Stats comp.lang.ruby (last 7 days)

ruby-talk
1

Stats comp.lang.ruby (last 7 days)

Top 10 posters for the period:

rank posts kbytes name <address>
   1 50 132.3 Ara.T.Howard <Ara.T.Howard@noaa.gov>
   2 50 102.7 Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@lazaridis.com>
   3 34 80.2 David A. Black <dblack@wobblini.net>
   4 29 82.6 Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com>
   5 27 65.7 Robert Klemme <bob.news@gmx.net>
   6 27 53.1 Joe Van Dyk <joevandyk@gmail.com>
   7 21 49.9 James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net>
   8 20 36.1 James Britt <james_b@neurogami.com>
   9 19 46.5 Logan Capaldo <logancapaldo@gmail.com>
  10 18 46.4 Mark Hubbart <discordantus@gmail.com>
     ----- ------
       295 695.3 Total for top 10

Totals for the newsgroup:
242 posters
1031 articles
2294.4 kbytes

The top 10 accounted for:
   4.13% of the posters
  28.61% of the articles
  30.31% of the bytes

Averages:
   4.26 articles / poster
   2.23 kbytes / article
   9.48 kbytes / poster

90 people posted for the first time this period.
They went on to post 184 articles altogether

The new posters accounted for:
  37.19% of the posters
  17.85% of the articles
  16.51% of the bytes

Top 10 subjects for the period:

posts kbytes subject
   55 122.8 [RCR] Object#inside_metaclass?
   43 110.7 RCR 303: nil should accept missing methods and return ni
   37 75.2 [ETYMOLOGY] - Sterile Classes / Sterile Meta Classes
   35 87.7 object reference handle (like perl's reference to scalar
   31 68.2 Typo-checking instead of static typing
   28 65.0 Bug Tracker
   24 52.0 "Bounty" approach for small pieces of code?
   21 51.9 Ruby, Rails and now og
   21 48.2 [ANN] traits-0.0.0
   18 43.3 [ANN] Ruby Editor Plugin for jEdit 0.6 - method completi

1031 articles on 212 subjects
867 were followups (84.09%)
0 were crossposts (0.00%)

2294.4 kbytes total
headers: 1104.9kb 48.16%
quoted text: 366.1kb 15.96%
original text: 713.0kb 31.08%
signatures: 40.5kb 1.77%

Averages:
   4.86 articles / subjetc
   2.23 kbytes / article
  10.82 kbytes / subject

Postings per weekday:

Day posts
Monday 102 **********
Tuesday 170 *****************
Wednesday 187 *******************
Thursday 155 ****************
Friday 166 *****************
Saturday 134 *************
Sunday 117 ************
                 (*=10 posts)

Top 10 newsreader agents used (accumulated):

posts newsreader users
  713 (69.16%) ruby-talk 176 72.73%
  103 ( 9.99%) thunderbird 19 7.85%
   68 ( 6.60%) g2 26 10.74%
   50 ( 4.85%) noaa 1 0.41%
   43 ( 4.17%) outlook 6 2.48%
   10 ( 0.97%) knode 6 2.48%
   10 ( 0.97%) pan 4 1.65%
   10 ( 0.97%) tin 1 0.41%
    7 ( 0.68%) mozilla 2 0.83%
    6 ( 0.58%) trn 1 0.41%

17 different agents have been used (versions unaccounted).

DISCLAIMER
Please, take these stats with a dash of salt, quantity might not always
imply any quality.

Have a lot ..., lots of fun!

2

* Balwinder Singh Dheeman <bsd.SANSPAM@cto.homelinux.net> [2005-05-09 09:44:22 +0900]:

Stats comp.lang.ruby (last 7 days)
Top 10 posters for the period:

rank posts kbytes name <address>
   1 50 132.3 Ara.T.Howard <Ara.T.Howard@noaa.gov>
   2 50 102.7 Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@lazaridis.com>
   3 34 80.2 David A. Black <dblack@wobblini.net>
   4 29 82.6 Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com>
   5 27 65.7 Robert Klemme <bob.news@gmx.net>
   6 27 53.1 Joe Van Dyk <joevandyk@gmail.com>
   7 21 49.9 James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net>
   8 20 36.1 James Britt <james_b@neurogami.com>
   9 19 46.5 Logan Capaldo <logancapaldo@gmail.com>
  10 18 46.4 Mark Hubbart <discordantus@gmail.com>
     ----- ------
       295 695.3 Total for top 10

When this was first published, I thought, wow this is cool.
But, since then I have been reading a book called Freakonomics.
And now, well, I wonder if this email provides an incentive
(that did not previously exist) for those seeking public
recognition, to post 'junk' so their name appears near the
top of the stats.

Anyway, just wondering...

···

--
Jim Freeze

3

Jim Freeze wrote:

When this was first published, I thought, wow this is cool.
But, since then I have been reading a book called Freakonomics.
And now, well, I wonder if this email provides an incentive
(that did not previously exist) for those seeking public
recognition, to post 'junk' so their name appears near the
top of the stats.

Anyway, just wondering...

I had the same thought. In fact I need to post more so I can get in the top 10, woohoo! And here is another one :slight_smile:

Ryan

P.S. Look at me! Look at me!

4

Hi --

···

On Mon, 9 May 2005, Jim Freeze wrote:

* Balwinder Singh Dheeman <bsd.SANSPAM@cto.homelinux.net> [2005-05-09 09:44:22 +0900]:

Stats comp.lang.ruby (last 7 days)
Top 10 posters for the period:

rank posts kbytes name <address>
   1 50 132.3 Ara.T.Howard <Ara.T.Howard@noaa.gov>
   2 50 102.7 Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@lazaridis.com>
   3 34 80.2 David A. Black <dblack@wobblini.net>
   4 29 82.6 Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com>
   5 27 65.7 Robert Klemme <bob.news@gmx.net>
   6 27 53.1 Joe Van Dyk <joevandyk@gmail.com>
   7 21 49.9 James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net>
   8 20 36.1 James Britt <james_b@neurogami.com>
   9 19 46.5 Logan Capaldo <logancapaldo@gmail.com>
  10 18 46.4 Mark Hubbart <discordantus@gmail.com>
     ----- ------
       295 695.3 Total for top 10

When this was first published, I thought, wow this is cool.
But, since then I have been reading a book called Freakonomics.
And now, well, I wonder if this email provides an incentive
(that did not previously exist) for those seeking public
recognition, to post 'junk' so their name appears near the
top of the stats.

You caught me! I'll try to stop it!

David

--
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net

5

Jim Freeze wrote:
...

  8 20 36.1 James Britt <james_b@neurogami.com>

...

When this was first published, I thought, wow this is cool.
But, since then I have been reading a book called Freakonomics.
And now, well, I wonder if this email provides an incentive
(that did not previously exist) for those seeking public
recognition, to post 'junk' so their name appears near the
top of the stats.

Anyway, just wondering...

Others might be thinking they should spend more time working.

James

Damn. *This* message will get counted, too.

6

* Balwinder Singh Dheeman <bsd.SANSPAM@cto.homelinux.net> [2005-05-09 09:44:22 +0900]:

Stats comp.lang.ruby (last 7 days)
Top 10 posters for the period:

rank posts kbytes name <address>
  1 50 132.3 Ara.T.Howard <Ara.T.Howard@noaa.gov>
  2 50 102.7 Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@lazaridis.com>
  3 34 80.2 David A. Black <dblack@wobblini.net>
  4 29 82.6 Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com>
  5 27 65.7 Robert Klemme <bob.news@gmx.net>
  6 27 53.1 Joe Van Dyk <joevandyk@gmail.com>
  7 21 49.9 James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net>
  8 20 36.1 James Britt <james_b@neurogami.com>
  9 19 46.5 Logan Capaldo <logancapaldo@gmail.com>
10 18 46.4 Mark Hubbart <discordantus@gmail.com>
    ----- ------
      295 695.3 Total for top 10

When this was first published, I thought, wow this is cool.
But, since then I have been reading a book called Freakonomics.
And now, well, I wonder if this email provides an incentive
(that did not previously exist) for those seeking public
recognition, to post 'junk' so their name appears near the
top of the stats.

Yes, agreed.

Anyway, just wondering...

I OTOH think optimistically, these stats will also provide us an informations to locate and avoid such trolls.

···

On 05/09/2005 06:39 AM, Jim Freeze wrote:

--
Dr Balwinder Singh Dheeman Registered Linux User: #229709
CLLO (Chief Linux Learning Officer) Machines: #168573, 170593, 259192
Anu's Linux@HOME Distros: Ubuntu, Fedora, Knoppix
More: http://anu.homelinux.net/~bsd/ Visit: http://counter.li.org/

7

* Ryan Leavengood <mrcode@netrox.net> [2005-05-09 10:15:29 +0900]:

I had the same thought. In fact I need to post more so I can get in the
top 10, woohoo! And here is another one :slight_smile:

Ryan

P.S. Look at me! Look at me!

LOL.
In fact, I'm still laughing.

BTW, I'm one up on you now. :slight_smile:

···

--
Jim Freeze

8

Ryan Leavengood wrote:

Jim Freeze wrote:

When this was first published, I thought, wow this is cool.
But, since then I have been reading a book called Freakonomics.
And now, well, I wonder if this email provides an incentive
(that did not previously exist) for those seeking public
recognition, to post 'junk' so their name appears near the
top of the stats.

Anyway, just wondering...

I had the same thought. In fact I need to post more so I can get in the top 10, woohoo! And here is another one :slight_smile:

Ryan

P.S. Look at me! Look at me!

Heh heh. Could we have a "bottom 10" list as well?

Hal

9

Dr Balwinder S Dheeman wrote:

...
I OTOH think optimistically, these stats will also provide us an informations to locate and avoid such trolls.

That's right, Ara. We're on to you!

:slight_smile:

James

10

"Dr Balwinder S Dheeman" <bsd.SANSPAM@cto.homelinux.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:8vu2l2-lgv.ln1@news.sebs.org.in...

* Balwinder Singh Dheeman <bsd.SANSPAM@cto.homelinux.net> [2005-05-09 09:44:22 +0900]:

Stats comp.lang.ruby (last 7 days)
Top 10 posters for the period:

rank posts kbytes name <address>
  1 50 132.3 Ara.T.Howard <Ara.T.Howard@noaa.gov>
  2 50 102.7 Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@lazaridis.com>
  3 34 80.2 David A. Black <dblack@wobblini.net>
  4 29 82.6 Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com>
  5 27 65.7 Robert Klemme <bob.news@gmx.net>
  6 27 53.1 Joe Van Dyk <joevandyk@gmail.com>
  7 21 49.9 James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net>
  8 20 36.1 James Britt <james_b@neurogami.com>
  9 19 46.5 Logan Capaldo <logancapaldo@gmail.com>
10 18 46.4 Mark Hubbart <discordantus@gmail.com>
    ----- ------
      295 695.3 Total for top 10

When this was first published, I thought, wow this is cool.
But, since then I have been reading a book called Freakonomics.
And now, well, I wonder if this email provides an incentive
(that did not previously exist) for those seeking public
recognition, to post 'junk' so their name appears near the
top of the stats.

Yes, agreed.

Anyway, just wondering...

I OTOH think optimistically, these stats will also provide us an informations to locate and avoid such trolls.

Hm, honestly, I don't think so. First, your stats come after the fact but more important, how do you tanslate quantity into a troll indicator? I'd say we need at least more sophisticated figures for that (text pattern analysis or whatever)... :slight_smile: Apart from that, usually you can detect them well by just looking at their articles.

And still ignorance is the best way to cope with them.

Kind regards

    robert

···

On 05/09/2005 06:39 AM, Jim Freeze wrote:

11

Anyone care to give the new classifier a go at this? See if it can evaluate the fitness of the threads for "useful content" or some other classification system. I'll leave it to someone else's imagination as to what constitutes fit. You could also then come up with a thread or post rank/score which could be added up for each post the author makes. This would mean that people with a good post score would be more likely to be read than those with a low post score who would be ranked lower in such a weighted stats systems.

J.

···

On 09/05/2005, at 4:04 PM, Robert Klemme wrote:

When this was first published, I thought, wow this is cool.
But, since then I have been reading a book called Freakonomics.
And now, well, I wonder if this email provides an incentive
(that did not previously exist) for those seeking public
recognition, to post 'junk' so their name appears near the
top of the stats.

Yes, agreed.

Anyway, just wondering...

I OTOH think optimistically, these stats will also provide us an informations to locate and avoid such trolls.

Hm, honestly, I don't think so. First, your stats come after the fact but more important, how do you tanslate quantity into a troll indicator? I'd say we need at least more sophisticated figures for that (text pattern analysis or whatever)... :slight_smile: Apart from that, usually you can detect them well by just looking at their articles.

12

jm wrote:

···

On 09/05/2005, at 4:04 PM, Robert Klemme wrote:

When this was first published, I thought, wow this is cool.
But, since then I have been reading a book called Freakonomics.
And now, well, I wonder if this email provides an incentive
(that did not previously exist) for those seeking public
recognition, to post 'junk' so their name appears near the
top of the stats.

Yes, agreed.

Anyway, just wondering...

I OTOH think optimistically, these stats will also provide us an
informations to locate and avoid such trolls.

Hm, honestly, I don't think so. First, your stats come after the
fact but more important, how do you tanslate quantity into a troll
indicator? I'd say we need at least more sophisticated figures for
that (text pattern analysis or whatever)... :slight_smile: Apart from that,
usually you can detect them well by just looking at their articles.

Anyone care to give the new classifier a go at this? See if it can
evaluate the fitness of the threads for "useful content" or some other
classification system. I'll leave it to someone else's imagination as
to what constitutes fit. You could also then come up with a thread or
post rank/score which could be added up for each post the author
makes. This would mean that people with a good post score would be
more likely to be read than those with a low post score who would be
ranked lower in such a weighted stats systems.

A funny idea to play with but for real world application I prefer to use
CS (common sense, not computer science). Note: not everything technically
feasible has to be done or even makes sense. :slight_smile:

Kind regards

    robert

13

Hi --

···

On Mon, 9 May 2005, jm wrote:

Anyone care to give the new classifier a go at this? See if it can evaluate the fitness of the threads for "useful content" or some other classification system. I'll leave it to someone else's imagination as to what constitutes fit. You could also then come up with a thread or post rank/score which could be added up for each post the author makes. This would mean that people with a good post score would be more likely to be read than those with a low post score who would be ranked lower in such a weighted stats systems.

Please, let's not get into the judging, ranking, hierarchy, scoring
thing. The lack of that kind of stratification continues to be one of
the great attractions of Ruby for me. Let's leave that to Slashdot
and Perlmonks and other such sites.

David

--
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net

14

David A. Black wrote:

Please, let's not get into the judging, ranking, hierarchy, scoring
thing. The lack of that kind of stratification continues to be one of
the great attractions of Ruby for me. Let's leave that to Slashdot
and Perlmonks and other such sites.

+5

Oh, wait ...

James

15

Two rules for stats and rankings,

1) Always take with a large gain of salt.
2) Always make them so complicate that no-one fully understands them and they end up being useless and not open to manipulation.

Anyway, such a system shouldn't be used to stratify anything (I agree that would only cause problems), but merely as an assistant to finding useful information faster. Most likely it's my bad choice of words striking again. I shouldn't have used 'score' or 'rank'. I thought these would have been taken to be in the sense of google's page rank or similar systems used as a sieve on the information. Not as a ranking like a leader board for sports. The intention was actually the reverse, too de-order the statistics by adding in/providing different measures, hence why I "leave it to someone else's imagination as to what constitutes fit". I got a little carried away with carrying it to its logical conclusion. Not always a good idea as that which is good in moderation can become a bad idea when taken to the extreme.

other random ideas,

number of posts that contain code
lines of code per post
posts that contain explainations
number of "long" theads
number of "short" threads
number of replies/references to message
maximum quote depth in message
post of summaries

Guaranteed as soon as I hit send I'll think of 5 more.

J.

···

On 09/05/2005, at 7:46 PM, David A. Black wrote:

Please, let's not get into the judging, ranking, hierarchy, scoring
thing. The lack of that kind of stratification continues to be one of
the great attractions of Ruby for me. Let's leave that to Slashdot
and Perlmonks and other such sites.