Most popular posters? "Stats"

[fluffyhamster]

I had some free time today and thought this would be an interesting to do.

All thirteen posters below have STARTED more than one popular thread. I may not have typed their names quite correctly.

Locked threads couldn't be counted as popular (there's no flashing thingy).

Arranged by total views of all the poster's popular threads combined:
1 metal56 100488/54=1860
2 fluffyhamster 37722/9=4191
3 xui/shuntang 15050/6=2508
4 metamorfose 13662/7=1952
5 lolwhites 12054/5=2411
6 woodcutter 10692/6=1782
7 andrewpatterson 10142/4=2535
8 larrylatham 8965/5=1793
9 mesmark 7493/2=3746
10 juantwothree 6975/5=1395
11 cftranslate 6849/6=1141
12 william 5975/3=1992
13 jotham 5549/4=1387

Arranged by poster's number of popular threads:
1 metal56 100488/54=1860
2 fluffyhamster 37722/9=4191
3 metamorfose 13662/7=1952
4 xui/shuntang 15050/6=2508
5 woodcutter 10692/6=1782
6 cftranslate 6849/6=1141
7 lolwhites 12054/5=2411
8 larrylatham 8965/5=1793
9 juantwothree 6975/5=1395
10 andrewpatterson 10142/4=2535
11 jotham 5549/4=1387
12 william 5975/3=1992
13 mesmark 7493/2=3746

Arranged by average number of views per popular thread:
1 fluffyhamster 37722/9=4191
2 mesmark 7493/2=3746
3 andrewpatterson 10142/4=2535
4 xui/shuntang 15050/6=2508
5 lolwhites 12054/5=2411
6 william 5975/3=1992
7 metamorfose 13662/7=1952
8 metal56 100488/54=1860
9 larrylatham 8965/5=1793
10 woodcutter 10692/6=1782
11 juantwothree 6975/5=1395
12 jotham 5549/4=1387
13 cftranslate 6849/6=1141


The most popular thread is by far the 'Interesting websites' one (it has roughly double the number of views of the next most popular threads).

There are a few dozen posters who have one popular thread each. If I have time, I might rank them and give the thread title (and an indication of the subject matter if necessary) to show what single topics have attracted at least a fair number of readers (the "top" thirteen posters above generally discuss similar topics across each of their "range" of threads, and I'm sure that the regulars here are all fairly familar with what some of those topics are in each individual's case).

Maybe now some genius can factor in things like the poster's total number of threads (including "unpopular" as well as popular), total number of views (ditto), total number of posts, number of replies, number of "responses to self", number of completely unanswered posts/threads (aka "lead baloons"), colour of underwear etc etc. Or perhaps first even out the above three sets of rankings.

[jotham]

I think what you mean by popularity is how active a thread is. If that's the case, then you can just simply count the number of pages or replies rather than views.
There's something missing from your equation when the total or average number of views alone is calculated: the number of pages. Views aren't counted by thread, but rather by page. For instance, if a thread is eight pages, it will speciously receive four times as many views as one that is two pages (assuming everyone views it once). The more pages a thread has, the more distorted the views become.
Also, the same posters repeatedly look at the same thread as new replies are added. (In other words, they aren't necessarily reading the whole thread or page again, just one or two replies). The more replies the thread receives, again, the more distorting this compounding effect becomes. Yes, a rather long thread is probably popular, but not that popular.
Also, threads that are three years old will naturally have more views and thus seem more popular than those that are one year old or three months old. A ten-year-old hotel, for example, may never have been as popular as one that is two years old, but it may have seen more total customers over the years.
Also, edited posts get counted as "views." I sometimes edit mine ten or more times, for example.
I fear you may need more data and a more complex mathematical formula than the simple addition and division you employed to determine real popularity by views alone. But it's still interesting as long as you keep those things in mind. If you just take one further step and at least divide the total number of views by the total number of pages, you would get a more accurate picture.
But as I said before, it would just be simpler and more accurate to count the replies. This measures how active the thread is. It could theoretically take only four interested people to create a ten-page thread with mutliple views that no one else cares to look at. Active, yes; popular, not necessarily.

[revel]

Hey all!

It's true, that since a recent personality scrape here at Dave´s, I have stopped posting with the regularity that I had, say, three years ago. However, I did want to point out my "Interpretative ESL" thread that, at the time it was active, was indeed active, and with a lot of views. I understand what jotham comments, I am sure that I am responsible for a great number of the views of that thread, but at the time it was active (when good old Larry was still posting regularly) it certainly seemed "popular" by the standards of participation and idea exchange.

I even got into the top ten ranking a couple of times, and that that my posts are almost always rather lengthy. I would comment that sometimes a poster posts a lot of "one-liners" and seems to be participating a lot more than others who tend to post only when they have a lot to share (or are just windbags like me!)

Anyway, an interesting overview on fluffy's part. Thanks for the info, however statistically unstable it might be.

peace,
revel.

[fluffyhamster]

Rest assured Revel that your 'Interpretative ESL' (now titled 'deleted' LOL) is one of those "few dozen posters who have one popular thread each" things that I might try to get around to ranking and posting (I'm not sure what I'd say its subject matter is, perhaps 'Crack diluted with fermented grain beverages'? ).

I can understand the points about the flashing bells being a bit too rough yardstick (as I myself implied), but doing more would've been pretty hard work, and all I know is that threads that I started, made multiple posts in, edited the hell out of and replied endlessly to myself on did not usually become popular.

BTW, did you guys notice that the number of posters with two or more threads (assuming I didn't miss any) totals (total?) thirteen!

[lolwhites]

It would also be interesting to know how many of the popular threads had more than 2 people regularly posting on them. A flame war can make a thread look decidedly popular!

[fluffyhamster]

Well, I did my bit to fan some of those flames, and I didn't want to risk appearing (by even mentioning flame wars) like I for one was trying to knock metal out of what is clearly his deserved number one spot (he is the number one poster too).

[fluffyhamster]

More silliness: I added up the rank numbers and divided by three.

fluffy 1.666
metal 3.333
xui 3.666
meta 4.666
lolwhites 5.666
andy 6.666
woody 7
mes 8
larry 8.333
juan 10
cftr 10
william 10
jotham 12

Jotham's probably going to be a little upset that he still ranks low no matter which way I calculate things (and I can only say "no comment" to that fact that I might now appear as number one).

Professor McMadman of the Institute of Fudgeology, when shown this latest batch of numbers, remarked not only on how worrying it was that there turned out to be thirteen posters with two or more popular threads, but also that all those remaindered 6's could yet be the work of Lord Lovrmoted (who's not been mentioned much since the unvolved Mystery of the Murderous Modals, and the linked Riddle of Ripping Remoteness).

But seriously, there are obviously flaws in my little project here - how can Larry, one of the nicest guys around it seems, and probably many's favorite (a poster's poster), come in only eighth or ninth all the time (way below xui, who although "fun" to read and argue with (up to a point), was ultimately a bit of a pain)?! Larry contributed so much to so many threads.

But to do a general survey, ask people explicitly about who they like (and by implication don't), would be a bit of a no-no; the most we can probably fairly do is ask what topics people are generally interested in at least reading about (if not themselves posting on).

[revel]

Hey all!

Yes, I was in a tussy fuff and started deleting all of my contributions to Dave's when I felt that I was being unnecessarily brow-beaten by another poster. It was indeed infantile but it made me feel better at the time. It's a pity that I can't change the name of the thread now that it's called "Deleted", and also that I won't take the time to put those posts back on line, some of them were pretty good, even if I do say so myself.

I am glad that fluffy has brought an old thread to the top again about "protocol" on the message boards. Those regular posters four years ago had a nice, polite debate about the subject and I think many of the things shared therein were valuable thoughts to keep in mind when posting.

I guess we can all get out of control. I wonder if fluffy is bored or out of control with his analysis of our posts, but I like the information anyway. Thanks.

peace,
revel.

[fluffyhamster]

Well, I did my bit to fan some of those flames, and I didn't want to risk appearing (by even mentioning flame wars) like I for one was trying to knock metal out of what is clearly his deserved number one spot (he is the number one poster too).

Actually, I'm too nice sometimes. Metal kicked off far too many threads with some paltry quote from some Herbert von Krumpet or other, then proceeded to argue for the sheer sake of argument when the point was pretty much a non-issue to begin with for most. So yes, lolwhites, the "popularity" of many of his threads could well be due to other posters (and there are others besides me) not wanting him to have the last word all the time, especially given his increasingly hostile behaviour and antisocial antics over the last few years.

[lolwhites]

Yeah, well I did quite a bit of fanning myself. He probably wouldn't have been number one poster if you and I hadn't insisted on not letting him have the last word, but it probably pushed us up the table too! What I wonder is if anyone else bothered to read the threads after the first couple of pages.

[fluffyhamster]

He probably wouldn't have been number one poster if you and I hadn't insisted on not letting him have the last word, but it probably pushed us up the table too! What I wonder is if anyone else bothered to read the threads after the first couple of pages.

Well, if it's any consolation, I imagine that at least your position in these tables here is due to some actual real interest that your five popular threads genuinely generated (I doubt if they contain any gory cor-I-can't-stop-reading-this-traffic-accident-of-a-flame-war, as opposed to quite a few of metal's threads - or, if they do, it was probably metal who "started things" on your thread(s) too. But I'd need to check, and re-reading your threads sure would be more attractive a proposition than re-reading many of metal's).

[fluffyhamster]

Was a bit bored, so...HERE WE GO AGAIN! Here are the very latest stats (accurate to within the last few hours! ), all recalculated since the last lot.

As before, all the posters in the tables below have started more than one popular AL thread. There is a "newcomer" to these exalted ranks, raising the total number from 13 to 14 - the lovely Lorikeet! (Yey!).

Arranged by total views of all the poster's popular threads combined:
1 metal56 113100/55=2056
2 fluffyhamster 46207/9=5134
3 woodcutter 21483/9=2387
4 lolwhites 16276/5=3255
5 xui/shuntang 16011/6=2669
6 metamorfose 15773/7=2253
7 larry latham 11365/6=1894
8 andrew patterson 10450/4=2613
9 jotham 8705/4=2176
10 mesmark 8148/2=4074
11 cftranslate 7562/6=1260
12 lorikeet 7435/2=3718
13 juantwothree 7302/5=1460
14 william 7115/3=2372

Arranged by poster's number of popular threads:
1 metal56 113100/55=2056
2 fluffyhamster 46207/9=5134
3 woodcutter 21483/9=2387
4 metamorfose 15773/7=2253
5 xui/shuntang 16011/6=2669
6 larry latham 11365/6=1894
7 cftranslate 7562/6=1260
8 lolwhites 16276/5=3255
9 juantwothree 7302/5=1460
10 andrew patterson 10450/4=2613
11 jotham 8705/4=2176
12 william 7115/3=2372
13 mesmark 8148/2=4074
14 lorikeet 7435/2=3718

Arranged by average number of views per popular thread:
1 fluffyhamster 46207/9=5134
2 mesmark 8148/2=4074
3 lorikeet 7435/2=3718
4 lolwhites 16276/5=3255
5 xui/shuntang 16011/6=2669
6 andrew patterson 10450/4=2613
7 woodcutter 21483/9=2387
8 william 7115/3=2372
9 metamorfose 15773/7=2253
10 jotham 8705/4=2176
11 metal56 113100/55=2056
12 larry latham 11365/6=1894
13 juantwothree 7302/5=1460
14 cftranslate 7562/6=1260

The above rank numbers all added up and then divided by three give an overall "score", which is shown after the names in the final chart below; the previous results' figure is given in brackets, with a ^ for "up from ___", a v for "down from ___", and a = for "no change" to each "help indicate" whether the poster has apparently "risen" or "fallen" somewhat in at least their score since last time. To the left of the name is a super-final "simple rank" figure, again with the previous results' ones in brackets, and with ^ v or = also added. One therefore has two sets of similar stats in this final table with which to get an overall view.

1 (=1) fluffyhamster 1.6 (=1.6)
2 (^7) woodcutter 4.3 (^7)
3 (v2) metal56 4.3 (v3.3)
4 (v3) xui/shuntang 5 (v3.6)
5 (=5) lolwhites 5.3 (^5.6)
6 (v4) metamorfose 6.3 (v4.6)
7 (v6) andrew patterson 8 (v6.6)
8 (^9) larry latham 8.3 (=8.3)
9 (v8 ) mesmark 8.3 (v8 )
10 (-) lorikeet 9.6 (-)
11 (^13) jotham 10 (^12)
12 (v11) cftranslate 10.6 (v10)
13 (v10) juantwothree 11.3 (v10)
14 (v12) william 11.3 (v10)

New for this batch of results is the following list of "honourable mentions" - all the members named below each have one popular thread at the moment of typing:

Atassi, bag1881, Bluesky, bonnietyler, bradwelljackson, ChiSquare8, Echidna, eddie1, eslweb, geordie, greatdismalswamp, Harzer, heyiamhere, iain, iconoclast, Joanna0501, john martin, joon, kiwiboy nz 99, kvinchuca, Lighthouse1971b, Londo Molari, Lotus, lucy lace, Matty, mesomorph, Michelle1, Miss Elenious, mrandmrsjohnqsmith, Nic, NicoBas, noel, olga, ouyang, rachella, rblajev, Reddrose, Revel, Rolly, Sara2, Sarara, Scott.Sommers, scribble, Seagal12, Seiichi MYOGA, Stefan, szwagier, Tara B, teacherjuli, theunquietamerican, Vytenis, Wailing.li

Anyway, same thing next year or so, then?

[Lorikeet]

Been a while since I've seen some of those names...

[jotham]

By the way, where did metal go?

[Metamorfose]

I only have to say I'm really grateful to have found this forum back in 2003, since then, not only have I improved my English,but also I have been changing the way I see languages in general and how English works in its depths comparing to my native language and other languages I come across in order to optimise my teaching and my students learning process.

José