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.
Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by kdog1982
I hope I didn't come off as bitter about having lower stats. Sure, I get a sense of satisfaction when my thoughts are praised but that's not my purpose.
Overall, the point is that in any endeavor a small fraction are bound to succeed far beyond the majority.
And I thought it would be interesting to compare the share of the 1% of ATS with the global economy to illustrate this.edit on 6-9-2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)
I would think that a little number crunching from the massive ATS data banks could tell us what the "k" is for ATS, but I suspect they have other things to do.
The Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.
Business-management consultant Joseph M. Juran suggested the principle and named it after Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who observed in 1906 that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population; he developed the principle by observing that 20% of the pea pods in his garden contained 80% of the peas.
It is a common rule of thumb in business; e.g., "80% of your sales come from 20% of your clients". Mathematically, where something is shared among a sufficiently large set of participants, there must be a number k between 50 and 100 such that " 'k'% is taken by (100 − k)% of the participants". The number k may vary from 50 (in the case of equal distribution, i.e. 100% of the population have equal shares) to nearly 100 (when a tiny number of participants account for almost all of the resource). There is nothing special about the number 80% mathematically, but many real systems have k somewhere around this region of intermediate imbalance in distribution.
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
Dear PatrickGarrow17,
I'm pleased when I can find a reasonable conversation in which I can participate. I value the comments of the replying posters more than anything else. Are they paying attention? Understanding what I'm trying to say? Is it making any difference to the conversation?
Points can't be used for anything, and I think flags' only benefit is that you can get a colored border around your posts.
May I say that you've come up with a new and interesting topic? It made me try to remember my old economics classes. (And resort to Wiki again. en.wikipedia.org... )
I would think that a little number crunching from the massive ATS data banks could tell us what the "k" is for ATS, but I suspect they have other things to do.
The Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes.
Business-management consultant Joseph M. Juran suggested the principle and named it after Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, who observed in 1906 that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population; he developed the principle by observing that 20% of the pea pods in his garden contained 80% of the peas.
It is a common rule of thumb in business; e.g., "80% of your sales come from 20% of your clients". Mathematically, where something is shared among a sufficiently large set of participants, there must be a number k between 50 and 100 such that " 'k'% is taken by (100 − k)% of the participants". The number k may vary from 50 (in the case of equal distribution, i.e. 100% of the population have equal shares) to nearly 100 (when a tiny number of participants account for almost all of the resource). There is nothing special about the number 80% mathematically, but many real systems have k somewhere around this region of intermediate imbalance in distribution.
With respect,
Charles1952
K = Karma Karma is factors based heavily upon your Star to Post Ratio combined with Applause and Flags. It is a counterbalance to the WATS system of (Flags*5(Stars)).
Originally posted by Tw0Sides
I could have a few more points, but you left out the Penalized Poster angle.
But when I call a D-Bag, a D-Bag, I get my knuckles rapped, and 1000 points go bye bye.
Its worth it.
You're a thoughtful and considerate poster. That's why you're admired far and wide. You're my kind of guy, errr, "dog?"
And,yes,charles,I do pay attention most of the time.
Here I really have to apologize to you. I forgot there was a K index, or perhaps I would have noticed that the formula Pareto came up with used "k" as the variable. That's the "k" I was talking about. If that "k" is 1, then we have a distribution where only a few have all the points. At 50, then the points are equally spread.
As for the karma index,there is a formula they use.
And I'm all for that, however you get it. (Some restrictions apply. See store for details. )
At the end of the day,does it really matter?
To some degree,a little boost in self-confidence.
Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by kdog1982
Dear kdog1982,
You're a thoughtful and considerate poster. That's why you're admired far and wide. You're my kind of guy, errr, "dog?"
And,yes,charles,I do pay attention most of the time.
Here I really have to apologize to you. I forgot there was a K index, or perhaps I would have noticed that the formula Pareto came up with used "k" as the variable. That's the "k" I was talking about. If that "k" is 1, then we have a distribution where only a few have all the points. At 50, then the points are equally spread.
As for the karma index,there is a formula they use.
And I'm all for that, however you get it. (Some restrictions apply. See store for details. )
At the end of the day,does it really matter?
To some degree,a little boost in self-confidence.
With respect,
Charles1952