Mentions over comments
Mentions are, roughly, the number of times someone has responded to a post by quoting or naming.
Comments are the number of posts.
I wonder if the ratio of these two - mentions divided by comments - could be a proxy for that poster's contribution to forum growth.
Mine, sadly, comes out at 0.93. Someone with a ratio greater than 1.0 would be encouraging more replies than posts, and hence more conversation.
Recognising those with a larger mentions/comments ratio might encourage forum flourishing...
...or might encourage trolling.
Anyone willing to share their mentions/comments ratio?
Can we get the ought of post quality from an is of mentions/comments?
Comments are the number of posts.
I wonder if the ratio of these two - mentions divided by comments - could be a proxy for that poster's contribution to forum growth.
Mine, sadly, comes out at 0.93. Someone with a ratio greater than 1.0 would be encouraging more replies than posts, and hence more conversation.
Recognising those with a larger mentions/comments ratio might encourage forum flourishing...
...or might encourage trolling.
Anyone willing to share their mentions/comments ratio?
Can we get the ought of post quality from an is of mentions/comments?
Comments (133)
0.67
Quoting Banno
Encouraging responses is far from post quality. If one posts vague, confusing, easily refutable, or simply provocative things their ratio would be quite high, wouldn't it?
[s]Also, whether or not I directly reply to a topic (without quoting) or quote part of the OP is solely based on if I'm in a state of mind where I need what I'm replying to to literally be in front of me to avoid losing focus. Which is a toss up depending on the time of day (or complexity of the post). Basically, it may not be a reliable indicator of too much.[/s]
Edit: Never mind. Replies to topics produce a mention. Lol. See that's what I'm talking about. :grin:
:cool:
Perhaps; it's an empirical question.
Would having a mentions/comments ratio of less than, say, 0.1, be grounds in itself for a ban?
A description of my ratio, and definitely nothing to do with Plotinus' Enneads.
"All good and beauty, and everlasting, is centred in The One, sprung from It, and pointed towards It, never straying from It, but ever holding about It and in It and living by Its law" :cool:
(just pushing your ratio up a notch...)
0.77
I'm honestly surprised it's even that high. It feels like about half that.
To this point, if you have a lower ratio people likely agree with the comment.
Did I win?
Always a question, always an incomplete thesis ...
Just over 0.9 for me.
Testing something: @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake@fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake @fdrake
Edit: Nope, can't rig it like that!
On the other hand, a couple of recent threads raise issues about the forum's culture that in my mind do relate to questions of privilege.
There is the longstanding issue of the mods and admins preferring and even enforcing certain styles and points of view. That's a real thing. Posting here is, as the saying goes, not a right but a privilege.
But also: the behavior and worldview gestured at these days with the word "privilege" is in part a case of Burns's Doctrine: none of us know how others see us. We don't know even know what Banno's Ratio means: is a high number good because you're engendering conversation or bad because the conversation you're engendering is likely filling up the cry? Is a low number good because people generally agree with you and have nothing to add, or bad because no one finds what you post worth responding to?
(There's a book called Another Bullshit Night in Suck City where an old drunk explains that getting beat up was good -- at least someone noticed him and took enough interest to bother beating the shit out of him.)
But I have a lot of haters.
This one ought generate a bunch of good Samaritan replies that I won't need to respond to.
Game on!
I know, when I post, there isn't much left to say after that. :cool:
Quoting tim wood
Admitting you're a hater?...nice!
Quoting Banno
A song for the bad side of having more reactions than actions on TFP.
Pissing on parades and constant sarcasm
Fly paper comments and repudiation
Crap metaphysics gone out on a limb
These are a few of my favourite things
White coloured snowflakes and endless religion
More bloated red/blacks with no precision
Dog whistles, dodges and dead OLP
These are a few of my favourite things
Pretension, delusions and misinterpretations
Bruised ego bollocks and self flagellation
Theories of everything found in the bin
These are a few of my favourite things
When the troll posts
When critique stings
When I'm feeling sad
I simply remember TPF things
Then I don't feel so bad
There is also a long standing history of trolls and misbehaving people who get their posts revoked, who then go and complain about how unfair it is. Legitimate posters who have been revoked politely talk to the mods and do not make public posts whining. Trolls do. I see such public posts as little evidence of abuse by the mods.
1.04
1.1 but I think we can come up with more reasons for this
(1) Comments which address multiple people at once
(2) Not always responding to people who mention you
(3) Always mentioning someone in your comment
These things are true for me and I think it has that effect of having more mentions than comments.
Any lovers?
I certainly wasn't suggesting that it was.
Hm. I get an equation named after me!?
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?!
So that's a no, is it? It must be the delicacy of your put downs that keeps us all coming back for more.
But that's how it works in the real world...
"No respect..."
Ever seen the Dilbert strips with the guy who repeats what you said, but makes it sound like it was his idea?
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 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:
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.
So, you've received 56,760 mentions?
Misplaced decimal point...
Good catch, I wasn't paying attention...
0.66
There you go, one more mention for you, even though I didn't actually say anything. Oh, whoops I did say something. Damn!
To some...
Those numbers mean nothing to me.
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.
As in, what's your mentions/(comments^2)? Mine is 0.344_.
We can correctly predict.
I would concur.
I read you excitedly whenever I see your name. I just don't respond most of the time because I find your posts very unobjectionable.
You can raise your ratio by replying to multiple mentions in a single post. It might actually be a good practise because it helps keep the threads neat and tidy. It's also good advice to people like you Banno, who appear to attach importance to having a large number of comments. I hope you some day reach your goal of having infinite as your recorded number of comments.
Top left of the screen, below your profile picture.
Thanks. The phone version didnt have it so I was confused.
But more recently I've come to recognise that there are those for whom there is no point in replying.
Outside chance you might be on someone's similar list?
I hope so.
Amen. I'll respond to the leftists. I won't respond if a response is just total nonsense though, which I have seen here from some users (or maybe just "user" - now that I think about it, I can only think of one that's just been so far our of left field.) There's one left winger who I'm pretty sure is ignoring me though and I'm fine with that.
The elation felt in a sense of superiority should be praised?
This is not so easy to decide.
This is a forum fostering arguments. People who agree with a post normally leave it alone, or in a rare case, respond to it with a tone or content of approval. Case in point: Quoting fdrake
The answer to the question is indeterminable, from the ratio alone, because a low ratio may mean disgust, or it may mean acknowledgment of the perception of a genius. Definitely supports the opinion in the OP that it does not generate lively thougts or discussions, but it may not be bereft of value to the community nevertheless.
Conversely, therefore, a high ratio of mention / comment may be generated by a high rate of disapproval, high rate of finding the post significant or interesting, whether agreeing or not with it, or else generated brain acrtivity. In these cases the opinion in the original post makes sense.
Also please note that people (Person A) may quote person B when replying to Person C. In this case B, whose "mention" number is increased, is only a reference in a response to Person C, who rightfully ought to have the "Mention" counter.
Relying on the mathematical value of the ratio alone is no indication of the posts' "value" as viewed by others. Granted, the OP never stated that. The ratio's significance as to a corresponding alleged increased interest because of its being stimulating may also be misleading. Throw in "god", "evolution", "abortion", "ethics" and you will find that people are much more militant to stand by their own opinions, than, say, when they talk about their favourite colours, sexual positions or vacation beaches. This is the only paragraph in this post that states a counter-argument to the original notion in the OP. People may put numerous responses when they are not stimulated to think, but are motivated to defend an already established and unchangeable opinion.
Not praised, but enjoyed. It's like praising someone else's orgasm. None of my business. But feeling my own is certainly worth it.
A ratio named after you, definitely, and well deserved, too. An equation? You have to come up with one that is as original in concept and significant as the Banno Ratio.
I'd add: "One person's troll is another person's genius."
Given this sentiment, I imagine that your talent as a lover is unsung.
Quoting praxis
Interesting. You feel other people's orgasms, @praxis? You've got quite a talent there.
Somehow, this seems a long way from the OP.
Savoring a sense of superiority is certainly self gratifying, as is masturbation. I can agree with you that far, but I question the worth you place on it.
Not long ago I recall NOS being criticized for the quality of his posts and him replying, “In my defense, I have more mentions than comments.” It was pointed out to him that this could indicate trolling behavior, in which case it would be further damning rather than a defense. Trolling is essentially self gratifying, like masturbation or relishing a sense of superiority. If you accused someone of being a poor lover and they said, “Well, in my defense, I enjoy masturbation,” it would not be a defense. It would show how utterly disconnected they had become, due to their habit of self gratification.
Self gratification has low worth and should remain unsung.
He says: au contraire, we have drilled down to the essentials.
If everyone could gratify themselves in every way then the world would be quite a happy place.
It's only self-gratification at the expense of others' gratification that's blameworthy.
But only inasmuch as anything at the expense of others is blameworthy.
I feel like you are totes kink shaming here.
Braiding fools into a whip!
I should point out that I was probably being more self-gratifying than serious, and it was about praise rather than blame. Regardless of that I disagree with your statement simply because we can reproach ourselves for the cost that self-gratification has on us as individuals. Our reproach need not be so melodramatic as to require whip and tote, of course, unless you’re into that sort of thing.
Helping out your ratio while simultaneously pointing out that if you don't want to objectify your partner, "There is no one more erotic, nor beautiful than my partners face as she orgasms." Would be the better way to phrase this... If she happens to like being objectified (a known kink) then forget I said anything and carry on!
I think that's how object-oriented programming took initial shape. A bunch of sexually frustrated programmers who objectify sexual objects into objects to sub for partners in their abject lack of finding a suitable subject being a reject, etc etc etc, I'll leave it to you to fill out the rest.
Hahahaha! That made me laugh :') explains all the female armour in almost every video game. Metal bikinis and shit.
Obviously you've never seen @Baden at just the right moment in just the right light.
"One" as in the god-thread? Or one as in one person at a time? Single line, no pushing. While in the line.
My genius friend Paul S. came up to me one day, and asked me, "Is the sum of a woman better than her whole?"
I actually sent that video to everyone. Don't be jelly.
No, as in someONE vs someTHING, which is the change they made.
A person is someONE, but their face is someTHING, so if we are describing the beauty of a person’s face, it’s not objectifying the person to say that their face is a beautiful THING.
I know. I was merely playing.
I know. I was merely playing.
1. Good (reasonable/knowledegable/insightful) (G)
2. Bad (unreasonable/ignorant/irrelevant) (B)
B. Being mentioned
3. Approving good comments (A)
4. Disapproving bad comments (D)
[math]\frac{Mentions}{Comments} = \frac{G + B}{A + D}[/math]
The ratio doesn't reflect how valuable a member is to the forum (small G, large B & small A, D [math]\leq[/math] G, as when you're ignored, would mean a ratio [math]\geq[/math] 1).
Posts and mentions are below your name on any page. For me that's page top, screen top left on a web browser.
Yeah, different on my cell. I see my avatar and make at all my posts, and it says 795 posts. This will be 796. But not mentions. I can find mentions in a menu, bit it doesn't give a count. I'll grab a laptop some time and see. Not that it matters. Only 796 posts isn't going to be as informative..
Wow. So, you were mentioned more than 25K times in TPF. That's crazy.
Mine is 0.8. 4.7K mentions. You mates typed "Javi" 280 times.
0.85
5.2K mentions.
I am stuck!
Maybe I'll set up a sticky post demanding that, in line with current executive orders, all American posters MUST sign each post with:
"HAIL TRVMP, AVGVSTVS! HAIL VANCE, CEASAR!"
And banning the sharing of traitorous Vance memes:
(I have legit forgot what the guy actually looks like at this point)
That ought to be good for some replies.
But the one to watch, the one who might be "little boots", is "X"; entitled nose-picking critic of The Orange Emperor.
Still 1.05.
1.4, but only because I tend to reply to multiple comments in one post.
And no, I do not win, because I'm sure there are some with ratios greater than 3, and they're terrible contributors for it. Joe comes in, makes an interesting OP (gathering 20 replies), but Joe never comes back and tends his topic. I see that a lot.
How do I know how many mentions I’ve had?
@T Clark If you are using a mobile or similar device, switch the screen to "desktop" or whatever it is called in English.
Quoting flannel jesus
Thanks y'all. Yes, I was using my mobile. I found it on my computer. Javi - I looked for the "desktop" switch on my phone but I don't see it.
0.88
Does this violate the new no embedding rule? Probably.
If you’re suggesting that my post lacks substance I’ll have you know that the image is a meditation on freedom, violence, and authenticity in a world emptied of clear moral direction. It echoes Nietzsche’s self-authoring hero, Sartre’s free agent, Camus’ absurd man, and Baudrillard’s hyperreal cowboy — all wrapped in a squint and a poncho.
Yes, I know all that, but I still think it violates the new policy. Let's ask the moderators. Wait...no...let's not.
Now we know Banno, whilst at the hinge of submitting something is pondering how many replies he can get with every post. :lol: Fragility.
I don't take this thread seriously, and I don't want to defend it, but I want to reply to that particular thought quoted above: I think a thread gets its own life; users talk with each other, inspire each other, no matter whether the original poster keeps participating or not. So it's not just the OP that triggers the spark; all users in that thread do that. And when they reply to a comment, they usually mention the respective user which may be the thread starter or any other user in the thread. So there's the "mention" function again.
In real life, my email and text received to response ratio is much higher because I typically ignore emails and texts, except when it's important, and then I call them back.
1,04
What's the prize?
On the other hand, it can also be telling of how many times I've been baited to respond. I've of late been better at just leaving conversations that go nowhere or not responding to people who are clearly not an important waste of my time.
Quoting Hanover
Yey, the 1,0... somethingers-club :strong: