% of settlers, warlords, princes... - Page 4

Jamski · December 15, 2003, 19:33

Suggestion - make deity special again by offering a CUSTOM TITLE for all at 15,000 posts. No code change needed and very little effort from the mods.

I have the greatest ideas.

-Jam

DrSpike · December 15, 2003, 19:36

I think another title should be added, but apparently its not that easy. Also I don't get why the 15,000 title makes Deity more special. There are so few deities anyway.

Dauphin · December 15, 2003, 22:31

Another statistic:

% of spam posts: 99.7%
% of non-spam posts: 0.2%
% of meta-spam posts: 0.1%

alva · December 16, 2003, 05:16

Link?

Jamski · December 16, 2003, 05:17

Is than including the OT?

-Jam

DrSpike · December 16, 2003, 06:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch
Another statistic:

% of spam posts: 99.7%
% of non-spam posts: 0.2%
% of meta-spam posts: 0.1%

I demand to see the raw figures! After all, there must be more metaspam than that.

Skanky Burns · December 16, 2003, 06:37

If everyone posted as much metaspam as you and BC, perhaps.
But I think you two are the only metaspammers around, so the figure seems valid.

Adagio · December 16, 2003, 06:39

Could someone please enlighten me?

What is meta-spam?

DrSpike · December 16, 2003, 07:17

I rarely meta-spam..........BC is the master. ADG, I created the term to describe BC's posts, which were rarely spam, but often pointing out or discussing the spam of others. Hence meta-spam.

Adagio · December 16, 2003, 07:33

Ahh... thx

Rasputin · December 16, 2003, 08:49

so pointing out spam isnt spam, but pointing out meta spam is

DrSpike · December 16, 2003, 09:08

Pointing out spam is spam. Pointing out metaspam is spam.

Technical chart:

Spam: obviously spam
Metaspam: more subtle spam
Pointing out metaspam (meta-meta-spam?): even more subtle. However, to stop the recursion having infinite length I postulate the existence of a power n such that meta^n has ceased to become more subtle, and actually ratchets back to being worse than original spam.

In practice n is about 3.

Anyway, to get back on topic so this thread doesn't get quashed..........did anyone work out the numbers for active posters?

rah · December 16, 2003, 09:18

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
Anyway, to get back on topic so this thread doesn't get quashed..........

DARN GOOD IDEA.

Skanky Burns · December 16, 2003, 10:04

To calculate the posts for active posters, we have to first define what an active poster is. Everyone who posted in the past week is surely active. But what about within the last month? 6 months? Where do you draw the line?

Adagio · December 16, 2003, 10:20

I you haven't posted in the last month you're not active enough I'd say

But not having posted anything within 6 months is probably a more realistic way of saying who's active, and who's not

Carolus Rex · December 16, 2003, 12:33

Oh yes. One month is far too little... Sometimes real life takes control for more than a month... Sometimes Apolyton is just too much, I get fed up and stay away for more than a month...

Overall, the spam is worse now than ever. We used to have a special forum for spam... It was called off-topic... When posting there stopped increasing the pc, I guess spam invaded all fora... The genie's out of the bottle... Who can put it back in?

Carolus

Locutus · December 16, 2003, 13:37

Oh very well, here you go:

People who posted in the last 6 months

Code:

Deity		7	0,21%
Emperor		131	3,86%
King		290	8,54%
Prince		355	10,46%
Warlord		332	9,78%
Chieftain	400	11,79%
Settler		1879	55,36%
			
Total		3394	100,00%

As you can see the stats aren't horribly different, except that there are much less Settlers (due to the fact that people who registered but never posted are obviously not included)

Immortal Wombat · December 16, 2003, 15:22

More Princes that Warlords. How interesting.

Frozzy · December 16, 2003, 15:37

Indeed.

Asmodean · December 16, 2003, 16:35

I actually find it quite surprising that over half the people posting here within the last 6 months are settlers.

Were they settlers at the time of posting, or are they settlers now?

Asmodean

Locutus · December 16, 2003, 16:53

They are Settlers now.

Dis · December 16, 2003, 17:43

Most probably registered after Conquests came out. The relase of Civ3 games and add-ons could explain many of the settler stats.

Frozzy · December 16, 2003, 18:02

Yeah... that or just simply Civ III players still having PtW troubles.

Kuciwalker · December 16, 2003, 18:41

We have about 15 or so inactive Emperors...

Locutus · December 16, 2003, 20:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
Most probably registered after Conquests came out. The relase of Civ3 games and add-ons could explain many of the settler stats.

Nope, the rate of new registrations has been more or less constant during the past 6 months: somewhere around 60-70 new members a day on average.

Dauphin · December 16, 2003, 22:43

Quote:

Originally posted by DrSpike
Pointing out spam is spam. Pointing out metaspam is spam.

Technical chart:

Spam: obviously spam
Metaspam: more subtle spam

You missed the point about meta-spam actually being self-ironic and (usually) humourous.

Dauphin · December 16, 2003, 22:44

You also failed to describe pseudo-spam.

(When an obvious and easy +1 is passed over in favour of a serious non-spam post. The non-spam post would never have been considered had the obvious spamming opportunity never existed. Its a bit like the concept of electron holes in semi-conductors, in that its not the spam thats there that counts, its the spam that isn't).

Theben · December 16, 2003, 23:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Jamski
Suggestion - make deity special again by offering a CUSTOM TITLE for all at 15,000 posts. No code change needed and very little effort from the mods.

I have the greatest ideas.

-Jam

With the discovery of super-deity levels in civII we could just make a super-deity title.

Kuciwalker · December 16, 2003, 23:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch
You also failed to describe pseudo-spam.

(When an obvious and easy +1 is passed over in favour of a serious non-spam post. The non-spam post would never have been considered had the obvious spamming opportunity never existed. Its a bit like the concept of electron holes in semi-conductors, in that its not the spam thats there that counts, its the spam that isn't).

And then, of course, you have the Spam Uncertainty Principle, which allows spam to spontanteously enter any discussion, often in the form of panag

Unspeakable Horror · December 17, 2003, 00:52

So true.
Anyway where is he now? It´s been a while since the last time I saw him

...