Dwarf Stats Last page

  • meathead wrote on 6 Apr '05, 16:56 report
    I know, nothing terribly interesting, but I'm in a thread creating mood. As of 2:45 this afternoon, the current Memberlist stats are:

    4026 members,

    of which there are 1490 members with posts.

    62 members have poster over 1000 times, with Fallon currently 'in the lead', with 7700 odd - who will be the first poster to reach 10,000? Surely there's going to be a stupendous prize for this?

    Right now, I am ranked 122nd in the poster's list.
  • floyd wrote on 6 Apr '05, 17:16 report
    I want Fallon or Andrew to try and rememer and post '90210' in the tell us something special about your post count thread once they hit it.
  • floyd wrote on 6 Apr '05, 17:18 report
    It'll be a while away.
  • barrabas wrote on 6 Apr '05, 17:20 report
    My stats:

    38-23-36.




    Okay not really.
  • cyclemumner wrote on 6 Apr '05, 17:32 report
    What's the limit? What's the dwarf post-count Y2K bug?
  • the_new_imorality wrote on 6 Apr '05, 17:41 report
    Changes depending on the user.
    (see how I avoided the dwarfer/ dwarver debate there. Pure genuis)

    Where people like Lisa, barrabas, fallon, andrew, bails and superphlegm have unlimited posts, people like Hilary, eggy, prodigal and anothergirls accounts will self destruct after a certain pinacle of posting has been reached
  • eggy666 wrote on 6 Apr '05, 18:44 report
    eggy has jedi mind tricks to make you guys think that I actually post something.
  • the_new_imorality wrote on 6 Apr '05, 18:47 report
    eggy has jedi mind tricks to make you guys think that I actually post something.

    If I had Jedi powers I sure as shit wouldn't be wasting them with pretend posts on the dwarf.
  • digi-osirus wrote on 6 Apr '05, 19:45 report
    What's the limit? What's the dwarf post-count Y2K bug?

    16777215

    That's the limit I think. I went into the mysql database and set it to a number higher than that. and that's the highest it will display.
  • the_new_imorality wrote on 7 Apr '05, 00:21 report
    speculation was far more fun. you killed the thread
  • sleepycat wrote on 19 May '05, 04:58 report
    *bump*

    The groundbreaking research you all haven't been waiting for. Way too much time on my hands and, well, curiosity killed ...

    Excluding deleted posts, eggy666 has posted on the "What are people listening to?" thread 506 times (actually less than I expected), which is 6.4% of his post total. The thread as a whole constitutes 2.4% of the posts made on the forum.

    Half of eggy's posts on this thread were made since March 3 2005. In this period, eggy has posted 24.4% of all posts to this thread, a more than fivefold increase from the 4.5% before 3/3/05.

    Also in this period the proportion of eggy's posts that go to the WAPLT thread has more than trebled, from 4.1% to 14.0%.

    eggy has posted on this thread on 75 of the last 76 days for an average of 3.3 non-deleted posts per day on that thread alone. The one day in this period he did not post on it was April 16, a day on which he made only five total posts, compared to his LostOctopus-like average for the period of 23.38 ppd.
  • katch wrote on 19 May '05, 10:40 report
    god damn, someone needs a hobby
  • pasperou wrote on 19 May '05, 11:33 report
    someone has one, obviously.
  • katch wrote on 19 May '05, 11:41 report
    someone needs a new one, someone needs to get out for a bit of fresh air i think
  • jolt wrote on 19 May '05, 13:00 report
    SleepyCat and eggy-- the new Dane and Lusty?
  • eggy666 wrote on 19 May '05, 13:04 report
    I think someone needs to get a life
  • lost octopus wrote on 19 May '05, 14:56 report
    ... compared to his LostOctopus-like average for the period of 23.38 ppd.

    that was a long time ago. i'm cured
  • martin wrote on 19 May '05, 15:32 report
    *bump*

    The groundbreaking research you all haven't been waiting for. Way too much time on my hands and, well, curiosity killed ...

    Excluding deleted posts, eggy666 has posted on the "What are people listening to?" thread 506 times (actually less than I expected), which is 6.4% of his post total. The thread as a whole constitutes 2.4% of the posts made on the forum.

    Half of eggy's posts on this thread were made since March 3 2005. In this period, eggy has posted 24.4% of all posts to this thread, a more than fivefold increase from the 4.5% before 3/3/05.

    Also in this period the proportion of eggy's posts that go to the WAPLT thread has more than trebled, from 4.1% to 14.0%.

    eggy has posted on this thread on 75 of the last 76 days for an average of 3.3 non-deleted posts per day on that thread alone. The one day in this period he did not post on it was April 16, a day on which he made only five total posts, compared to his LostOctopus-like average for the period of 23.38 ppd.


    and half of them were Slipknot


    This post reads like Ric Finlay - he is the guy endorsed by Richie Benaud for the Mercury who does bestest cricket stats in Australia - he knows exactly how creases David Boon has in his rectum from rooming with Merv Hughes circa 1992-1997.

    Maybe not that bad. i dont dig Ric Finlay anyway.
  • sleepycat wrote on 19 May '05, 17:52 report
    I think someone needs to get a life

    Ahem. This is coming from someone who thought that posting seventy times in one night just so that he could be the third person to reach the meaningless milestone of 7000 posts was a worthwhile endeavour, and who continues to post over 20 posts per day on an internet forum, many of them pointless one-liners (such as "look at the pretty kitty"). eggy, while your comment is doubtless true, you have less than zero standing to make it.

    katch: Please list all your current hobbies here. If your list is longer or (in my subjective opinion) more interesting than mine I shall take your suggestion very seriously indeed. I did concede when making that post that I had "way too much time on my hands" (as you would expect from someone who works about a quarter of the time and bludges off the proceeds the rest) so I think anyone repeating that sentiment is, at the very least, inviting close examination of their own fascinating little world.

    The issue of eggy's recent flooding the "what are people listening to" thread has been discussed by a number of posters. Now those who care (which I suspect is no more than a dozen) have the facts on its extent. It probably took me less time to do those stats than it did to post them.

    Martin may be interested to know that eggy has mentioned Slipknot in 127 posts on this forum, and has informed the forum that he is now listening to Slipknot a total of 22 times.
  • martin wrote on 19 May '05, 17:57 report
    dont get too sidetracked by it Sleepycat puh-lease!
  • sleepycat wrote on 3 Aug '05, 23:59 report
    As of sometime in the last few days (not sure exactly when it happened) Dwarf Tossing now has more total posts than General Discussion, although it was started much later and many of the early GD posts would now be moved there.
  • fallon wrote on 4 Aug '05, 00:13 report
    Well blimey, and here's me thinking the Dwarf isn't full of tossers.
  • meathead wrote on 4 Aug '05, 09:23 report
    It's always the ones you expect the least, Fallon.

    Except Eggy, we all knew that.
  • cyclemumner wrote on 4 Aug '05, 09:51 report
    What's the limit? What's the dwarf post-count Y2K bug?

    16777215

    That's the limit I think. I went into the mysql database and set it to a number higher than that. and that's the highest it will display.

    I missed this. You do realize why don't you?

    2^24 = 16777216

    It's very deep. It's also why Excel can only have 65536 rows and columns (2^16), and that on 32-bit Windows systems you can only (easily) have files as big as 2Gb.

    I don't think enough people get this, but it makes me happy in my life.
  • cyclemumner wrote on 4 Aug '05, 09:52 report
    SleepyCat and eggy-- the new Dane and Lusty?

    David and Goliath.
  • dane hunnerup wrote on 4 Aug '05, 10:59 report
    no way. So eggy's goliath but you can't call Sleepycat David. King of the Jews perhaps but he's not this little tough dude who's a natural born leader with a wild streak and a philandering manner.

    more like George and Lenny.
  • fallon wrote on 4 Aug '05, 11:34 report
    What people don't seem to realise is that Aaron was atop Mt Sinai with Moses. Why doesn't anyone ever mention that?
  • mel_rancid wrote on 4 Aug '05, 12:07 report
    because they don't care?
  • meathead wrote on 4 Aug '05, 12:29 report
    What people don't seem to realise is that Aaron was atop Mt Sinai with Moses. Why doesn't anyone ever mention that?

    Because he was sucking Moses' cock, and the bible frowns upon that sort of behaviour.
  • lost octopus wrote on 5 Aug '05, 03:46 report
    What's the limit? What's the dwarf post-count Y2K bug?

    16777215

    That's the limit I think. I went into the mysql database and set it to a number higher than that. and that's the highest it will display.

    I missed this. You do realize why don't you?

    2^24 = 16777216

    It's very deep. It's also why Excel can only have 65536 rows and columns (2^16), and that on 32-bit Windows systems you can only (easily) have files as big as 2Gb.

    I don't think enough people get this, but it makes me happy in my life.

    this was also why the early maths packages with Java were slightly inaccurate, nyah?
  • lost octopus wrote on 5 Aug '05, 03:48 report
    What people don't seem to realise is that Aaron was atop Mt Sinai with Moses. Why doesn't anyone ever mention that?

    Aaron was only there because Moses had a stutter. people are still a little bit embarrassed that God accidentally chose a spaz, so they try to downplay anything that reminds them. ie, Aaron. and Moses' leg-braces.
  • cyclemumner wrote on 5 Aug '05, 09:28 report
    What's the limit? What's the dwarf post-count Y2K bug?

    16777215

    That's the limit I think. I went into the mysql database and set it to a number higher than that. and that's the highest it will display.

    I missed this. You do realize why don't you?

    2^24 = 16777216

    It's very deep. It's also why Excel can only have 65536 rows and columns (2^16), and that on 32-bit Windows systems you can only (easily) have files as big as 2Gb.

    I don't think enough people get this, but it makes me happy in my life.

    this was also why the early maths packages with Java were slightly inaccurate, nyah?

    No you munter, it just depends on the convention of whether you start with a 1 or a 0. Obviously 0 is the first in this case. Sheesh, it's not "math", really just arithmetic. If they got that wrong nothing would work.

    What "early maths packages with Java were slightly inaccurate"? What actually was the matter?
  • cyclemumner wrote on 5 Aug '05, 09:34 report
    And the numbers aren't chosen arbitrarily, they are constraints imposed by the way the hardware is built and the machine code that runs it, which was the point of showing that it's an exponent of 2 in the first place.

    I'm reminded of the time some electrical engineer was trying to tell me that "the value's never quite 1 or 0, when you measure the current it's always 0.0012, or 0.9997 or something" - COMPLETELY MISSING THE POINT OF WHY "digital encoding" is of any use in information processing.

    Note also that we use the base 2 because we do use digital - with two possibilities, and we pack those bits into bytes (of 8 bits each) and we use hexadecimal numbers as well because it makes converting between digital and decimal all the more easy.

    Sigh.
  • istoleyourbiclighter wrote on 5 Aug '05, 09:36 report
    why doesnt this forum have any ranking system ?

    i post on another site (which i will not disclose , coz i dont want any of you there) & it would appear to run in the same sort of format that this one does , but we have a ranking system . At fist it was military ranking , then the webmaster changed it to ninja rankings.

    perhaps we can get the same sort of thing here ?
  • stuporman wrote on 5 Aug '05, 09:37 report
    Quality, not quantity.
  • cyclemumner wrote on 5 Aug '05, 09:45 report
    I don't see the stats as a measure of "quality" at all - nor would I expect that anyone else does . . . - I'm interested in it in a kind of vague demographic/sociologic/when-do-people-waste-their-lives-on-the-internet way. Post-rates and how they change over time would be interesting.
  • stuporman wrote on 5 Aug '05, 11:04 report
    I don't see the stats as a measure of "quality" at all - nor would I expect that anyone else does . . . -
    Neither do I. Explain.
  • cyclemumner wrote on 5 Aug '05, 11:55 report
    You explain what you meant by your three word plus one comma sentence fragment, then I'll explain what I thought you meant by it.
  • ~spreckenstein~ wrote on 5 Aug '05, 12:07 report
    postwhoring across the galaxy!
  • stuporman wrote on 5 Aug '05, 12:21 report
    You explain what you meant by your three word plus one comma sentence fragment, then I'll explain what I thought you meant by it.
    Fair enough.

    A ranking system would be based on the number of posts and may be an enticement to climb up the rankings by posting crap rather than something worth reading.

    Quality, not quantity.

    It would gall to have a Grand Wizened eggie1010011010 over a 2nd Level Prostate drowsypuss, based purely on postcounts.

    I get the horn over stats as much as the next geek, but this forum doesn't seem to need them.
  • dork wrote on 5 Aug '05, 12:22 report
    Vitamin C (Absorbic Acid) 500mg, Echinicea puree (Echinicea) herb juice dry equiv. to fresh herb 1000mg, Zinc (as gluconate) 2mg, Allium sativum (Garlic) extract equiv. to fresh bulb 100mg).

    Whoo muma. This...is the good shit.
  • cyclemumner wrote on 5 Aug '05, 13:22 report
    You explain what you meant by your three word plus one comma sentence fragment, then I'll explain what I thought you meant by it.
    Fair enough.

    A ranking system would be based on the number of posts and may be an enticement to climb up the rankings by posting crap rather than something worth reading.

    Quality, not quantity.

    It would gall to have a Grand Wizened eggie1010011010 over a 2nd Level Prostate drowsypuss, based purely on postcounts.

    I get the horn over stats as much as the next geek, but this forum doesn't seem to need them.

    This is exactly what I was responding to - there are a whole lot of things of interest in post-whoring stats that aren't because the interestee thinks it equates to "quality". So, I find your "Q not Q" statement implicitly critical of those with an interest, as if they thought "Q was Q". Sorry if I misinterpret, but it's been explicitly stated by others, notably russ.
  • jaek wrote on 5 Aug '05, 13:40 report
    Nerds.
  • stuporman wrote on 5 Aug '05, 14:10 report
    This is exactly what I was responding to - there are a whole lot of things of interest in post-whoring stats that aren't because the interestee thinks it equates to "quality". So, I find your "Q not Q" statement implicitly critical of those with an interest, as if they thought "Q was Q". Sorry if I misinterpret, but it's been explicitly stated by others, notably russ.So, are you interested in stats purely from a statistical viewpoint, not from a perspective that it would improve the forum, per se?
  • barrabas wrote on 5 Aug '05, 14:19 report
    So if Q is not Q, is P != NP?
  • cyclemumner wrote on 5 Aug '05, 15:20 report
    Heh. Fucken barrabas. Actually I am interested in stats purely statistically, but now I'm not sure what I meant.
  • sleepycat wrote on 5 Aug '05, 16:38 report
    why doesnt this forum have any ranking system ?

    Why bother? I don't think enough people here are hierarchical enough to care and I can't see what purpose it would serve. What would you do anyway, run through all the seven dwarves until you got to Snow White at 8000 posts only to discover that Andrew, Fallon and eggy had already slept with her?

    We used to have the postcount ladder accessible through the member list but that was taken offline by Matt in an effort to stop people from deliberately posting shit just to move up the list or reach pointless milestones. Seems to have actually worked to some degree.

    All the other forums I'm on have ranks but I reckon ranks make it a bit harder for posters with low postcounts to be taken seriously (especially if the labels are not thought about very carefully) and don't think they're a good thing.
  • digi wrote on 5 Aug '05, 16:40 report
    The memberlist is still actually there, accesible by typing in the url.
  • sleepycat wrote on 5 Aug '05, 18:07 report
    The memberlist is still actually there, accesible by typing in the url.

    So it is.

    I would suggest that the C*B*L (There Is No C*B*L) make this URL a closely guarded secret.
  • normal_stormal wrote on 5 Aug '05, 18:47 report
    VERY interesting analysis SC. Fucked if I know why, but for some reason I love that sort of shit. A page (not just a thread) dedicated to this kind of thing would be great. Again I've no idea why.
  • Post reply
SHARE ON
FACEBOOK
SHARE ON
TWITTER
Use comma to separate email addresses
Or open in