TOL Snapshot: Inside the Numbers

[Town Heretic]

give some stats that everybody will soak up and enjoy -

Well, I've come up with general thumbnail guides for threads that generate (100 posts or 1000 views) interest of one sort or another. Now that the pruning is over I could take a look at averages at some point.

I thought noting the dramatic difference/fall in averages for aCW's obsession threads was enjoyable. But I'll see what I can do...or more importantly, what's being done and not.

 

[patrick jane]

Well, I've come up with general thumbnail guides for threads that generate (100 posts or 1000 views) interest of one sort or another. Now that the pruning is over I could take a look at averages at some point.

I thought noting the dramatic difference/fall in averages for aCW's obsession threads was enjoyable. But I'll see what I can do...or more importantly, what's being done and not.

I love your stats and numbers analysis. Look at the MLB thread sometime. It's about over by late October.

 

[patrick jane]

and what about Cadry's big thread ? I actually crunched those #s once

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Some stats about the TOL Top 50 Posters and Thread Starters attached as a pdf file. Also have attached the Excel spreadsheet if you want to fool around with it. For example, one could determine the largest contributors' percentages to the grand totals shown. Or examine the contributions of members appearing in both columns.

Observations from the attached:

1. All grand totals have "Grandma Lucy" totals subtracted.
2. Members appearing in both columns shown in boldface.
3. The top 50 posters account for 49.6% of total TOL posts.
4. The top 50 thread starters account for 68.2% of total TOL threads.
5. Little correlation appears between top posters and top thread starters.

View attachment 20442
[Click to open or right-click and select "Save Link As..."]

Zip file of the Excel spreadsheet:
View attachment 20443

AMR

 

[Town Heretic]

Some stats about the TOL Top 50 Posters and Thread Starters attached as a pdf file. Also have attached the Excel spreadsheet if you want to fool around with it. For example, one could determine the largest contributors' percentages to the grand totals shown. Or examine the contributions of members appearing in both columns.

Observations from the attached:

1. All grand totals have "Grandma Lucy" totals subtracted.
2. Members appearing in both columns shown in boldface.
3. The top 50 posters account for 49.6% of total TOL posts.
4. The top 50 thread starters account for 68.2% of total TOL threads.
5. Little correlation appears between top posters and top thread starters.

View attachment 20442
[Click to open or right-click and select "Save Link As..."]

Zip file of the Excel spreadsheet:
View attachment 20443

AMR

Terrific post. What are Grandma Lucy subtotals? And the correlation might be impacted by the waves of pruning. I've probably created something close to a hundred and fifty threads in my time here, though I show only fifty odd threads now. I threw a good number on the pyre to help in the last move and lost around twenty before that in the preceding wave.

 

[patrick jane]

Terrific post. What are Grandma Lucy subtotals? And the correlation might be impacted by the waves of pruning. I've probably created something close to a hundred and fifty threads in my time here, though I show only fifty odd threads now. I threw a good number on the pyre to help in the last move and lost around twenty before that in the preceding wave.

I'm willing to lose all the threads I've closed which is most of them.

 

[Town Heretic]

I'm willing to lose all the threads I've closed which is most of them.

I don't think they need it now.

Hey, here's a quick bit of numbers...top ten threads by view and by post in each major category, without doing averages. I'll start with Politics and do a post for each.

Politics:

Top 10 by Views:

1. Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3
Poster: aCW
Started: 2014
Average View Per Post: 44

2. Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?
Poster: LMOHM
Started: 2005
AVPP: 48

3. Dead tiger bigger victim than dead man?
Poster: Turbo
Started: 2008
AVPP: 60

4. "Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"
Poster: WizardofOz
Started: 2013
AVPP: 44

5. climate change
Poster: chrysostom
Started: 2014
AVPP: 39

6. Executing homosexuals
Poster: zoo22
Started: 2013
AVPP: 30

7. Why men won't marry you
Poster: serpentdove
Started: 2015
AVPP: 16

8. Marijuana legalization: LESS government?
Poster: aCW
Started: 2013
AVPP: 41

9. Militarized Police
Poster: Christ's Word
Started: 2014
AVPP: 42

10. Mexicans are Dumb and Will Destroy America?
Poster: Traditio
Started: 2013
AVPP: 44


Top 10 by Posts:

1. Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 3
Posts: 9,035

2. Should homosexuals be given the death penalty?
Posts: 4,278

3. Why men won't marry you
Posts: 1,917

4. Executing homosexuals
Posts: 1,097

5. "Therefore, Abortion Must Remain Legal"
Posts: 959

6. climate change
Posts: 888

7. Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized! Part 4
Posts: 844

8. a whore for the republican party
Posts: 799

9. Dead tiger bigger victim than dead man?
Posts: 757

10. Marijuana legalization: LESS government?
Posts: 706

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Terrific post. What are Grandma Lucy subtotals? And the correlation might be impacted by the waves of pruning. I've probably created something close to a hundred and fifty threads in my time here, though I show only fifty odd threads now. I threw a good number on the pyre to help in the last move and lost around twenty before that in the preceding wave.

Grandma Lucy is the member name assigned to the Woodshed area. As I was interested in member contributions I omitted the Woodshed related posts, threads.

I assumed the pruning is factored into (that is, have not been included) the total TOL posts and threads currently shown at the bottom of the Forums web page. I suspect that if the pruned content were added the percentages in my post would not change significantly given the large numbers involved. And I assume pruned threads also means pruned posts of the thread starter, so things would still be relatively the same in my two tables. That said, some thread starter TOL members are just attentioon-seeking drive-by types and these members rarely post significantly in their started threads --which also explains some of the lack of correlation between not a few high posters and high thread starters.

AMR

 

[Town Heretic]

Curious...so I started looking over the available threads, checking on my old yardstick (100 posts/1000 views) as gold standards.

What I've found is that you have roughly a 15% chance of reaching 100 posts and roughly a 40% chance of hitting a thousand views. So I'm going to adjust my numbers and raise views to 2000, which should thin that number out about on par with posts.

 

[annabenedetti]

Curious...so I started looking over the available threads, checking on my old yardstick (100 posts/1000 views) as gold standards.

What I've found is that you have roughly a 15% chance of reaching 100 posts and roughly a 40% chance of hitting a thousand views. So I'm going to adjust my numbers and raise views to 2000, which should thin that number out about on par with posts.

I don't understand how you can compare newer threads to older threads without some sort of statistical tool. The older the thread, the more views it accumulates, making it look vastly more popular five-plus years later than it may have been at the time. Or at the two-year mark, four-year mark, or what have you.

 

[Town Heretic]

I don't understand how you can compare newer threads to older threads without some sort of statistical tool. The older the thread, the more views it accumulates, making it look vastly more popular five-plus years later than it may have been at the time. Or at the two-year mark, four-year mark, or what have you.

It tends to wash out. For the most part older threads stop growing outside of the incremental. There are only a handful of whale threads, only nine with more than a hundred thousand views, by way of and most people who had created a hundred threads also had threads that were so new they'd barely established a presence. It's not precise, but on the whole it tended to work out.

 

[annabenedetti]

It tends to wash out. For the most part older threads stop growing outside of the incremental.

Not necessarily. Some old threads get bumped periodically, which puts them back in play and I'd guess that could significantly affect their overall views. Also, because a lot of big threads got pruned, what's left leaves a skewed picture with no way to adjust for it. There are a number of variables, such that you could say yes, this thread has x many views... but compared to what?

There are only a handful of whale threads, only nine with more than a hundred thousand views, by way of

Which illustrates my point. How many were there before the prunings, how old were they, and how many times had they been bumped?

and most people who had created a hundred threads also had threads that were so new they'd barely established a presence. It's not precise, but on the whole it tended to work out.

But that wouldn't really tell us anything. There's no pattern. There's nothing to adjust for the passage of time, numbers of bumps, and repeated prunings. Plus other variables, if I thought about it for a while. But I don't think about this stuff usually, I just read the dang thread and post on it when I want to. :chuckle:

 

[Town Heretic]

Not necessarily.

Not always, but "for the most part" they do. Watch them over time.

Some old threads get bumped periodically, which puts them back in play and I'd guess that could significantly affect their overall views.

It happens, but they don't tend to go on well or for long. Mostly that's because threads tend to be time sensitive in nature. And the ones that aren't tend to be redone by the same person or someone else down the line.

My early averages predate a lot of the pruning, came in when a great many people had 100 threads at least to look at and 100 seems to give a pretty good picture of things.

And what I'm finding now is that the 100/1000 is holding up even in the present state, though it has driven both down in value. A 100 puts your thread in the top fifteen percent and a 1000 views would put you at around forty percent, so the prunings have moved the values, but neither were ever means, were always extraordinary numbers. Not sure why the views moved so much. But then, views will typically be the more impacted by time. Maybe that's part of it.

Threads that hang around or retain relevance long enough to amass much larger numbers don't gain a particular advantage for it though, since the cutoff is much earlier. That is, I'm only interested in seeing what can make that cut, reach that mark, because simply doing that is rare enough.

Plus other variables, if I thought about it for a while. But I don't think about this stuff usually, I just read the dang thread and post on it when I want to. :chuckle:

True for most, I suspect...though this thread has done nicely.

 

[annabenedetti]

You're not usually so selective in your parsing. It remains that because of the variables I mentioned (and additional ones that could be generated) I don't think it's possible to find significant and valid relationships from the straight views/posts data you're working with, especially after the major prunings.

 

[Town Heretic]

You're not usually so selective in your parsing.

I thought my points spoke to most of what I've noted.

It remains that because of the variables I mentioned (and additional ones that could be generated) I don't think it's possible to find significant and valid relationships from the straight views/posts data you're working with, especially after the major prunings.

Again, I started doing this before most of the prunings you're speaking to and the numbers have moved, some of the values diminished, but on average they hold up. A hundred posts or a thousand views is exceptional and some people generate a larger number of those than others. Probably better to generate a percentage relative to the threads created, but you don't want too small a number or it's begging distortion.

When there was more data there was more to see and comment on, as I did in noting the the more negative, troll like posters tended to generate the least effective threads, but it will take a while to get that sort of picture again.

All in all, it looks a good bit like it always did at this point.

 

[Lon]

So I haven't been back in this one in a while. Anything new?

Sure. After the purges and trimming there are nine threads left with over 100K views left on the boards.

Averages?

Observations holds the top spot with around 79 views per post.
Far back and holding second is Town Quixote's, at 57 views per.
....
Our Triune God is sixth, at 35 vpp.
....

And Keep a Word rounds the group out at 18 vpp, which is more impressive than the average looks given the nature of the game.

I like seeing positive threads on top. I had not realized mine was that high but I'm pleased that it is getting attention. Theology topics should be getting some attention on a theology board Thanks for the #'s. -Lon

 

[annabenedetti]

I thought my points spoke to most of what I've noted.

I guess I was expecting your points to speak to most of what I noted.

Again, I started doing this before most of the prunings you're speaking to and the numbers have moved, some of the values diminished, but on average they hold up. A hundred posts or a thousand views is exceptional and some people generate a larger number of those than others. Probably better to generate a percentage relative to the threads created, but you don't want too small a number or it's begging distortion.

When there was more data there was more to see and comment on, as I did in noting the the more negative, troll like posters tended to generate the least effective threads, but it will take a while to get that sort of picture again.

I understand that.

All in all, it looks a good bit like it always did at this point.

Yes... yes it does.

Okay, last thoughts and I'll move on. You spoke of there being nine "whales," but what I'm trying to say is that the size, eating habits, lifespan, etc. of a whale would be difficult to gauge unless you were able to compare those things (and look for cross interactions) to a sardine, a piranha, a koi - and, of course, to other whales. Except that there aren't any other whales left to make within group comparisons - and a lot of the other kinds of fish have also vanished, so there's not much with which to make between group comparisons. So again, you could say yes, this thread has x many views... but as compared to what? The comparable whats are all gone.

And I think that's too bad. For as much as you like crunching numbers, I like to follow patterns in words. Maybe (I could be wrong, of course) you see numbers as a framework which provide context in a way that brings you understanding or order. Words do that for me. And a byproduct of all the purges is that I'll remember exactly a specific phrase that someone said and when I go to search for it, nothing comes up because the thread in which it was said has been purged. There's a lot of TOL oral history that's vanished into thin air as if it never was. To place a person in the context of their past words is perhaps as important to me as numbers are to you. And I wish there had been a different method for streamlining the forum than to take the interactions of so many members, whether good or bad, caring or contentious, brilliant or inane - and hack them out with a machete.

Okay, sorry for the interruption. Carry on.

 

[Town Heretic]

...You spoke of there being nine "whales," but what I'm trying to say is that the size, eating habits, lifespan, etc. of a whale would be difficult to gauge unless you were able to compare those things (and look for cross interactions) to a sardine, a piranha, a koi - and, of course, to other whales.

But the whales just don't skew anything no matter what they're a product of because they only get one vote, if you like. That is, they only cross the 100/1000 once and no posts beyond that are influencing anything. Because the thresholds are all I'm looking for.

And I think that's too bad. For as much as you like crunching numbers, I like to follow patterns in words.

There isn't enough data now for it. And even when there was I just wasn't as interested in the more singular events here, outside of a topical examination and you don't really need the whales for that.

Maybe (I could be wrong, of course) you see numbers as a framework which provide context in a way that brings you understanding or order.

They give me a frame for the words I value, an insight into the sort of rhetoric that's valued here. Hasn't changed my posting and I doubt it will alter anyone's. More a reflective study than anything else.

Words do that for me. And a byproduct of all the purges is that I'll remember exactly a specific phrase that someone said and when I go to search for it, nothing comes up because the thread in which it was said has been purged. There's a lot of TOL oral history that's vanished into thin air as if it never was.

It is. I lost a few threads I'd have liked to keep and kept some that I later volunteered for the ax, a few that could still go without my being bothered in the least. . . I'll miss the boxing thread. It was inspired by a game played between two fictional FBI agents in Guarding Tess. In theirs Nancy R and M. Thatcher went toe to toe. I had some good match-ups too. Ah, well.

To place a person in the context of their past words is perhaps as important to me as numbers are to you.

Numbers are more interesting to me than important. An insight. I enjoy the exercise, but I wouldn't say it's important. Like many a goof thread it's more doodle with a bonus.

And I wish there had been a different method for streamlining the forum than to take the interactions of so many members, whether good or bad, caring or contentious, brilliant or inane - and hack them out with a machete.

Yeah. I actually felt badly for chrys losing the whale Catholic thread. It had a lot of personality and personalities in it. Those loses I'd rather not have seen, would rather everyone have had a chance to volunteer and protect a few and time to personally archive something that couldn't be negotiated.

Okay, sorry for the interruption. Carry on.

Always a pleasure. :cheers:

 

[Town Heretic]

Realized today that Quixote's was working on three years on the boards.

Started in late March or early May of 2013. Ran a lot of posts that year, with 1,280 in fewer than twelve months, coming in at working on 32,000 views and a decent if modest 24.8 average.

2014 saw me doing a lot more of a lot less posting with the whole shooting match for the year coming in at 363 posts and just shy of 37,000 views, with the average shooting up to 101.5, so people began to find it and come back to it more readily.

This year? Well, with a couple of months to go there have been around 350 posts, 47,000 views and a 134.0 average. The holidays can slow things up. I imagine it'll end the year at around 365 to 380 posts on the year with 52 to 53K views.

So while it isn't Observations, which came along in a more active time around the joint, it's grown nicely and I appreciate everyone who finds it worth a moment or two and gets a chuckle or two out of it.

:cheers:

 

[chrysostom]

are you tracking overall number of posts?

I think it is really down

just over 30 posts for the day at 7:30am
and
ten of them are mine