Conquer Club

Thread killers that is.

I was bored, so I thought* I'd fire up my crawler again and find the most bloodthirsty CC'ers

Here's the data:


The Y axis shows the proportion of one's posts that have killed a thread (i.e. was the last post in the thread).
The names show who falls within that bucket and have been filtered to include only CC'ers with over 350 posts in the last year.
For details on the data I used, see my previous thread (linked above).

Perhaps not surprisingly shield is by far the most violent CC'er managing to ruthlessly murder threads with over 9% of his posts. Didn't really expect KoolBak to be #2 though.
On the other hand Greece and NS are the most peace-loving members, killing threads with only 0.4% of their posts. (more than 20 times less than the heartless shield)

Here's a raw data dump with all CC'ers with over 10 posts in the last year (too many to plot)

show

* Thought might have been spurred by nietzsche

UPDATE:

Based on kentington's idea, I re-ran it but rather than normalizing by post count, I normalized by number of threads posted in. So a person posting once or fifty times in the same thread is equivalent. The logic behind this measure is that, hypothetically, if you only ever posted in 1 thread, then it's not really fair to say you have a low hit ratio.

Anyway, here's the graph:

I think this new graph will make nietzsche happy.

Btw, the graph contains all people who have posted in more than 100 threads in the past 50 pages.

And here's the data dump for everyone who posted in more than 5 threads:

show

New median is 8.7%.

I prefer the term "thread winner". Don't we need also a total post count so that we know we aren't just seeing laws of averages? Like, if someone posts more, statistically they will end more threads.

More excellent work. Very nice. The top posters in the raw data are amusing to a degree too. Also, I'm exactly tied with Viceroy. Maybe there is a god.

Funkyterrance wrote:I prefer the term "thread winner". Don't we need also a total post count so that we know we aren't just seeing laws of averages? Like, if someone posts more, statistically they will end more threads.

This is already being done. That's why I say "proportion" and "9%".

Y axis shows posts that killed a thread in the last year divided by total posts in the last year.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:I prefer the term "thread winner". Don't we need also a total post count so that we know we aren't just seeing laws of averages? Like, if someone posts more, statistically they will end more threads.

This is already being done. That's why I say "proportion" and "9%".

Y axis shows posts that killed a thread in the last year divided by total posts in the last year.

Ah, ok thx. I tend to glaze over when I read accounting terminology.

Funkyterrance wrote:I prefer the term "thread winner". Don't we need also a total post count so that we know we aren't just seeing laws of averages? Like, if someone posts more, statistically they will end more threads.

Every time you post, there is a 4% chance that you will kill the thread. Do you feel you can live with that high of a kill rate?

Haggis, do you have the mode datum easily on hand? Is it the 3% we see in the figure?

Awesome! Number 3

Rds I chalk off to the closing of threads, he tends to have to do this a lot.

Otherwise this is interesting data. My hypothesis is that it's basically a breakdown of most/least popular and most/least comedic. Jokes tend to liven up a conversation as do posters who are favored for their generally agreeable natures. An alternative explanation is that the higher percentile posters are left hanging due to disinterest by others. Or, the higher percentile posters are those who simply like to get the last word(someone has to, usually the most persistent). Then again the low percentile posters could be those who quickly lose interest in subject before it has really cooled down and the reverse for high percentile, etc..

Neoteny wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:I prefer the term "thread winner". Don't we need also a total post count so that we know we aren't just seeing laws of averages? Like, if someone posts more, statistically they will end more threads.

Every time you post, there is a 4% chance that you will kill the thread. Do you feel you can live with that high of a kill rate?

I sleep very well at night, thank you.

Neoteny wrote:Haggis, do you have the mode datum easily on hand? Is it the 3% we see in the figure?

For the > 350 filter, yeah it's about 2.9%.
If you include everyone it goes down though to 1% or something like that.

Funkyterrance wrote:Rds I chalk off to the closing of threads, he tends to have to do this a lot.

That is interesting. I wonder what I am without my mod fatalities.

BMO

Thread of the year, 2013.

Who ever one that "best thread killer" thread? The one everybody kept bumping?

rdsrds2120 wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:Rds I chalk off to the closing of threads, he tends to have to do this a lot.

That is interesting. I wonder what I am without my mod fatalities.

BMO

Unfortunately I'm too lazy atm to scrounge through the html to figure out how a locked thread is marked.
Besides, locked threads are more like aggravated murder. You should suffer the statistical consequences of your heinous deeds!

Edit: Oh, and also MDF has a pretty low total. Not sure what the ratio of locked threads is between the two of you.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:Rds I chalk off to the closing of threads, he tends to have to do this a lot.

That is interesting. I wonder what I am without my mod fatalities.

BMO

Unfortunately I'm too lazy atm to scrounge through the html to figure out how a locked thread is marked.
Besides, locked threads are more like aggravated murder. You should suffer the statistical consequences of your heinous deeds!

Wouldn't you just have to filter out any topic titles with [Locked] in them? That'd likely get most of them.

Nice. Rocking about 3%.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:Nice. Rocking about 3%.

-TG

Yeah.
-FT

Pfft. I killed more bottles of scotch than Shieldgenerator laffed so hard I tore a hole in my scrotum7.

so i don't start threads, and i don't end threads. no wonder nobody notices when i get banned...

john9blue wrote:so i don't start threads, and i don't end threads. no wonder nobody notices when i get banned...

You got banned?

:hugs john:

[wonders who John is]

is that fucking 9. I swear I can never remember if it's a 2, a 4 a 9 or a 5.

jonesthecurl wrote:[wonders who John is]

It's the guy the toilets are named after.

all right, that's it. i'm gonna start a bunch of dumb threads like you guys do just so i get noticed

or you could just change that 9 for an underscore, like natty