soon.
lololol
3499 now :D
|
Mine is 3,47 ! Darn.. But I did so much for Teamliquid~; People just like to quote me-_____-;
|
On February 09 2009 22:04 lololol wrote:
I think what is more apropriate is how many times people mention you, because that doesn't necessarily include quoting you.
I've been mentioned 3498 times, which is almost as much as I have posts, so I'm clearly the best poster on tl and probably I'm gonna have an even lower than 1.00 ratio soon.
lololol
3499 now :D
Dude your name lololol!
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
hye what about me can u help me check how do u check anyway
|
United States17042 Posts
On February 10 2009 03:02 alffla wrote:
hye what about me can u help me check how do u check anyway
exactly the same thing that I wrote for spenguin, except replace it with alffla >.>
On February 04 2009 17:58 GHOSTCLAW wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2009 17:05 Spenguin wrote:
Ahh how are you guys finding this ratio??!?! I still can't understand T_T search for "spenguin wrote" including the quotes. Scroll down to figure out how many results you have. Take your post count, divide that by the number that you just researched, And you have your results. The lower the number you get, then better poster you seem to be (apparently anyway, i'm not sure how many people would agree. obviously the best way is if someone remembers something that you wronte. Then obviously you were a good poster (or you have no idea what you're talking about, and everyone is trying to correct you >.>)
|
United States17042 Posts
On February 09 2009 22:25 Loanshark wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2009 22:04 lololol wrote:
I think what is more apropriate is how many times people mention you, because that doesn't necessarily include quoting you.
I've been mentioned 3498 times, which is almost as much as I have posts, so I'm clearly the best poster on tl and probably I'm gonna have an even lower than 1.00 ratio soon.
lololol
3499 now :D Dude your name lololol!
It's unlikely that when people use lololol, they do it the exact name number that his name is. He probably does have some false positives, but not as many as you would think.
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
On February 10 2009 04:03 GHOSTCLAW wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2009 03:02 alffla wrote:
hye what about me can u help me check how do u check anyway exactly the same thing that I wrote for spenguin, except replace it with alffla >.> Show nested quote +On February 04 2009 17:58 GHOSTCLAW wrote:On February 04 2009 17:05 Spenguin wrote:
Ahh how are you guys finding this ratio??!?! I still can't understand T_T search for "spenguin wrote" including the quotes. Scroll down to figure out how many results you have. Take your post count, divide that by the number that you just researched, And you have your results. The lower the number you get, then better poster you seem to be (apparently anyway, i'm not sure how many people would agree. obviously the best way is if someone remembers something that you wronte. Then obviously you were a good poster (or you have no idea what you're talking about, and everyone is trying to correct you >.>)
oh sweewt thanks hahaha
Showing 100 results from 39 threads of 2010 total results.
so.. 10000/2000.. .. so i get a 5??..
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
IM FIVE WTF?
well im gfx team and i worked on TSL with all the other guys u cant say shit bitches
and i never knew i've been quoted so much lol - _-;
|
|
|
147 post / 28 quotes = 5.44....
IGNORE ME!!!!!!!!
|
i almost feel bad for starting this thread some of you take this shit personal
|
I think the quotes just show how well you can start discussion usually, unless you're trolling but everyone should know if you are anyway.
|
Russian Federation4333 Posts
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it is not a bad idea at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
