It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Board Actvity Stats Inaccurate?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   
I was looking today that the ATS board activity stats and something caught my eye. I knew that there were many "ATS points" given out in ATS's almost three year history, but 3.7 billion points seemed way too much. So out of curiosity I did a little math to see if the could be accounted for. I went through the records and found out that of our about 38,250 total members only about 14,850 actually posted at least once. Of the total board posts of about 1,362,000, only about 1,068,000 posts were given out points to. (Total board posts minus 296,000 BTS points) So for about 14,850 posting members the average posts per member is 71.91 posts. Of the 3.7 billion ATS given out, that would average about 249,000 ATS points per posting members (14,850). That's weird... **averaging** 71.91 posts and 249,000 ATS points per member. Hummm that doesn't make sense, considering myself, I have posted about 403 times and I only had about 22,000 lifetime ATS Points (I spend about 16,000 points). To make my point, take for example FredT and Gazrok. FredT has the most points of all the members with about 750,000 ATS points and 7,000 posts. Gazrok has about 200,000 points and 15,000 posts. I don't think any member has spent more then 30,000 ATS points at the ATS Store. (Not that many things to buy) So even these top members don't seem to fit in my calculations... There are few members that have more then 249,000 ATS points, let alone 14,850+ members. Can anyone say CONSPIRACY? Lol, but seriously where did all those points go?

Also, I have found some other problems with the Board Activity Stats listing. Mainly being that members numbers seems to be inaccurate as it takes into account *some* banned members and some people that were denied access to ATS but the accounts are still recorded.

Everyone feel free to correct me if I am wrong as I do not have full access to the records.

[edit on 5-5-2005 by beyondSciFi]




posted on May, 5 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Looking at porn when you're bored is far more productive than crunching numbers.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   
I like numbers (but porn is good too
). Numbers rule the universe. Just my way of finding answers to things I dont understand... (Maybe I could be the records Mod... lol)

[edit on 5-5-2005 by beyondSciFi]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Numbers don't rule the Universe....


I DO!

*cue thunderbolts and lightening. Very very frightening.*



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 10:08 AM
link   
Hehe, funny, but do you have anything serious to say about the topic besides make jokes?



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Silence, MORTAL!

Take him away, boys.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Maybe you forgot about this...


Originally posted by SimonGray
We've seen a recent rash of new one-line responses to posts that add nothing to the flow of discussion.

One Line or less Responses or "me too" atta-boy comments contribute nothing to the discussion. These include rows of smilies, "you're wrong", or other similar short responses.

Each mod has the ability to apply nominal points warnings (20 points) for both of these minor board infractions. Please help us maintain the best discussion board possible by considering your responses in both content and length.

Unfortunately, those of you who have fallen into these habits, may get a few warnings in your U2U In Box. These warnings are not full Staff Warnings, but provide you with a link to your one-line post.

Please help keep ATS quality at its highest.

[Edited on 16-5-2004 by SkepticOverlord]


Please post something that is a little long and has more meaning to it. I really what to hear what other members/Mods/admins have to say about this. No offense D9.

[edit on 5-5-2005 by beyondSciFi]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I don't know if the points count is accurate or not, but I know I've spent close to 100,000 points myself if not more. At least 50K in the first few months I was here. Alot of people have outrageous U2U quotas, file storage space and change backgrounds like clothes.

There's also some points for BTS, alot since ATSNN, and WATS used to give them, and people get applauded all the time. There's alot of points flying around, and warns taking them away too.

[edit on 5-5-2005 by RANT]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   
But it still does not add up, there are very few people that have even had 100,000 lifetime ATS points. I mean come on thats 249,000 ATS points on average PER member... for all 14,850 of them, that actually posted.

[edit on 5-5-2005 by beyondSciFi]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by beyondSciFi
But it still does not add up, there are very vew people that have even had 100,000 lifetime ATS points. I mean come on thats 249,000 ATS on average PER member... for all 14,850 of them that actually posted.


I seriously don't know. It may include joke accounts. Posters with 99 million points one minute and negative 99 million the next, like on April Fools.

I don't think it's supposed to be taken that seriously.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   
hehe Maybe your right. But still if I had a site, I would at least make sure the stats for it are accurate, as for they are the few facts on the actual site and not its content.



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by beyondSciFi
hehe Maybe your right. But still if I had a site, I would at least make sure the stats for it are accurate, as for they are the few facts on the actual site and not its content.


I'm sure the current stats are accurate (trafficwise no doubt, speak not of that heresay), but with point total history it's probably the accuracy that's presenting the conflict.

It's probably counting everything that ever happened and not resolving the conflicts or making it seem right.

But again I don't know. Of all the things SO has had to track from server to server and version to version, historical mining of member point totals are probably the least concern. They wouldn't have any outside meaning or value in comparing the site to the Internet universe. The stuff that matters is bullet proof I'm sure.

[edit on 5-5-2005 by RANT]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   
If I didn't change my backround and font colors all the time I'd have over 100,000 points. Let's not even mention the 1,000,000 points I spent on that "Personal UFO". It won't get more than 10 feet off the ground, so don't waste your points on it.




posted on May, 5 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   
I agree with you RANT, I guess the Admins have more important things to do then check to see if the numbers are exact. But the thing is I think that the rest of the info stated might be inaccurate or wrong also. I only make a case out of the ATS points counter because its the only one I could back up by logical arguments at that time.

P.S. Im sure that the member records are wrong. I went through them and there are missing members, but some banned members are still listed and people that had member access denied are listed under the members accounts.

P.P.S
Great pic dbates.

[edit on 5-5-2005 by beyondSciFi]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Ok -- my brain is really fuzzy right now and I'm not sure if you are saying that those members have too many points or not enought or what. But remember you don't just get points for each post -- if you start a thread that is replied to a lot you get more points, if you do a news submission you get extra points, if you get an applause you get some points.

You can spend your points pretty quickly if you try hard too.

So I don't think this is something you can average out by number of posts etc.

edited for spelling -- told you my brain was fuzzy today


[edit on 5-5-2005 by justme1640]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   
who cares....




seriously, is it going to make any difference in this site, if the point system isn't figured / reported correctly...



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   
hey beyond... if you want to look at inaccurate #'s....

how do you come up with the # that's listed in your location ?


#637 poster....

can't be right...


[edit on 5-5-2005 by elevatedone]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
hey beyond... if you want to look at inaccurate #'s....

how do you come up with the # that's listed in your location ?


#637 poster....

can't be right...



Its correct, go to members, sort by number of posts, on page 13, around the bottem.
I only update it when im on ATS, so when im offline its probably wrong.


[edit on 5-5-2005 by beyondSciFi]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 04:44 PM
link   
As was said, any points given out add to the total, any taken away I would think wouldn't. Not sure about that.

I bet it has something to do with banned members, though. Some of the members had thousands of points, hundreds of thousands some. They'd still count towards the post count, since the posts are still there, but since the members themselves aren't part of ATS and Co., I'd guess their point totals aren't counted as well. Some banned members also have far fewer than they 'should.'

Although, really, they don't deserve any.


What you should really look into is trying to figure out how to turn those points into something more useful than a color. Like gold.

EDIT: Screw gold, go with the pr0n.

[edit on 5/5/2005 by Amorymeltzer]



posted on May, 5 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
I bet it has something to do with banned members, though. Some of the members had thousands of points, hundreds of thousands some. They'd still count towards the post count, since the posts are still there, but since the members themselves aren't part of ATS and Co., I'd guess their point totals aren't counted as well. Some banned members also have far fewer than they 'should.'


I thought about that, and even with all the banned memebers, most ATS points still cant be acounted for. Almost 3.7 billion points is a lot you know, and some 2,000 banned members' ATS points would only add up to less then 1% of the total. Look, 249,000 points is the average for each member, so something has to be wrong with the points counter. Not only that the member records along with other stats might also be inaccurate. Im not making a big deal about it, im just pointing it out for everyone else.

[edit on 5-5-2005 by beyondSciFi]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join