I see such public posts as little evidence of abuse by the mods. — Philosophim

I certainly wasn't suggesting that it was.

:grin:

Banno's Ratio — Srap Tasmaner

Hm. I get an equation named after me!?

I've usually hovered at close to 1. Currently I'm at about 1.03 (3.1K/3K). Usually it's slightly above 1 like that.

I've often wondered what that ratio suggests about a poster, so this is an interesting thread.

Also, there doesn't seem to be a way to see your number of mentions on mobile, as far as I can tell.

If you do it means you're getting credit for someone else's discovery, so ... Congratulations?!

1.04 — ProbablyTrue

So that's a no, is it? It must be the delicacy of your put downs that keeps us all coming back for more.

If you do it means you're getting credit for someone else's discovery, — Srap Tasmaner

But that's how it works in the real world...

0.76

"No respect..."

But that's how it works in the real world — Banno

Ever seen the Dilbert strips with the guy who repeats what you said, but makes it sound like it was his idea?

1.

:cool: — a guy named Streetlight X

So now I know that those think they are so cool and make silly comments, have to refer to them in a different format.

So is PF going the way of Facebook or what?

If Streetlightx and nos4a2 have a ratio of 1 and the idea behind OP is that people with a ratio of 1 or above are good contributors then I think the theory is already disproven and we don't need to worry about it.

Oh yes, some of us that go on the "troll" side will easily get over the 1.0 ratio. Assume if there would be someone with a ratio of 10, just what a smart troll he or she would be if he would have his comments in hundreds or thousands?

So that actually tells that actually the ratio doesn't tell much, especially if you are those who basically keep the PF live with active posts.

I think those that have less 0.4 but are active in the Forum, perhaps we should take notice of them. This is a forum for conversation, you know.

I thought my ratio was pretty good but realized it was only me not saying very much of interest.

.93 for me.

I don't think any conclusions can be reasonably be drawn from just the ratio of responses to comments. A troll might score well over 1, whereas someone with interesting, but complex, things to say might only score .5. or something. I would also expect those who create more threads to score higher than those who create less threads, all other things being equal.

C'mon you bastards, respond to me like crazy!!!! I want to feel the love... :naughty: :halo: :love: :hearts:

I do not think that that ratio is trustworthy reliable ground for any conclusion about the quality of the individual's contributions... at all.

In a time long ago, on an internet now far away, there was once a philosophy site that had a karma feature. Each participant/member had a karma score which was determined/established by how other members voted, and the ranking was visible to everyone at all times. I take it that that score was influenced by how the interlocutor voting felt after interacting with the member. An individual score could range from -10 through +10, if I remember correctly.

Assuming interpretation was accurate(which is a stretch around here sometimes), that may be a relatively good, or at least better, indication of at least one qualitative aspect of an individual poster. How they 'made' others feel with their own word use(I don't like that accounting practice). How others felt after... that's better.

Here, my mentions over comments score is 6.6. The karma score on the aforementioned site was 8 point something or other.

Here, my mentions over comments score is 6.6. — creativesoul

So, you've received 56,760 mentions?

Misplaced decimal point...

Good catch, I wasn't paying attention...

0.66

:cool: :smile:

There you go, one more mention for you, even though I didn't actually say anything. Oh, whoops I did say something. Damn!

:point:

If it was 666 you'd be the Great Beast of Revelation.

To some...

Those numbers mean nothing to me.

So, you don't hold with prophecies and revelations? :joke:

Biblical and biblically based prophecies and revelations...

I believe that there have been and continue to be far too many to even be able take each into deliberate consideration.

We can certainly know what they all have in common, nonetheless.

Fear drives them. Reality feeds the belief, regardless of whether or not the belief matches reality. I mean... regardless of whether or not the belief is true. Clearly they were not. Hence, we're here - in the here and now - talking about then. They believed the end was near. It was not. They were wrong. They formed and maintained strongly held belief; conviction; about much of what was happening around them at that time.

Those beliefs turned out to be false.

Belief in the end of times, that the end is near, etc., have lasted for two thousand years. It transcends generations. Throughout each generation there were widely shared, deep seated, common belief(s) - it was commonly believed - that what was happening at that time was proof that the return of God was near; or the end was near, or some such.

They've all been wrong enough for me to pay them no mind.



Prophetic speakers vary widely regarding how far into the future they care to venture a guess about what will happen. The amazing thing to me is that so many lose sight of those who got it right at the time.

Yeah, I was joking of course; I don't hold with prophecies and revelations either. We cannot know the future and the more precisely we try to predict what is coming the more likely we will be to err, and the greater the degree of error is likely to be.

It's a useless thread, but I think I was 0.77, about the mean. What this means is clearly indeterminate.

I kind of wonder how this ratio scales with the number of comments.

As in, what's your mentions/(comments^2)? Mine is 0.344_.

We cannot know the future... — Janus

We can correctly predict.

Sure, but we don't know now if our predictions are correct.

I would concur.

:cool: