|
|
|||||||
Dear members, We have finally implement the new statistics. Statistics which have a relation with the kixtart.org site. Now we are using active posts instead of profile information for our reports. Also we are going back to the beginning. The previous statistics page has been replaced with BB-info and BB Statistics pages. Each page contains sub-pages. Current structure code:All feedback, questions and comment are still welcome.BB info greetings. btw: updating once a month. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Dear, The statistics about February 2003 are now available. New on the BB overview subpage is: which topics was the 1000th. greetings. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Thanks again for all the details MCA Hope boss don't look at details too much. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
'THEY' are tracking us anyway [ 03. March 2003, 20:38: Message edited by: jpols ] |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Thanks for the good work. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
MCA, Good information! However, I am interested in some more detail or explaination of - http://home.wanadoo.nl/scripting/bb-user-history.htm user information 1999..2003 (by profile information) >> What does this mean? Thanks, Kent [ 04. March 2003, 14:49: Message edited by: kdyer ] |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Dear, We also hope it contains some interesting information. On kdyer we can tell quote:greetings. btw: to make this part more clear we have downgrade profilenumbers with one. also it shows now in temrs of percentage. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Dear, Your contributions for month March has been finished. Yet collect those information and process them. Question: who will be second and third in our MM club based on active posts? Answer: soon. we hope today to put everything on our site. greetings. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Dear, The latest statistics are online. Remarkable things: - sealeopard gets second position on our TOP25 list. based on profile and active posts list. also he is still the biggest poster this year. - Sunday 30 March was very quiet. No new topics, no new posts. - Monday and Tuesday are for the first time the most active days in a week. - the amount of reactions is growing again (February 2003 - 3.195, March 2003 - 3.925) - the amount of new topics has been decreased (February 2003 - 343, March 2003 - 296) - general forum (F14) is growing very fast. - some guys will enter the TOP100 member list. - the biggest pictures you can find in the topics F13-423, F13-442 & F10-50 - after nearly three years Shawn isn't a member of our TOP3 list. Not a pity, but the competition is enormous. In the beginning it was enough to post a small amount of reactions. Now anybody must posts nearly 5000 reactions to become such TOP3 member. greetings. {edit: Shawn position} [ 10. April 2003, 04:30: Message edited by: MCA ] |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
mca, just found a problem with the active posts too. once someone deletes a topic (mod or starter) that removes posts from active posts. which is ofcourse correct as those are not active anymore. but, the actual postcount of a person basically is something between profile count and active posts. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Dear, It isn't a problem. We are collecting new and updated topics from last month. The information on earlier months are fixating. The active posts show the a- mount of posts by ending a month. We just eliminate BUMPs and mistypos. greetings. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
MCA, "Most Interesting Topics" ABC's of KiXtart board etiquette INFO: Moderator's message to new forum users Guidelines for the UDF-section ?? These don't really qualify in that category do they? Kent |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
like said, you also eliminate the posts that were correctly typed but removed by topic author or by mod by deleting a topic. just couple of weeks ago one of these took place when the author was too ashamed about the question. he just deleted the topic and thus all the replies in it. {edit} yet, I'm not saying that the active-topics is wrong. it's correct as it can correct be. although, the meaning of the count was little fuzzy. [ 14. April 2003, 07:19: Message edited by: Lonkero ] |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
what comes to the interesting topics. these topics might be qualified by the fact that they have high reader count. or at least, we mods would like it to be so not sure how they ended up there but as they are good to read topics, I don't care either |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Dear, The most interesting topics is based on topics, which people should read before starting using "kixtart.org" forums. It are the topics members want to see on the main page of the "kixtart.org" site. It will be a wrong choose, when we point to specific topics at all. Some of you love the FAQ, COM, Kixforms stuff and others like to see a good script of tips/trick. Our personal choose for such topic isn't interesting at all. Same policy to mention which mirrors are available. Jooel, of course it was and is always the problem that someone (author or moderator) is deleting his post. The big advances against previous method (information based of profile information) is that the information is more correct. Of course it will be more correct, when we extract to complete forums each month again. But there are some problems with it - extraction of about 750MB cost an enormous amount of time. During that process someone can delete posts at the same moment. - currently we see about 5 - 10 topics per month, which are moving to an- other forum. To solve possible problems with duplicates is much easier. - amount of time to present the proper information will cost more time, when f.e. only one very old post was removed. So each time our 1.000th post, 1.000th topic and 500th member lists needs a review. Currently - we eliminate duplicates after moving posts to another forum. - moment of collecting information isn't important for our information. previously it was very important, that we did this at the first hours of new month. - we eliminate, that people trying to get a higher position with BUMPing topics. BUMP operation shouldn't be see as real input. - we return more details about members. greetings. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
MCA, I take exception to your statement: quote:I do NOT bump topics to increase my post count and am quite certain that is NOT anyones intention whenever topics are bumped. What's next? Will you rate the value of replies and discount those from their post count that fall below your standard? Post count is not a good measure of our contributions. Between my ramblings, Jooel talking to himself, and Jens' RTFMs, our post counts are dubious at best. Oh, that and your propensity to dredge up years old posts that probably should be left to lay in their grave. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Dear Les, It wasn't pointed to any member at all. With this statement - possible we select the wrong words - we emphasize we are counting only the active posts in specific month. Also we will not interpretate the content of everybodies input. Also post count isn't dubious at all. The statistics shows that this board is very active around the clock, that is the input. Of course we don't claim at all that our input has always the same quality. Our goal with the statistics is to show accurate information only, but don't forget that there is a long way to go between a topic page and our results. greetings. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Long day Les? MCA your stats are great but we shouldn't get too caught up in details. For me, I see post counts as an indication of participation & contibution to the board in general. Quantifying the intent or quality of these posts is pointless in my opinion. All posts contribute. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Dear, Your contributions for month April has been finished. Yet collect those information and process them. Question 1: which user with lowest postcount has relative highest ranking. Answer: Ruud van Velsen, that great guy. Question 2: who has highest 'bumping' counter. Answer: soon we will return this answer. greetings. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
MCA, While not widely known, I also host a FAQ Mirror - http://kentldyer.com/menu.htm It is updated each Saturday. Thanks, Kent |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Dear, See our signature. greetings. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
like already said before, that bumbing is not right word for non-active posts. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
I don't understand MCA's obsession with post counts. There are the stats that the board returns that includes all posts, even those that have been deleted. MCA crawls the site and counts the number of posts that have not been deleted. The net difference is the now infamous "bump count". Some members, but mostly moderators will "bump" a topic to the top by posting a reply to it and then deleting it. That is true "bumping". I will often post to a thread and then later delete it, not to "bump" the thread, but rather to keep the content cleaner. My board count will vary from MCA's by the number of true "bumps" and the number of replies I (or others) have deleted. Also, I should note that other moderators have deleted some of my posts as well. Personally, I don't really care if the board count does not match MCA's, but I do care if MCA accuses anyone of deliberately inflating their post count. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Les, Because MCA's first language is not english, sometimes he comes across as gruff, abrupt, and negative when he doesn't really intend that. I suspect that he didn't intended his remark to be interpretated this way. While I don't share MCA's obvious enjoyment of statistical & numerical analysis, I do like his site & I think he adds a dimension to the board that would be missed. MCA, I don't think "bumping" is a good term for these missing posts since they can result from other actions. Why not refer to them as "deleted" posts or "missing" posts. Call them what they are & I think there will be less controversy. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Jack, You needn't come to MCA's defense. He can defend himself. I don't get the impression that "he comes across as gruff, abrupt, and negative when he doesn't really intend that". I on the other hand, do come across as gruff, abrupt, and negative and often do intend that. quote:My bet is that the one with the highest "bump" count is also a significant contributor (not like me). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
well I know highest bumb volume top5 already. I see that MCA is going to release that info too. but, as known, that value MCA is going to release is not true if said to be as bumbing. as the bumbers have also deleted posts by others means. and... I can understand jacks comments but I think les is right on this one. doesn't matter what MCA's intension was, his new listing will bring up the word: "who has highest volume of bad replies/posts" thus this ranking is not good as it will not give credit to the persons but will create opposite feelings. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
also, this kindoff hit list would need to have a postcount relative. like percents of postcount thus making known the relevance of noobie bumbing and high poster having real loosed posts. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Can somebody fill me in as to why we need to know wwho's bumping what, or deleting their posts? Apart from the fact, that it is technically possibel to create this particular statistic, what's the benefit of it? I do see the value in the other stats, though. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Les, I agree with all your points except the one about you intending to be negative. Gruff yes, but rarely negative. What MCA is calling bumping is not really bumping. I have bumped a topic to the top on several occasions by generating a reply with no comment & I don't think MCA's stat counts this as a bump. On the other hand, I have deleted topics where I decided my contribution added nothing & I believe MCA's stat would call this bumping. Also, doesn't the profile post count also include the personal messages passed through the board? If so, doesn't this muddy the waters significantly? Because of a number of factors, I believe enumerating the "biggest bumpers" is specious & irrelevant. The post count that MCA prefers might be more rightly called "current accessible posts". There is an implication that non accessible historical posts should not be counted. In the end Les, I think we are coming from the same place. ie. All posts are positive contributions in some manner so why not accept the literal count stored in the profile. PS: Jooel, I didn't feel that I was disagreeing with Les but we do have a tendency to give the appearance that we are disagreeing even when we support the same point of view. [ 01. May 2003, 21:24: Message edited by: Jack Lothian ] |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
no, it's not technically possible currently to show the stats of bumbers. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
If I Google "biggest bumpers", I get at least one interesting hit. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Les, I will have to take your word for it. I suspect if I tried this google search, I might receve a nasty note from security. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
ditto |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Dear, Indeed people could think in another direction, when we call it "bumping" counter. Jack returns the exact explanation for it. It is the result of "missing" posts, but all the feedback shows that choosing a correct name can be very hard. So "bumping" counter is more than "missing" posts (see later). Just by choosing our name for it enough people are interesting. At least our input returns enough positive feedback to get a proper list (see later reactions). Les, we don't mean any negative with our "bumping" counter. We don't accuses anyone. To prevent it we will use another name for it. Just adding such list prevents that other persons must do the calculations which is already possible. All required infor- mation for our "missing post"-list is already available on our statistical pages (in our version: only people with over 100 posts can become a member of it). It was just inspired when Jens and you are trying (at least it looks like a neck-and-neck race) to get and to keep the second position on our active postcounter lists, but his speed was already enormous this year. Inspired, when we see a big differences between the two of you. Of course it doesn't mean, that "missing"/"deleted" posts aren't relevant contributions. Jooel, you are right. The missing posts counter is a combination of deleted and bumping posts. We can't see which of the two was choosing. The problem becomes even harder, when other people (= moderators can do it with a very good reason) are deleting someone's posts. Also when we had to deal with the influence of private message's it makes this issue more complex. So Jack's suggestion is a very good one. Of course the postcount must be a relative one. Also a good suggestion. Since the latest upgrade of our statistical pages we make sometimes some small extensions to it. For an easier way of reading. For making trends much easier to see. About a definitive name we find again a new obstacle. The available posts on moderator forum are inaccessible and invisible for normal members, but we include them in our "active post counter" lists. We have the intentsion to can call it the "inaccessible" list. Other suggestions? greetings. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Dear, We have update our statistical pages. The inaccessible list isn't included at this moment. We will publish it as a post entry. Amazing was the very low about of posts during April 2003. Only 2.629 entries and 255 new topics. greetings. (our reaction 4600+ to the board) [ 12. May 2003, 10:55: Message edited by: MCA ] |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
MCA, While your statistics are great.. Are there any Web Logs that we can view? Something like that of WebTrends, or Analog? Kent |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Dear, No, greetings. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Correct me if I am wrong.. I thought Henri showed us the page hits per month. I don't have the site in front me. We were seeing about 60,000 hits a month (probably off). Kent |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Dear, Indeed some pages on the kixtart.org are pointing to some statistical information. F.e. on the main-page you will find the related nedstat icon. greetings. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Dear, The information of last period has been included in our statistical pages (BB info + BB statistics). Some remarks
btw: a delay in releasing those info by personal circumstances. Sorry, when you were waiting for it. Also we had miss the third Anniversary of our site. Thanks for all your input, comments and questions. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
DDavidson is something to note too. he has managed to keep himself in top25 without posting a single post in last 13 months! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Dear, In the earlier days of this board you was the biggest poster with his count. Only the active members can beat his counter. In our BB specials list he will never removed. You must create only 100 reactions. Last period we get four new 100-club members. The same static position gets someone, when he becomes a MM-club member. greetings. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Dear, The information about the months August and September has been added (BB info + BB statistics). Some remarks
[ 15. October 2003, 04:39: Message edited by: MCA ] |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
the udf count is not correct. you have calculated also topics that are not UDFs thanks for the long waited info though! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Thanks. We correct that remark. greetings. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
hmm... looking at top78 I see it's not updated. any timetable for tha? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Thanks. The information were updated, but we forgot to update the date field. Done. greetings. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
not sure we talk about same page: http://home.wanadoo.nl/scripting/bb-specials.htm looked from here with usernumber and name. no match for user with about 125 posts and active even today. not sure though, are these based on profile info or actual? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Dear, We are talking indeed about the bb-specials page. This information is based on the profile information of October 1st. So, when someone add a lot of posts last days he a member of that list next month. Also the actual list is based on those information. Each month we create a list of TOP100 members to monitor. greetings. btw: about which member we are talking in your case. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
I quessed you might be interested. talking aboot co. indeed he has been lately active after being "dead" for some time. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
k, looked at his posts and indeed 40 of those has been created in this month. 125-40=less than 100 which seems to be the limit on the top 78 list. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Dear, Co was also very active in changing his display name. We reduce it to two unique ones. greetings. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Dear, We reformat the user information a little bit. It shows how big portion TOPxx members have and also it shows how much posts those TOPxx members has created. Interesting issue is that our number one member has posted over 10% of all posts. code:greetings.users 8.093 (based on profile info 1 October 2003) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Dear, The new information about October 2003 is available. Interesting things - two new MM-club members. members with also a long history on this board. - the amount of posts/topics is decreasing instead of increasing. Possible, that not only the weekends can be slow. - a lot of guys are changing their display name on very frequent base. - some guys are refinding this board after a long period of absent. greetings. [ 04. November 2003, 06:54: Message edited by: MCA ] |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
I still haven't hit 1k - what's with that?! cj |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Quote: I don't know what you are talking about??? Since 2000 my displayname is CO. I only changed it a few months ago from CO to Co. My kixforms account Co was or is still locked and i created a new one: Cootje. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Co, MCA's english somtimes looses something during translation. I suspect he meant that you were an active poster & you changed your name recently. PS: Amazing, Jooel has 10% of the posts on the board & close to 20% of the posts by the MM club. I knew Jooel loves to talk but seeing it in black & white, kind of shocks you. Jooel, During the current period of slow posts you are single handedly keeping the board a float. Keep up the good work. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
MCA, Waddup with this MM thing? MM is roman numerals for 2000 and as such would limit membership. When members first exceeded the 1000 mark, we called it the Millenium club, when they exceeded 2000, the MM club was formed. Somewhere along the line the use of MM got misused. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Dear Co, Changing in display name was very frequent. Each time you were changing CO -> Co, Co -> co, co ->Co, etc. our program detected. When we ignore upper- and lowercase, then you haven't change your display name at all. greetings. btw: per 1 December 2003 there will not be an actual update of our statistics. we are working on processing the new layout of this board. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
MMM, That change must be done in 5 minutes: CO -> cO -> co -> Co C Jack: About MCA's english.. We are talking the same language.. So I think we have the same translation problems.. I can't blame him or they about this, I think his/their english is better than mine . What about that we talking.. Are there more than one MCA's?? Lonkero: I work for an IT company which detach me to different companies: one month here, two years there.. It means that I don't use Kix all the time to do my job. So when I'm "dead" for a while I'm busy with other things... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
don't think that time counts there. afaik, MCA's data is collected per post. so every time your displayname is different when you have posted, his collector detects it. if you play around with your name (like I did about a month ago) it does not realize it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Dear, Lonkero describes exactly the process "how we detect display name changes". MCA is one person and not a big group at all. In the past it was already a discussion. So, when we are going on vacation or doing other things with computers you will not see any update of our site, you will get any feedback on mail or you will not read any new posts during those periods. greetings. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Quote: OK that makes it a lot clearer. You're talking about "We" a lot so that makes it a little confusing to others. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Dear, Also in our personal posts we are using we. Very incidential we are you I. It is just a way of doing. greetings. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Strange... I cann't remember it at all that I have change my displayname so much... Or is there an otherone and do I have to talk also in a plural way |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Dear, The complete extraction of it Code:
During each post we verify it. greetings. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Hmm well I'm an Systems Engineer.. When a user saaid the same things like I did, I'll show him/her a logfile too and say that a logfile cann't lie.. Like I said before I changed CO to Co and maybe because of a typo I changed it to co and after that I correct it to Co. But this must be done in 5 to 10 minutes. What means that only one or two posts should show an other displayname. I'm not sure if it is possible and maybe you can check it by ip address. I never shutdown my workstation at work and never shut it down at home. If both are logged on to www.kixtart.org and I changed the displayname at one of them. Could it be that both sessions register a different displayname when i post or reply a topic? What about a changed displaynames statistic? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
I can change my displayname.. If I want 30 times from CO to Co and back... But I cann't change my member number... 1373 -> 1165 Quote: |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Dear Co, During the migration from UBB.Classic into UBB.Threads each member profile gets a new profile number. It is something, which nobody can change. Our information was on previous layout and each profile number was unique regardless which display name was using. greetings. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
MCA, That's clear.. What about the two sessions. Is it possible? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
no, I think more obvious reason is that MCA collects the info per forum. so, if you do posts in many forums with say 2 display names, those can come up to 100... that is if you post enough well, that only can occur if his displaynames are not mapped by time. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Dear, There is a differents between how we are collecting those information and how we are processing it. Before processing all post entries are sorting first on registering number and seondly on topic number. Processing it this was necessary, when a few guys wee changing the display name. Based on Co's question we analyze the flow of it again. greetings. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
yep, topic number. but in ubb.classic those numbers are forum based. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Dear, For the way we are processing that forum number is inrelevant. Also forum number is relevant, when we were calculating which member was posting i.e. 100.000 on this board. greetings. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Quote: I think the direction this topic has turned is irrelevant! What a waste of board resources to keep carrying on about the fact a name changed from CO to co? WHO CARES! If I were moderator of this forum I would abuse my power and close this thread to save everyone the misery of reading this banter. Let's get back on topic. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Les, Testy today. PS: At least they are using the correct forum for this type of discussion. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||
Yep Jack, I agree.. and Les should know that ..and as long people replies to this "irrelevant" topic it remains at the top of this forum... |