Astrocloud

Every thread has a little statistic on the side of it. #1 The number of posts in the tread and #2 the number of views.

Assume that the number of views represents the attractiveness of the title of the thread and that the number of responses represents the attractiveness of the content. I realize that people could be responding to "how wrong" the post is or something but hear me out.

The idea is that people are lured into posting after they are lured into opening a thread. The title lures them into opening it (=a view) and the content once inside lures them to post there.

My question is: If you look at all the threads (I know they are many) -which has the highest ratio of posts to views or post/views? Which has the most posts and which has the most views? This may help people like me -create quality posts.

-it's just a thought. I wasn't sure where to post THIS thread so I posted here.

DOES ANYONE HAVE THOSE STATISTICS?

spectre

There is no direct way to do that other than by clicked at the top of each forum on where it says "views" and "posts."

__________________
"Fuck these chains
No goddamn slave
I will be different" ~ Machine Head

Cynthetiq

Assuming that it was possible, what does a 1:1 ratio tell you about the relationship of views to posts and how does it help you create "quality" posts?

BB software is very mature now, and so are mods for it. This kind of algorithm/ratio is making the assumption that each and every unique view in fact generates a response. The way that I understand the logic behind views is that it counts each "read" of the thread that is not cached on the local computer. Thus even for anyone to read a posted response, in order to get the 1:1 ratio, you would never be able to just read it without diminishing that ratio. It would always be someone having to "get the last word in" for every single post.

Now the very definitions are also different by each board operator. Some boards count the poster's return views cached or not, some do not count them at all. Some operators prefer views to be counted by each time the thread is accessed because it is a more true indicator of the views of a thread. So even if only 3 people are posting and reading to a thread, they can generate many page views because the 3 people may view the thread, and think about what they are posting or to post.

Halx purposely doesn't have post counts visible to the community because he felt that it detracted from the quality of what was being posted.

I do think that even if such mod existed it would fall under the same kind of scope. A post saying "ditto" may keep the ratio 1:1 but it doesn't make for an interesting thread.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Astrocloud

Someone posting "ditto" in a thread begs the question of why they were compelled to write anything at all. ie What was it about the thread that made them post?

There are lots of threads -say on the Titty Board where posters do exactly that... Does posting "ditto" somewhere in a thread mean that the thread is somehow less worth reading?


If someone posted images of transvestite strippers -certain people may click on it initially, get disgusted and not post anything. Others, not wanting to get branded may come back to that thread over and over again -without posting anything. Still others may post something like "Great thread", "Ditto", etc.

I truly doubt there is any one thread that could have a 1:1 ratio. It was attempted once on the Nonsense board... Something like "if you open this thread you must reply to it". I can't find it now; but for what it was attempting -it was miserable failure. People are going to click on it just to see what it's about and NOT reply -that's human nature.

I was curious to see which threads have the highest ratio.

For the record I am not requesting some feature that isn't there, already. I am curious about which threads have this great ratio and then maybe I could explain it. There was no board category for what I wanted -so I posted it here.

I hope this is clear.

Cynthetiq

Actually yes, it is. Because it doesn't spur any discussion it is inherently worthless for discussions, that's the reason why TB posts and Nonsense posts don't increase one's post count, which again is only visible to the staff. TB posts have a voting feature to help discern which threads are actually worthwhile since many views or many posts do not mean it is a worthwhile thread.

The mods that I know of to help people discern good worthwhile threads has been some kind of vote since we both agree that views and posts cannot be reliable. In fact it gets worse as the numbers increase, people come to look because it's a high number it must mean something. This is apparent in even things like DIGG or StumbleUpon

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Astrocloud

For example: this is a list of the threads on the titty board posted by Spectre. Since you Cynthetiq don't have any posts there -I thought I'd use this as an example screenshot



If you take the ratio of posts per view:
Posts||||Views||||Ratio
500||||||18765||||0.02664535
4||||||||563||||||0.007104796
12|||||||1339|||||0.008961912
191||||||6123|||||0.031193859
32|||||||1459|||||0.021932831
58|||||||1489|||||0.038952317
24|||||||1127|||||0.021295475
16|||||||768||||||0.020833333

This tells me that the highest ratio is Tami Lez. Perhaps if I like Spectre's posts I might be able to determine that the Tami Lez post was more than worth looking at. (too bad they're rexing)

But you are right, Cynthetiq... whether or not someone likes a particular post is subjective and this idea is probably of no use to anyone. Sorry to trouble you.

Cynthetiq

hmmm interesting, it may be an interesting thing to see the ratio and the votes merged together to give you a different number as well. I don't know how it would be meaningful and what algorithm would do it, I do see why you think it's compelling. I'd be interested in seeing how to help identify things better as well, even just looking at how other rating systems work is somewhat interesting to me.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.