12/22/24
August 02, 2002
Dear Pantheon: (hi again, guys)
Could we add to the top of "The Sidelines" a Top 10 list of SpoFi-ers (SpoFiddlers? SpoFixers? SpoFicians? SpoFinks? SpoFigures? SpoFites? SpoFilaments?) ranked by:
1. (the main stat!) Avg comments generated per post
2. Number of posts
3. Total Number of comments generated by those posts
4. Number of comments
5. (the ignominious stat, esp. for people like me) No. of posts removed (I think I'm at 2: one normal, one locker room)
Thought it might be fun and encourage, thru friendly competition, the quantity and quality of posts (not to say it's not good now). This could also serve as the informal demi-god Olympus so charitably proposed by Samsonov14.
posted by worldcup2002 to feature requests at 02:21 PM - 13 comments
Well, perhaps the list would only count comments generated by people other than yourself, if you're on the list. So, let's say SpoFi's Top 10 list filtered out your comments in Thread 83, you still generated a whole bunch of what seem to be happy and fun comments from other people. What's wrong with that? Where's the fun, djacobs, where's the fun? ;-)
posted by worldcup2002 at 05:12 PM on August 02, 2002
The fun is in knowing that you've contributed usefully. If your goal is just volume, or to score points, then (surprise!) people post crap about Ford Expeditions. If you think posting is a game, there are better places for you.
posted by tieguy at 09:40 PM on August 02, 2002
Is there really a need to quantify quality?
posted by BlueTrain at 08:46 AM on August 03, 2002
I would rather see members here distinguish themselves by writing columns, a feature we have either announced recently or are putting the finishing touches on. It's a way to infiltrate the sidebar without getting into a "mine's bigger" contest involving our post count.
posted by rcade at 10:56 AM on August 03, 2002
But, ahem, mine's pretty big.
posted by rcade at 10:56 AM on August 03, 2002
I'd prefer people posted and commented thoughtfully instead of trying to race each other to the Top 10. But, ahem, mine's pretty big. That's what you all say!
posted by jerseygirl at 01:37 PM on August 03, 2002
I'd suggest 'no': Seems like stats &tc would make us more like these guys.
posted by Cap'n Swing at 02:17 PM on August 03, 2002
rcade: Finally, one of the Pantheon has spoken. And, probably the only one to have a sense of humor about it, too. (OK, and jerseygirl, too.) I gather that the preponderance of opinion is on the side of "We'd prefer not to make this a matter of score-keeping or competition." So, I shall withdraw my request. (Except that, the key ranking would've been a function of other people's comments, i.e.,: S = OC/P where S = your SpoFi score OC = total of other's comments generated by your posts P = total of your posts) So, you could post all you want, but if it were crap and nobody paid enough attention to comment, you'd have S = zero. Also, if you posted just a few times, but each time generated 30+ posts, you'd be rocking. The stats are really more for the personal details -- just as they're posted now in your profile -- but only OC/P determines your ranking score. We could also modify S to include the "posts removed" factor, so that: S = (OC/P) - PR where PR = no. of posts removed, or somesuch weighted factor So, someone -- like me -- might actually have a negative score for having even one post removed. I have two. Heh. Well, that was fun while it lasted. I guess I've been pretty pleased with the restraint and maturity exhibited by this group, and expected they'd realize this was just for fun, not that we were giving out prizes or anything.) Thanks for your consideration.
posted by worldcup2002 at 06:40 PM on August 03, 2002
OC = total of other's comments generated by your posts worldcup2002, once again I have to ask, do we need to quantify quality? A big debate over on MeFi has always been, "Does the number of comments in a given thread deem it better than one with very few?" And the resounding answer is, "No." An incredible essay detailing Jackie Robinson's struggles might not need comments because the link is so well written. Perhaps we'll all sit here in awe of such a literary wonder. On the other hand, I could easily link, as I have recently, to CNNSI and bring up a controversial subject, in my case the Williams sisters' supposed dynasty in tennis, and get 25 comments. I consider the former link better for the site, but the latter link better for community involvement. Who's to say which is better?
posted by BlueTrain at 10:34 PM on August 03, 2002
Also, the OC count could get skewed by a great comment post. Why should a run-of-the-mill spofigure (I like that one the best) get a beefed rating because a quality post by another, superior spofigure, which would generate more comments than the original post?
posted by rebeuthl at 07:39 PM on August 05, 2002
Who's to say which is better? Me.
posted by yerfatma at 09:05 AM on August 06, 2002
I think there should be a Canadian Multiplier (c >= 1) for any posts to the Hockey category.
posted by Succa at 02:15 PM on August 08, 2002
I strongly dislike this idea! It seems like it would be intimidating to newcomers, and leads to abuse. For instance: http://www.sportsfilter.com/lockerroom/comments.cfm/83 That certainly shouldn't count towards MY average. It's just me screaming LETS GO MO.