The Sanctuary
Ego => Spurious Generalities => Topic started by: Slave of the Beast on October 07, 2014, 10:33:52 am
-
How high can the percentage of shitposts: completely off-topic, retarded drivel, pointless flaming, low quality trolling etc... be before someone stops being a good poster? Shitposting that is confined to HB or BM doesn't count. And should that ratio be any different for a member of staff?
For me once the shitpost ratio, outside of BM & HB, exceeds ~20% (Everyone here's human. Mostly.) then my opinion of them starts to deteriorate. For staff... ideally they shouldn't do it at all, but I'd probably let it slide if it stayed in the low single figures.
No doubt someone'll tell me I should know because I'm currently at 95.8%.
-
depends, really. I can handle sploo when he's not retarded-falling-on-the-keyboard-fucked-up because he's sincerely fucked up, ala the delirient speedball thread... bling's posts are pretty painful though. and thank fuck the brandon pretenders are gone.
-
I would draw the line at about 10%, and even that 10% should be at least adding/giving something to the thread. If I see even a few posts coming from a particular member which are worthless and don't even provide a chuckle or a double-take, I start to classify that "member" as useless and damaging to community spirit, even if they do have a few great posts on the board.
example:
LOL
TL/DR
FUCK U
[lame/uninteresting/boring kiddie pic]
LOOK AT ME!!!! WEEEEE!!!!
PI
CP
HAHAHAHA
BURRRRRNNNNNN
OW3ND
Only proven mouthbreathers make those types of posts, even if they're just a few.
-
It's difficult to standardize the "good poster scale". Each individual has to be considered as such.
-
No, it's not.
-
What about posters like fuckhead? If anyone here even knows of her...
Her "shitposting" was made up for in personality and something akin to style.
-
What about posters like fuckhead? If anyone here even knows of her...
Her "shitposting" was made up for in personality and something akin to style.
I can spot a shit poster 10 miles away. You should be able to as well.
-
am I still a shitposter spectral?
-
depends, really. I can handle sploo when he's not retarded-falling-on-the-keyboard-fucked-up because he's sincerely fucked up, ala the delirient speedball thread... bling's posts are pretty painful though. and thank fuck the brandon pretenders are gone.
Shut your mouth bling is a god among men you sausage sucking faggit
-
am I still a shitposter spectral?
Let's just say... you have the potential not to be a shitposter. It's just that right now you're attention starved. That may change as time progresses. Just look at Snoopy!! Well.. terrible analogy, I admit, but you get my drift, I'm sure.
-
Snoopy was an alright piece of bubble yum and I believe he genuinely tries to raise his vertically challenged daughters and enjoys being domesticated which is admirable I guess even tho hes just doin what hes sposdta
I liked bothering him and discussing things
-
I never laughed at anything snoopy said ever
except one time snoopy said to ph0x "you have to be a real degenerate piece of shit to be fat and a heroin addict at the same time", which was somewhat amusing
-
It's difficult to standardize the "good poster scale". Each individual has to be considered as such.
I think people can at the very least be broadly categorized. The poster's efforts should of course be considered as a whole; 20% shitpost/80% high quality post is probably better than 10% shitpost/90% mediocre post, but it's rare to come across a poster who produces high quality content intermixed with garbage. Usually it's the other way around, like Snoopy, whom I believe should not have been made a Zoklet mod for that reason (amongst others).
I believe the shitpost % is a reasonably sound overall indicator.
-
I NEED MY PERCENTILES NOW
-
I cant recall anything either but as a whole he was more tolerable than most
Did I actually say "having a riff 14 beats long has nothing to do with time signature?" I clearly meant notes and thats a hizarre thing to quote, like darkhunter/captain falcon butthurt bizarre.
I know nothing of trig-unstapled dumbfuck
-
I never laughed at anything snoopy said ever
I laughed at almost everything he typed
-
I cant recall anything either but as a whole he was more tolerable than most
Did I actually say "having a riff 14 beats long has nothing to do with time signature?" I clearly meant notes and thats a hizarre thing to quote, like darkhunter/captain falcon butthurt bizarre.
I know nothing of trig-unstapled dumbfuck
lol the top half of a time signature is how many beats to a bar, the bottom half is whether this is in full notes/half notes/etc
7/4
7 quarter notes per bar
whats I / Q ?
-
I cant recall anything either but as a whole he was more tolerable than most
Did I actually say "having a riff 14 beats long has nothing to do with time signature?" I clearly meant notes and thats a hizarre thing to quote, like darkhunter/captain falcon butthurt bizarre.
I know nothing of trig-unstapled dumbfuck
lol the top half of a time signature is how many beats to a bar, the bottom half is whether this is in full notes/half notes/etc
7/4
7 quarter notes per bar
whats I / Q ?
I dont believe you because tool
-
I'm 100% good poster bros
-
I feel like this thread is about me.
Can a shitpost be a quality post? Y'know, cause I always keep it one hunnid. :cosby:
-
It's difficult to standardize the "good poster scale". Each individual has to be considered as such.
I think people can at the very least be broadly categorized. The poster's efforts should of course be considered as a whole; 20% shitpost/80% high quality post is probably better than 10% shitpost/90% mediocre post, but it's rare to come across a poster who produces high quality content intermixed with garbage. Usually it's the other way around, like Snoopy, whom I believe should not have been made a Zoklet mod for that reason (amongst others).
I believe the shitpost % is a reasonably sound overall indicator.
How would you categorize me?
-
I like you as a poster now, a lot more so than a few years ago when Ate and Omnomnom Shiv were around. your posts are still unusual (which isn't a bad thing) but they're a lot more concise
-
I like you as a poster now, a lot more so than a few years ago when Ate and Omnomnom Shiv were around. your posts are still unusual (which isn't a bad thing) but they're a lot more concise
What were your previous usernames?
-
Auschwitz... someone took it months back.
-
It's been hard to recognize people cause of all the new names people have been forced to make.
-
The feds from the troll farms will very often take someone's popular nick in hopes of the user then feeling forced to take an unknown name, thereby disrupting online associations and possible future collaborations and /or meetings.
-
Naturally, it will be 20/80. The main question should be what kind of shitpost is allowed here?
-
Naturally, it will be 20/80. The main question should be what kind of shitpost is allowed here?
You are not a shitposter, LS. I quite enjoy your posts.
-
Depends on the site, really. This site? Ran by a douche who nobody takes seriously, so I'd say about 1:20 ratio is probably fine.
-
Auschwitz... someone took it months back.
That's bullshit. That username was cool.
-
It's difficult to standardize the "good poster scale". Each individual has to be considered as such.
I think people can at the very least be broadly categorized. The poster's efforts should of course be considered as a whole; 20% shitpost/80% high quality post is probably better than 10% shitpost/90% mediocre post, but it's rare to come across a poster who produces high quality content intermixed with garbage. Usually it's the other way around, like Snoopy, whom I believe should not have been made a Zoklet mod for that reason (amongst others).
I believe the shitpost % is a reasonably sound overall indicator.
How would you categorize me?
Due to having far too much spare time on my hands, and seeing as it's you Obbe, I have devised a poster-scatometric calculation1. It works as follows (excluding B&M and H&B posts):
Each type of post is assigned a value, where QP = quality posts:
Exceptional QPs 1pt
V.high QPs 0.875pt
High QPs 0.75pt
Upper Medium QPs 0.625pt
Lower Medium QPs 0.5pt
Low QPs 0.375pt
Extra Low QPs 0.25pt
Shit QPs 0.0pt
Categories based on the total number of point, are defined where QPer = quality poster:
Exceptional QPer* 90-100pts
V.high QPer* 80-89pts
High QPer* 70-79pts
Upper Medium QPer** 55-69pts
Lower Medium QPer** 40-54pts
Low QPer 30-39pts
Extra Low QPer 20-29pts
Shit QPer *** 10-19pts
*Mod's should ideally fall in to one of these three categories.
** I've deliberately made the medium range quite large, such that there is a meaningful distinction between low and high quality posts, rather than having lots of finely sliced divisions in between. Most people will fall into one of these two Medium categories.
***Regarding banning, a shit poster would be pushing their luck. I'd expect them to be gone before they got below 10pts. Maybe there should be an informal <10pts 'Shit Goblin' category.
A sample of a user's post is then taken, for the time being let's call it the last 50 posts (the more the better), and they are categorized2. In your case (IMO):
Exceptional QPs : 0
V.high QPs : 0
High QPs : 3
Upper Medium QPs : 8
Lower Medium QPs : 32
Low QPs : 7
Extra Low QPs : 0
Shit QPs : 0
Calculating the number of posts by their respective weightings and multiplying by 2 to give a score out of 100 gives:
Exceptional QPs 1pts x 0 = 0
V.high QPs 0.875pts x 0 = 0
High QPs 0.75pts x 3 = 2.25
Upper Medium QPs 0.625pts x 8 = 5
Lower Medium QPs 0.5pts x 32 = 16
Low QPs 0.375pts x 7 = 2.625
Extra Low QPs 0.25pts x 0 = 0
Shit QPs 0.0pts x 0 = 0
Total (x2) : 51.75
Therefore the Slave Equation suggests you are a poster of lower medium quality, who is probably representative of a solid average user overall.
I hope you are pleased and impressed by my work... *SotB starts running*
...
1) The calculation describing how shit a poster is. Which, without a trace of humility, I hereby call the Slave Equation. Cut me some slack on this one. It's not as if anything else is ever going to be named after me.
2) I fully admit this it quite qualitative, but I think significant consistency could be achieved by someone/persons being appointed scatometric officer(s) and working by clear guidelines.
-
Long live The Slave Equation!!!!
You need to go patent, copyright, and trademark that bitch....because of all the 10's of thousands of BBS's out there, you might have just created a set of standards and practices that could turn the whole thing upside down!
Great job as always, Slave! Kudos!!!!
-
It's difficult to standardize the "good poster scale". Each individual has to be considered as such.
I think people can at the very least be broadly categorized. The poster's efforts should of course be considered as a whole; 20% shitpost/80% high quality post is probably better than 10% shitpost/90% mediocre post, but it's rare to come across a poster who produces high quality content intermixed with garbage. Usually it's the other way around, like Snoopy, whom I believe should not have been made a Zoklet mod for that reason (amongst others).
I believe the shitpost % is a reasonably sound overall indicator.
How would you categorize me?
Due to having far too much spare time on my hands, and seeing as it's you Obbe, I have devised a poster-scatometric calculation1. It works as follows (excluding B&M and H&B posts):
Each type of post is assigned a value, where QP = quality posts:
Exceptional QPs 1pt
V.high QPs 0.875pt
High QPs 0.75pt
Upper Medium QPs 0.625pt
Lower Medium QPs 0.5pt
Low QPs 0.375pt
Extra Low QPs 0.25pt
Shit QPs 0.0pt
Categories based on the total number of point, are defined where QPer = quality poster:
Exceptional QPer* 90-100pts
V.high QPer* 80-89pts
High QPer* 70-79pts
Upper Medium QPer** 55-69pts
Lower Medium QPer** 40-54pts
Low QPer 30-39pts
Extra Low QPer 20-29pts
Shit QPer *** 10-19pts
*Mod's should ideally fall in to one of these three categories.
** I've deliberately made the medium range quite large, such that there is a meaningful distinction between low and high quality posts, rather than having lots of finely sliced divisions in between. Most people will fall into one of these two Medium categories.
***Regarding banning, a shit poster would be pushing their luck. I'd expect them to be gone before they got below 10pts. Maybe there should be an informal <10pts 'Shit Goblin' category.
A sample of a user's post is then taken, for the time being let's call it the last 50 posts (the more the better), and they are categorized2. In your case (IMO):
Exceptional QPs : 0
V.high QPs : 0
High QPs : 3
Upper Medium QPs : 8
Lower Medium QPs : 32
Low QPs : 7
Extra Low QPs : 0
Shit QPs : 0
Calculating the number of posts by their respective weightings and multiplying by 2 to give a score out of 100 gives:
Exceptional QPs 1pts x 0 = 0
V.high QPs 0.875pts x 0 = 0
High QPs 0.75pts x 3 = 2.25
Upper Medium QPs 0.625pts x 8 = 5
Lower Medium QPs 0.5pts x 32 = 16
Low QPs 0.375pts x 7 = 2.625
Extra Low QPs 0.25pts x 0 = 0
Shit QPs 0.0pts x 0 = 0
Total (x2) : 51.75
Therefore the Slave Equation suggests you are a poster of lower medium quality, who is probably representative of a solid average user overall.
I hope you are pleased and impressed by my work... *SotB starts running*
...
1) The calculation describing how shit a poster is. Which, without a trace of humility, I hereby call the Slave Equation. Cut me some slack on this one. It's not as if anything else is ever going to be named after me.
2) I fully admit this it quite qualitative, but I think significant consistency could be achieved by someone/persons being appointed scatometric officer(s) and working by clear guidelines.
Nice work, but it doesn't seem like a very objective form of measurement.
-
Nice work, but it doesn't seem like a very objective form of measurement.
The subject matter is inherently subjective, which does not help. As I said proper agreed-upon guidelines could be written down, rather than working by personal criteria. What would you do to improve the objectivity of this process?
And what do you think of the score I gave you?
-
Nice work, but it doesn't seem like a very objective form of measurement.
The subject matter is inherently subjective, which does not help. As I said proper agreed-upon guidelines could be written down, rather than working by personal criteria. What would you do to improve the objectivity of this process?
And what do you think of the score I gave you?
I'm not sure it can be an objective process. I don't really agree with my score, I think I'm a decent poster. At least above average.
-
Nice work, but it doesn't seem like a very objective form of measurement.
The subject matter is inherently subjective, which does not help. As I said proper agreed-upon guidelines could be written down, rather than working by personal criteria. What would you do to improve the objectivity of this process?
And what do you think of the score I gave you?
The first step would be to find some way to quantify post quality. Decide on a system of measurement that is somewhat objective. An example:
PQ = (total words written / number of posts)
Average words per post isn't a good indicator of post quality, but it could be a good starting point for your system of measurement.
-
This thread is a case study in sisyphean endeavors.
-
The first step would be to find some way to quantify post quality. Decide on a system of measurement that is somewhat objective. An example:
PQ = (total words written / number of posts)
Average words per post isn't a good indicator of post quality, but it could be a good starting point for your system of measurement.
according to your system, the top quality posters here would be RisiR, then me. I think you need to rethink your system.
-
OP suffers from severe autism.
-
The first step would be to find some way to quantify post quality. Decide on a system of measurement that is somewhat objective. An example:
PQ = (total words written / number of posts)
Average words per post isn't a good indicator of post quality, but it could be a good starting point for your system of measurement.
according to your system, the top quality posters here would be RisiR, then me. I think you need to rethink your system.
Not my system, though you two would definitely not top this list. My opinion is that it's pointless to try to quantify and rate post quality. Dunno why human intuition gets the bad rap it does.
But this whole thing reminds me of utilitarian ethics, with their attempts at quantifying and rating happiness.
In both cases, the point is missed entirely.
-
I think people should stop worrying about what other people are posting and just worry about what they are posting.
-
Nice work, but it doesn't seem like a very objective form of measurement.
The subject matter is inherently subjective, which does not help. As I said proper agreed-upon guidelines could be written down, rather than working by personal criteria. What would you do to improve the objectivity of this process?
And what do you think of the score I gave you?
The first step would be to find some way to quantify post quality. Decide on a system of measurement that is somewhat objective. An example:
PQ = (total words written / number of posts)
Average words per post isn't a good indicator of post quality, but it could be a good starting point for your system of measurement.
If we take the number the slave equation comes up with and put it over the number this gives you then give a small margine of error we will have a pretty accurate SP predictor.
-
You are not a shitposter, LS. I quite enjoy your posts.
Glad to entertain, millionsofdeadcats.
On topic, it really is hard to determine the quality of the post. Trying to automate it is as hard as creating perfect turing pass application while having another human to value the post will result in biased judgement. We can also try to have a vote power on every post but this will result in unpopular opinion to be disregarded as irrelevant while the post actually do have important message. Determining the quality of the post itself is not easy, we can try to calculate it using a few variables such as: Relevancy, Content, and Grammar.
In the end the best way to improve post quality is to post high quality post by yourself. People tends to gather in the community that shares the same ideals. By having an environment that are rich with meaningful post content and intriguing thread, a good culture will form and it will attract people that are interested with it.
-
I absolutely need to know my Slave Equation score. Seriously.
-
No, it's not hard to determine the quality of a post. That is just another feeble, misguided excuse to allow the shitposters to prosper and allow them to bring the place down, just like they've already done to not one, but two communities. I guess some people are so stupid they never learn, though.
-
No, it's not hard to determine the quality of a post. That is just another feeble, misguided excuse to allow the shitposters to prosper and allow them to bring the place down, just like they've already done to not one, but two communities. I guess some people are so stupid they never learn, though.
I think you havr assburgers and killjoy syndrome
-
No, it's not hard to determine the quality of a post. That is just another feeble, misguided excuse to allow the shitposters to prosper and allow them to bring the place down, just like they've already done to not one, but two communities. I guess some people are so stupid they never learn, though.
I think you havr assburgers and killjoy syndrome
And I think you need a reality check.
-
No, it's not hard to determine the quality of a post. That is just another feeble, misguided excuse to allow the shitposters to prosper and allow them to bring the place down, just like they've already done to not one, but two communities. I guess some people are so stupid they never learn, though.
And like has been discussed, how do you qualify the quality of a post. Of course post that only contain 'you suck' or 'something something your mom' can be easily disregarded as low quality post. But something like your own post actually do have a message even though it contains of swearing and insults. The context of the post and the relevancy is not something that can easily be measured.
-
'you suck' or 'something something your mom' can be easily disregarded as low quality post
But what if that poster really does suck, and other users really should know this, yet the post is dismissed as 'not a quality post'?
Yeah I know I am reaching here, but quality can never truly be objectively quantified.
-
Nice work, but it doesn't seem like a very objective form of measurement.
The subject matter is inherently subjective, which does not help. As I said proper agreed-upon guidelines could be written down, rather than working by personal criteria. What would you do to improve the objectivity of this process?
And what do you think of the score I gave you?
The first step would be to find some way to quantify post quality. Decide on a system of measurement that is somewhat objective. An example:
PQ = (total words written / number of posts)
Average words per post isn't a good indicator of post quality, but it could be a good starting point for your system of measurement.
For the most part I excluded word count as a factor. Content and quality far outweigh quantity. 6 sentences of insightful, technical and referenced comment would score far better (very high quality) than 6 paragraphs of how your dog was sick one morning because you fed it 1/4 lb of chocolate the night before (lower middle quality).
The first step would be to find some way to quantify post quality. Decide on a system of measurement that is somewhat objective. An example:
PQ = (total words written / number of posts)
Average words per post isn't a good indicator of post quality, but it could be a good starting point for your system of measurement.
according to your system, the top quality posters here would be RisiR, then me. I think you need to rethink your system.
Not my system, though you two would definitely not top this list. My opinion is that it's pointless to try to quantify and rate post quality. Dunno why human intuition gets the bad rap it does.
But this whole thing reminds me of utilitarian ethics, with their attempts at quantifying and rating happiness.
In both cases, the point is missed entirely.
Because consistent and quantifiable data, if not the final authority, is far more reliable than A. N. Other's self-important unjustified opinion. That's why some people don't like things being quantified; too much accountability when shit hits the fan.
-
Quantify me.
-
Quantify me.
Categories based on the total number of points, are defined where QPer = quality poster:
Exceptional QPer 90-100pts
V.high QPer 80-89pts
High QPer 70-79pts
Upper Medium QPer 55-69pts
Lower Medium QPer 40-54pts
Low QPer 30-39pts
Extra Low QPer 20-29pts
Shit QPer 10-19pts
Analysis of RisiR's last 50 posts:
Exceptional QPs : 0
V.high QPs : 0
High QPs : 1
Upper Medium QPs : 3
Lower Medium QPs : 17
Low QPs : 13
Extra Low QPs : 10
Shit QPs : 6
Calculating the number of posts by their respective weightings and multiplying by 2 to give a score out of 100 gives:
Exceptional QPs 1pts x 0 = 0
V.high QPs 0.875pts x 0 = 0
High QPs 0.75pts x 1 = 0.75pts
Upper Medium QPs 0.625pts x 3 = 1.875pts
Lower Medium QPs 0.5pts x 17 = 8.5pts
Low QPs 0.375pts x 13 = 4.875pts
Extra Low QPs 0.25pts x 10 = 2.5pts
Shit QPs 0.0pts x 6 = 0
Total (x2) : 37
Therefore the Slave Equation suggests that overall you are a poster of low quality material who has shown some capacity to post above average content.
You're an interesting case. Although the calculations don't directly take into account a user's post-rate, high-volume posting is its own penalty in terms of the post quality and this is reflected in the score. In particular you appear to have a fairly clear limit as to much time/effort you're prepared to put into any single post, hence the sudden drop-off from Lower to Upper medium posts. In contrast, Obbe's post analysis shows more of a (narrow-range) bell-curve, indicating he's more consistent and perhaps has more time, or inclination, to post better material.
Your thoughts?
I'm tempted to do Equanimity next. Can't do myself for obvious reasons. :(
-
Quantify me.
Categories based on the total number of points, are defined where QPer = quality poster:
Exceptional QPer 90-100pts
V.high QPer 80-89pts
High QPer 70-79pts
Upper Medium QPer 55-69pts
Lower Medium QPer 40-54pts
Low QPer 30-39pts
Extra Low QPer 20-29pts
Shit QPer 10-19pts
Analysis of RisiR's last 50 posts:
Exceptional QPs : 0
V.high QPs : 0
High QPs : 1
Upper Medium QPs : 3
Lower Medium QPs : 17
Low QPs : 13
Extra Low QPs : 10
Shit QPs : 6
Calculating the number of posts by their respective weightings and multiplying by 2 to give a score out of 100 gives:
Exceptional QPs 1pts x 0 = 0
V.high QPs 0.875pts x 0 = 0
High QPs 0.75pts x 1 = 0.75pts
Upper Medium QPs 0.625pts x 3 = 1.875pts
Lower Medium QPs 0.5pts x 17 = 8.5pts
Low QPs 0.375pts x 13 = 4.875pts
Extra Low QPs 0.25pts x 10 = 2.5pts
Shit QPs 0.0pts x 6 = 0
Total (x2) : 37
Therefore the Slave Equation suggests that overall you are a poster of low quality material who has shown some capacity to post above average content.
You're an interesting case. Although the calculations don't directly take into account a user's post-rate, high-volume posting is its own penalty in terms of the post quality and this is reflected in the score. In particular you appear to have a fairly clear limit as to much time/effort you're prepared to put into any single post, hence the sudden drop-off from Lower to Upper medium posts. In contrast, Obbe's post analysis shows more of a (narrow-range) bell-curve, indicating he's more consistent and perhaps has more time, or inclination, to post better material.
Your thoughts?
I'm tempted to do Equanimity next. Can't do myself for obvious reasons. :(
do mine instead, because I fucking rule and stuff.
-
This equation is clearly flawed and dumb and you are ugly. :'(
-
This equation is clearly flawed and dumb and you are ugly. :'(
LOL
-
I've just read my last 50 posts and yea....
Could you point out the 6 shit QPs, please?
-
I'm tempted to do Equanimity next.
Go for it! This is starting to get fun now :)
-
We could do it ourselves if SOTB would tell us how exactly he determines 'post quality' and how to correctly categorize the results.
-
We could do it ourselves if SOTB would tell us how exactly he determines 'post quality' and how to correctly categorize the results.
I think he's just reading the past 50 posts a person makes and decides himself how he feels about them. Maybe one of us should do his.
-
We could do it ourselves if SOTB would tell us how exactly he determines 'post quality' and how to correctly categorize the results.
I think he's just reading the past 50 posts a person makes and decides himself how he feels about them. Maybe one of us should do his.
Yeah but look at all the 'categories'. How does he decide with such precision? I more imagine it like a multiple choice test than an actual way of quantifying post quality.
Exceptional QPer
V.high QPer
High QPer
Upper Medium QPer
Lower Medium QPer
Low QPer
Extra Low QPer
Shit QPer
-
We could do it ourselves if SOTB would tell us how exactly he determines 'post quality' and how to correctly categorize the results.
I think he's just reading the past 50 posts a person makes and decides himself how he feels about them. Maybe one of us should do his.
Yeah but look at all the 'categories'. How does he decide with such precision? I more imagine it like a multiple choice test than an actual way of quantifying post quality.
Exceptional QPer
V.high QPer
High QPer
Upper Medium QPer
Lower Medium QPer
Low QPer
Extra Low QPer
Shit QPer
Got embarrassed by a high post count, decided to use a new account. How pathetic and fat is that move, son?
-
Got embarrassed by a high post count, decided to use a new account. How pathetic and fat is that move, son?
I will slap you with a piece of bologna and ruin your afterlife
-
We could do it ourselves if SOTB would tell us how exactly he determines 'post quality' and how to correctly categorize the results.
I think he's just reading the past 50 posts a person makes and decides himself how he feels about them. Maybe one of us should do his.
That would suggest I'm trolling; the calculations are a load of bollocks and I just look at someone's recent post history and feel my way to 'Meh, your posts are sub substandard mate.'.
That would be incorrect. I'll get round to yours later this evening.
I'll also post category criteria later this eve'.
-
It all depends on the community's actual mission statement. If the community's mission statement is to have an ICQ-chat-lite platform, then even the very subject of off-topic and immature posting becomes irrelevant.
-
According to Arnox the mission statement is to do exactly what he says, nothing more, nothing less, unless you ask him first, then he'll just send you extremely rude PMs.
-
I think trying to use percentages devoid of context isn't incredibly helpful for figuring this out.
For me, it always depends on context. If it's a shit thread with a shit OP and a shit topic, a top-notch poster posting shit doesn't bother me at all, and if it's a funny/light thread then the shitty posts are actually appropriate. Likewise, if they are always contributing good things to serious threads, that's spot on.
So I would retool the test to say: "how often does a poster deviate from the context, theme, or spirit of a thread?" If they rarely deviate, then they are probably a great poster in my mind.
-
I think trying to use percentages devoid of context isn't incredibly helpful for figuring this out.
For me, it always depends on context. If it's a shit thread with a shit OP and a shit topic, a top-notch poster posting shit doesn't bother me at all, and if it's a funny/light thread then the shitty posts are actually appropriate. Likewise, if they are always contributing good things to serious threads, that's spot on.
So I would retool the test to say: "how often does a poster deviate from the context, theme, or spirit of a thread?" If they rarely deviate, then they are probably a great poster in my mind.
But what if they are constantly making shit tier threads? Technically they aren't deviating from the thread, so by that theory they would be great posters.
-
yeh, the more complicated and numerous the rules are, the more holes will be in them. We should simplify this process by reducing the number of 'categories' and then assign them simple numerical values. Then we can work from there.
For example: We should just have three 'categories': Good, bad, and N/A. They should have values of 1, -1, and 0 respectively.
-
I think trying to use percentages devoid of context isn't incredibly helpful for figuring this out.
For me, it always depends on context. If it's a shit thread with a shit OP and a shit topic, a top-notch poster posting shit doesn't bother me at all, and if it's a funny/light thread then the shitty posts are actually appropriate. Likewise, if they are always contributing good things to serious threads, that's spot on.
So I would retool the test to say: "how often does a poster deviate from the context, theme, or spirit of a thread?" If they rarely deviate, then they are probably a great poster in my mind.
But what if they are constantly making shit tier threads? Technically they aren't deviating from the thread, so by that theory they would be great posters.
Again, it depends. If there are enough good threads to keep me engaged and interested in the site, I don't care about the shitty ones floating around. If you can't figure out which ones suck by title alone at this point, then a quick glance of the OP usually does the trick.
If there are nothing but shit threads, then take it upon yourself to create ones you think are good. I'm trying to spit out two or three good threads per day, and so far it has worked out well.
My point is only that if we spent more time focusing on creating good content, then the shitty content would be irrelevant.
-
I think trying to use percentages devoid of context isn't incredibly helpful for figuring this out.
For me, it always depends on context. If it's a shit thread with a shit OP and a shit topic, a top-notch poster posting shit doesn't bother me at all, and if it's a funny/light thread then the shitty posts are actually appropriate. Likewise, if they are always contributing good things to serious threads, that's spot on.
So I would retool the test to say: "how often does a poster deviate from the context, theme, or spirit of a thread?" If they rarely deviate, then they are probably a great poster in my mind.
But what if they are constantly making shit tier threads? Technically they aren't deviating from the thread, so by that theory they would be great posters.
Again, it depends. If there are enough good threads to keep me engaged and interested in the site, I don't care about the shitty ones floating around. If you can't figure out which ones suck by title alone at this point, then a quick glance of the OP usually does the trick.
If there are nothing but shit threads, then take it upon yourself to create ones you think are good. I'm trying to spit out two or three good threads per day, and so far it has worked out well.
My point is only that if we spent more time focusing on creating good content, then the shitty content would be irrelevant.
I wish we could still preview the thread by hovering our cursor over the link.
-
I think trying to use percentages devoid of context isn't incredibly helpful for figuring this out.
For me, it always depends on context. If it's a shit thread with a shit OP and a shit topic, a top-notch poster posting shit doesn't bother me at all, and if it's a funny/light thread then the shitty posts are actually appropriate. Likewise, if they are always contributing good things to serious threads, that's spot on.
So I would retool the test to say: "how often does a poster deviate from the context, theme, or spirit of a thread?" If they rarely deviate, then they are probably a great poster in my mind.
But what if they are constantly making shit tier threads? Technically they aren't deviating from the thread, so by that theory they would be great posters.
Again, it depends. If there are enough good threads to keep me engaged and interested in the site, I don't care about the shitty ones floating around. If you can't figure out which ones suck by title alone at this point, then a quick glance of the OP usually does the trick.
If there are nothing but shit threads, then take it upon yourself to create ones you think are good. I'm trying to spit out two or three good threads per day, and so far it has worked out well.
My point is only that if we spent more time focusing on creating good content, then the shitty content would be irrelevant.
I wish we could still preview the thread by hovering our cursor over the link.
Agreed. That'd be a nice perk.
-
I'm tempted to do Equanimity next.
Go for it! This is starting to get fun now :)
Categories based on the total number of points are defined, where QPer = quality poster:
Exceptional QPer 90-100pts
V.high QPer 80-89pts
High QPer 70-79pts
Upper Medium QPer 55-69pts
Lower Medium QPer 40-54pts
Low QPer 30-39pts
Extra Low QPer 20-29pts
Shit QPer 10-19pts
Analysis of Equanimity's last 50 posts, excluding those made in (or transferred to) B&M, HB and NIMF:
Exceptional QPs : 0
V.high QPs : 0
High QPs : 1
Upper Medium QPs : 13
Lower Medium QPs : 27
Low QPs : 8
Extra Low QPs : 1
Shit QPs : 0
Calculating the number of posts by their respective weightings and multiplying by 2 to give a score out of 100 gives:
Exceptional QPs 1pts x 0 = 0pts
V.high QPs 0.875pts x 0 = 0pts
High QPs 0.75pts x 1 = 0.75pts
Upper Medium QPs 0.625pts x 13 = 8.125pts
Lower Medium QPs 0.5pts x 27 = 13.5pts
Low QPs 0.375pts x 8 = 3pts
Extra Low QPs 0.25pts x 1 = 0.25pts
Shit QPs 0.0pts x 0 = 0pts
Total (x2) : 51.25
Therefore the Slave Equation suggests that overall you are a poster in the Lower Medium quality category. As you can see you're in fact almost perfectly average. Do not take that as an insult. Your score has been somewhat influenced by the number of simple answer-question responses you have to deal with as a mod. Even so, both you and Obbe would still roughly occupy the same region; average to slightly above average.
This is to be expected. The system is weighted towards the average. Given the general nature of the conversations, you'd have to try quite hard to be classed as a very good poster, or a very bad one, if you don't post a great deal outside SG (i.e. post predominantly in the specialist forums). People like Rust, Lifejunkie and a small handful of ex-Totse and Zoklet mods, would score highly in this system. Unfortunately their calibre of posts are largely non-existent at this point in time.
I've run out of time to post anymore this evening, so detailing the way I grade posts and responses to other posts (including yours Risir) will have to wait 'till tomorrow.
The scores so far:
Obbe: 51.7
Equanimity: 51.25
RisiR: 37
-
The scores so far:
Obbe: 51.7
Equanimity: 51.25
RisiR: 37
:laugh:
-
I'm average! Thanks, Beast.
-
Got embarrassed by a high post count, decided to use a new account. How pathetic and fat is that move, son?
I will slap you with a piece of bologna and ruin your afterlife
Implying you can even stand up you fat greasy fuck.
-
I'm tempted to do Equanimity next.
Go for it! This is starting to get fun now :)
Categories based on the total number of points are defined, where QPer = quality poster:
Exceptional QPer 90-100pts
V.high QPer 80-89pts
High QPer 70-79pts
Upper Medium QPer 55-69pts
Lower Medium QPer 40-54pts
Low QPer 30-39pts
Extra Low QPer 20-29pts
Shit QPer 10-19pts
Analysis of Equanimity's last 50 posts, excluding those made in (or transferred to) B&M, HB and NIMF:
Exceptional QPs : 0
V.high QPs : 0
High QPs : 1
Upper Medium QPs : 13
Lower Medium QPs : 27
Low QPs : 8
Extra Low QPs : 1
Shit QPs : 0
Calculating the number of posts by their respective weightings and multiplying by 2 to give a score out of 100 gives:
Exceptional QPs 1pts x 0 = 0pts
V.high QPs 0.875pts x 0 = 0pts
High QPs 0.75pts x 1 = 0.75pts
Upper Medium QPs 0.625pts x 13 = 8.125pts
Lower Medium QPs 0.5pts x 27 = 13.5pts
Low QPs 0.375pts x 8 = 3pts
Extra Low QPs 0.25pts x 1 = 0.25pts
Shit QPs 0.0pts x 0 = 0pts
Total (x2) : 51.25
Therefore the Slave Equation suggests that overall you are a poster in the Lower Medium quality category. As you can see you're in fact almost perfectly average. Do not take that as an insult. Your score has been somewhat influenced by the number of simple answer-question responses you have to deal with as a mod. Even so, both you and Obbe would still roughly occupy the same region; average to slightly above average.
This is to be expected. The system is weighted towards the average. Given the general nature of the conversations, you'd have to try quite hard to be classed as a very good poster, or a very bad one, if you don't post a great deal outside SG (i.e. post predominantly in the specialist forums). People like Rust, Lifejunkie and a small handful of ex-Totse and Zoklet mods, would score highly in this system. Unfortunately their calibre of posts are largely non-existent at this point in time.
I've run out of time to post anymore this evening, so detailing the way I grade posts and responses to other posts (including yours Risir) will have to wait 'till tomorrow.
The scores so far:
Obbe: 51.7
Equanimity: 51.25
RisiR: 37
So much autism.
-
I'm tempted to do Equanimity next.
Go for it! This is starting to get fun now :)
Categories based on the total number of points are defined, where QPer = quality poster:
Exceptional QPer 90-100pts
V.high QPer 80-89pts
High QPer 70-79pts
Upper Medium QPer 55-69pts
Lower Medium QPer 40-54pts
Low QPer 30-39pts
Extra Low QPer 20-29pts
Shit QPer 10-19pts
Analysis of Equanimity's last 50 posts, excluding those made in (or transferred to) B&M, HB and NIMF:
Exceptional QPs : 0
V.high QPs : 0
High QPs : 1
Upper Medium QPs : 13
Lower Medium QPs : 27
Low QPs : 8
Extra Low QPs : 1
Shit QPs : 0
Calculating the number of posts by their respective weightings and multiplying by 2 to give a score out of 100 gives:
Exceptional QPs 1pts x 0 = 0pts
V.high QPs 0.875pts x 0 = 0pts
High QPs 0.75pts x 1 = 0.75pts
Upper Medium QPs 0.625pts x 13 = 8.125pts
Lower Medium QPs 0.5pts x 27 = 13.5pts
Low QPs 0.375pts x 8 = 3pts
Extra Low QPs 0.25pts x 1 = 0.25pts
Shit QPs 0.0pts x 0 = 0pts
Total (x2) : 51.25
Therefore the Slave Equation suggests that overall you are a poster in the Lower Medium quality category. As you can see you're in fact almost perfectly average. Do not take that as an insult. Your score has been somewhat influenced by the number of simple answer-question responses you have to deal with as a mod. Even so, both you and Obbe would still roughly occupy the same region; average to slightly above average.
This is to be expected. The system is weighted towards the average. Given the general nature of the conversations, you'd have to try quite hard to be classed as a very good poster, or a very bad one, if you don't post a great deal outside SG (i.e. post predominantly in the specialist forums). People like Rust, Lifejunkie and a small handful of ex-Totse and Zoklet mods, would score highly in this system. Unfortunately their calibre of posts are largely non-existent at this point in time.
I've run out of time to post anymore this evening, so detailing the way I grade posts and responses to other posts (including yours Risir) will have to wait 'till tomorrow.
The scores so far:
Obbe: 51.7
Equanimity: 51.25
RisiR: 37
So much autism.
Sorry dude, but... This. This shit is probably one of the most autistic things I've ever seen. And yes, I'm counting the fucking Rain Man.
-
A very interesting analysis on post quality beast.
If it's not too much can you also try to quantify me too?
-
I would also like to be judged in order to satiate my own petty sense of self worth.
Oh, wait.. no, I don't. My bad.
-
Do me and -SpictrolL