Conquer Club

Neoteny wrote:Might a thread killer have an effect on post frequency? Perhaps a significant drop off from a certain level of activity?

An affect on their frequency or others? Theirs I would assume yes but others I'm unsure. I, for one, just ignore posts of which I don't feel inclined to respond to and continue the conversation where it left off before it was posted, being careful not to repeat anything found in said ignored post's contents. To leave a thread because a post or two left a bad taste in my mouth would be a pretty petty move.
I still have a feeling that this all revolves around people not wanting to hear too strongly a conflicting view to their own so they simply remove themselves from the conversation. Why should here be so much different than in real life?

Funkyterrance wrote:

Neoteny wrote:Might a thread killer have an effect on post frequency? Perhaps a significant drop off from a certain level of activity?

An affect on their frequency or others? Theirs I would assume yes but others I'm unsure. I, for one, just ignore posts of which I don't feel inclined to respond to and continue the conversation where it left off before it was posted, being careful not to repeat anything found in said ignored post's contents. To leave a thread because a post or two left a bad taste in my mouth would be a pretty petty move.
I still have a feeling that this all revolves around people not wanting to hear too strongly a conflicting view to their own so they simply remove themselves from the conversation. Why should here be so much different than in real life?

An effect on others. Would a certain poster, more than others, be measured as reducing the post frequency of others within a thread? If so, this would account for the philosophizing at the end of your post.

Neoteny wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

Neoteny wrote:Might a thread killer have an effect on post frequency? Perhaps a significant drop off from a certain level of activity?

An affect on their frequency or others? Theirs I would assume yes but others I'm unsure. I, for one, just ignore posts of which I don't feel inclined to respond to and continue the conversation where it left off before it was posted, being careful not to repeat anything found in said ignored post's contents. To leave a thread because a post or two left a bad taste in my mouth would be a pretty petty move.
I still have a feeling that this all revolves around people not wanting to hear too strongly a conflicting view to their own so they simply remove themselves from the conversation. Why should here be so much different than in real life?

An effect on others. Would a certain poster, more than others, be measured as reducing the post frequency of others within a thread? If so, this would account for the philosophizing at the end of your post.

So you're reducing this to a matter of "that guy" being in the room? I should think we are all adult enough to get past this if it were the case. Besides, judging by the data this isn't the case since quite a few of the names in the lower percentile end are somewhat awkward and not necessarily usually welcome to conversations so the whole "idiot walking into the mensa party" theory doesn't quite fit.

Funkyterrance wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

Neoteny wrote:Might a thread killer have an effect on post frequency? Perhaps a significant drop off from a certain level of activity?

An affect on their frequency or others? Theirs I would assume yes but others I'm unsure. I, for one, just ignore posts of which I don't feel inclined to respond to and continue the conversation where it left off before it was posted, being careful not to repeat anything found in said ignored post's contents. To leave a thread because a post or two left a bad taste in my mouth would be a pretty petty move.
I still have a feeling that this all revolves around people not wanting to hear too strongly a conflicting view to their own so they simply remove themselves from the conversation. Why should here be so much different than in real life?

An effect on others. Would a certain poster, more than others, be measured as reducing the post frequency of others within a thread? If so, this would account for the philosophizing at the end of your post.

So you're reducing this to a matter of "that guy" being in the room? I should think we are all adult enough to get past this if it were the case. Besides, judging by the data this isn't the case since quite a few of the names in the lower percentile end are somewhat awkward and not necessarily usually welcome to conversations so the whole "idiot walking into the mensa party" theory doesn't quite fit.

"That guy being in the room" was exactly the point Nietzsche wanted to make. I don't know where you've been the last four pages, or how you've been reading and posting in this thread without figuring out that that reason is, originally, the whole objective of the analysis. Haggis modified it a bit, but still. I'm not a fan of Niet's particular suggestion to achieve his goal as I think it might be really muddy and not give anything that significant data-wise, so I was trying to help him out. Anyhow, mine might not be that much better, but it might be easier.

So, in any case, welcome to the thread. I know enough about statistics to know what can and can't be read into them. I'm not reducing anything.

Neoteny wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:

Neoteny wrote:Might a thread killer have an effect on post frequency? Perhaps a significant drop off from a certain level of activity?

An affect on their frequency or others? Theirs I would assume yes but others I'm unsure. I, for one, just ignore posts of which I don't feel inclined to respond to and continue the conversation where it left off before it was posted, being careful not to repeat anything found in said ignored post's contents. To leave a thread because a post or two left a bad taste in my mouth would be a pretty petty move.
I still have a feeling that this all revolves around people not wanting to hear too strongly a conflicting view to their own so they simply remove themselves from the conversation. Why should here be so much different than in real life?

An effect on others. Would a certain poster, more than others, be measured as reducing the post frequency of others within a thread? If so, this would account for the philosophizing at the end of your post.

So you're reducing this to a matter of "that guy" being in the room? I should think we are all adult enough to get past this if it were the case. Besides, judging by the data this isn't the case since quite a few of the names in the lower percentile end are somewhat awkward and not necessarily usually welcome to conversations so the whole "idiot walking into the mensa party" theory doesn't quite fit.

"That guy being in the room" was exactly the point Nietzsche wanted to make. I don't know where you've been the last four pages, or how you've been reading and posting in this thread without figuring out that that reason is, originally, the whole objective of the analysis. Haggis modified it a bit, but still. I'm not a fan of Niet's particular suggestion to achieve his goal as I think it might be really muddy and not give anything that significant data-wise, so I was trying to help him out. Anyhow, mine might not be that much better, but it might be easier.

So, in any case, welcome to the thread. I know enough about statistics to know what can and can't be read into them. I'm not reducing anything.

I didn't mean to sound offensive. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were unaware that I was politely asked by admin to ignore all of nietsche's comments although I could piece it together, despite what you may believe. I just was unable to respond to him directly so you were the next best thing and if you decide to "help him out" as it were I don't think it's unreasonable to bring your musings to their logical conclusions.

Well, I'm not going to get involved in the private machinations of lovers and their voyeuristic overlords. The idea that you'd be asked to ignore being baited seems sort of silly to me, but whatever. We are all aware now, and I like torturing statistics to say what I want them to say.

5.2% chance nobody ever comments on this thread. Ever again. Death comes to us all.

spurgistan wrote:5.2% chance nobody ever comments on this thread. Ever again. Death comes to us all.

But this thread is SUPER DUPER AWESOME!

Zero deviation over here.

Funkyterrance wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Wtf, are those cats clones or something?

this is known as a Large Cat Collider (LCC)

it works by rapidly rotating a catrino until critical ~nyan~ is achieved

is your data extracted from all forums or just off-topics?

i ask because my tournaments usually contain no other posts when started except mine. they would make me appear more bloodthirsty than i really am.

OT only.

Neoteny wrote:OT only.

how long does a thread have to go without any posts for the last post to be considered a killer?

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.

Nah there's likely an additional bias since the amount of threads is an order of magnitude more limited than the number of posts. I would hazard to guess that there is a correlation between number of posts and the murder proportion.

Also, what does the post count look like for OT? Since the stupid lame-o post counter doesnt count all these little pearls of awesomeness!

I wish there was a separate shown post count for OT.
What would the numbers look like if you did thread kills to amount of threads posted in?
That way if you have fifty posts in one thread, it won't help your ratio.

I'm the greatest!

greenoaks wrote:

Neoteny wrote:OT only.

how long does a thread have to go without any posts for the last post to be considered a killer?

I don't think he indicated that specifically. In the last thread, he went back fifty pages. He may have just assumed that since he goes back fifty pages, the weight of actual killed pages will drown out the most recent page or two. Or maybe he started five pages back or something. He'd have to answer that.

Neoteny wrote:

greenoaks wrote:

Neoteny wrote:OT only.

how long does a thread have to go without any posts for the last post to be considered a killer?

I don't think he indicated that specifically. In the last thread, he went back fifty pages. He may have just assumed that since he goes back fifty pages, the weight of actual killed pages will drown out the most recent page or two. Or maybe he started five pages back or something. He'd have to answer that.

Everything not on the first page was considered dead.

kentington wrote:I wish there was a separate shown post count for OT.
What would the numbers look like if you did thread kills to amount of threads posted in?
That way if you have fifty posts in one thread, it won't help your ratio.

Good idea. This should be easy to run.

So I kill more threads than I thought over 80% of my posts since I joined are in ot

New data in OP.

Click image to enlarge.

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%.

Looks like you were right after all, nietz.

I'm about average then it looks like, eh?


--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:I'm about average then it looks like, eh?


--Andy

I could teach you, but it would cost ya. And no, I don't accept payment in bananas.

I'm surprised I even registered on the chart since I generally only post once or twice in a thread.

Edit: Oh, I see that the logic behind the new graph has changed...makes sense then.

Ray Rider wrote:I'm surprised I even registered on the chart since I generally only post once or twice in a thread.

It just means you're that much more efficient lol.

Also, I've more than doubled. That hurts.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

Ray Rider wrote:I'm surprised I even registered on the chart since I generally only post once or twice in a thread.

It just means you're that much more efficient lol.

Also, I've more than doubled. That hurts.

-TG

Let me have the honor of taking the kill on this thread for you, TG.