Quirky Little Question ...

[sunnyone]

Dear Gentle Readers,

This minor query is so irrelevant, so trivial, most people will probably want to motor on. See ‘ya!

Still here? I recently noticed -- after only a few years! -- that our pool forums have a VIEWS column, in addition to a REPLIES column.

Since I’ve been longing to casually drop the word ‘algorithm’ into a post -- admittedly without quite comprehending its precise meaning -- (yet it is a coolio word, no?), it occurred to me that this is my opportunity to sound muy scientifico!

So … the question before the cognoscenti is … is there a measurable relationship between how many people look at a particular post and how many actually respond to it?

(My own posting is a sad exception to this imprecise query as I realize that most civilized netizens in here avert their eyes and flee, silently screaming, when they see ‘Sunnyone’ affixed to a thread.)

But -- in the normal-people sample -- is there a formulaic (another great word!) um … formula for determining the ratio of viewers to responders?

Forensic inquiry is my life,

Sunny

P. S. Further, is there an algorithm to determine, formulaically, the number of unique viewers to any one post as opposed to repeaters? Why in the cosmos is this pertinent? I dunno!

P. P. S. Also, is there a mathematical procedure to calculate if the volume of respondents to any one post is influenced by the number of responses later posted by the original poster? Whew, that’s a lot of ‘posts!’

P. P. P. S. To maintain scientific integrity and rigor, I would request that all responses herein be limited to those of you with doctorates in Hegelian Dialectics … which, I compute, would constitute approximately 42.6% of the membership. (Okay, I have zero idea what Hegelian Dialects is -- I just lamped the phrase in something I was reading the other day. Carry on!)

 

[JoeyA]

An emphatic yes.

 

[pt109]

P. S. Further, is there an algorithm to determine, formulaically, the number of unique viewers to any one post as opposed to repeaters? Why in the cosmos is this pertinent? I dunno!

P. P. S. Also, is there a mathematical procedure to calculate if the volume of respondents to any one post is influenced by the number of responses later posted by the original poster? Whew, that’s a lot of ‘posts!’

P. P. P. S. To maintain scientific integrity and rigor, I would request that all responses herein be limited to those of you with doctorates in Hegelian Dialectics … which, I compute, would constitute approximately 42.6% of the membership. (Okay, I have zero idea what Hegelian Dialects is -- I just lamped the phrase in something I was reading the other day. Carry on!)

I feel that every view is a unique view....because each response changes
the thread. And our life experience changes us every instant we're alive.
..."You can't step into the same river twice."

As for the Hegelian Dialectics aspect, your posts may be an example
of that phenomena.
Your posting style doesn't jive with the 'U for you' posters, or the ones
that substitute 'your' for 'you're'.
But your participation in this forum may change how some people think...
...therefore AZ goes to a different way of communicating...

Then another poster will build on your influence, and take it to some
other place.

Life is in a constant state of flux...but unlike the physical world where
the second law of thermal dynamics rule....
...in the areas of perception, things can actually improve.

regards
pt..<..who, as a highschool dropout, stands to be corrected.

 

[victorl]

So … the question before the cognoscenti is … is there a measurable relationship between how many people look at a particular post and how many actually respond to it?

Does the fact that he mentions "cognoscenti" make this pool-related?

Anyway, if you were ever going to try to measure a relationship between posts and replies, you'd have to do it based on the keywords or phrases in the original post. For example, any post with popular words or phrases (such as "hottest", "ram shot", "APA sandbagger", "aiming system", "I got ripped off") will have significantly higher post-view ratios than say a post about philosophical musings on the posting behaviour of pool players on an internet forum.

 

[lorider]

Does the fact that he mentions "cognoscenti" make this pool-related?

Anyway, if you were ever going to try to measure a relationship between posts and replies, you'd have to do it based on the keywords or phrases in the original post. For example, any post with popular words or phrases (such as "hottest", "ram shot", "APA sandbagger", "aiming system", "I got ripped off") will have significantly higher post-view ratios than say a post about philosophical musings on the posting behaviour of pool players on an internet forum.

you are spot on with your assesment of a few key words running up posts or views in a thread.

just the 3 letters apa will set off a chit load of posters coming outta the wood work and jumping on the bashing band wagon.

what i find humorous is if you substistute bcapl for apa in the same senario you get just the opposite effect.

let me give you 2 examples..

1. about a year ago or so there was a thread started about a guy peeing in the pockets of a table in a pool hall. it did not take but 2 or 3 posts for all the wise cracks to start about the apa. when it was brought to light that the person was a bcapl member playing in a bcapl league the tone of the thread completly changed and soon died.

2. the thread about an apa team being disqualified at their nationals for substituting one player for another caused quite a firestorm on here. by the way it was the apa team captain that did this dastardly deed.

when a thread about a bcapl league operator substituted one player for another at their nationals it was all crickets you heard compared to the same situation in the apa thread.actually this scenario is worse than the apa in my opinion because it was a league operator who commited the act of substituting a player.but you heard nothing but crickets compared to the apa thread.

 

[PoolSharkAllen]

So … the question before the cognoscenti is … is there a measurable relationship between how many people look at a particular post and how many actually respond to it?

But -- in the normal-people sample -- is there a formulaic (another great word!) um … formula for determining the ratio of viewers to responders?

Forensic inquiry is my life,

Sunny

P. P. S. Also, is there a mathematical procedure to calculate if the volume of respondents to any one post is influenced by the number of responses later posted by the original poster? Whew, that’s a lot of ‘posts!’

Perhaps the best way to answer your viewing:response question is with the following example:

In this thread, you currently have 220 views and 4 replies.
So the ratio is 220:4 or 220/4 = 55 views for every 1 response

Now that you know the formula, I doubt that you can use it for other threads. There's just too much variation; depending upon the topic, some threads will generate a huge number of views and responses and others will generate hardly any.

Finally, I get a chance to put my college degree to good use! :yikes:

 

[Dunnn51]

ohh Brudder !

Dear Gentle Readers,

This minor query is so irrelevant, so trivial, most people will probably want to motor on. See ‘ya! I am riveted to my chair till I read this:

Still here? I recently noticed -- after only a few years! -- that our pool forums have a VIEWS column, in addition to a REPLIES column. Got a chuckle ouuta this,....

Since I’ve been longing to casually drop the word ‘algorithm’ into a post -- admittedly without quite comprehending its precise meaning -- (yet it is a coolio word, no?),Coolio ??? Coolio??? "Algorithm is a technical/Mathematical term. What an algorithm does is more "coolio," than it just being "coolio" it occurred to me that this is my opportunity to sound muy scientifico!<----- Las Scientificas,... aka "The Sciences" in Spanish, its feminine. also muy is m-u-i sounds like "moo-ee" :smile:

So … the question before the cognoscenti is … is there a measurable relationship between how many people look at a particular post and how many actually respond to it?Yeah, it's called statistical inferrence!

(My own posting is a sad exception to this imprecise query as I realize that most civilized netizens in here avert their eyes and flee, silently screaming, when they see ‘Sunnyone’ affixed to a thread.) YEPP !! Most do (I must be cra-zee !!) :speechless::banghead::indecisive:

But -- in the normal-people sample -- is there a formulaic (another great word!)Doesn't this give babies cholic?!? um … formula for determining the ratio of viewers to responders? (See 2 above in blue !)

Forensic inquiry is my life,

Sunny

P. S. Further, is there an algorithm to determine, formulaically, the number of unique viewers to any one post as opposed to repeaters? Why in the cosmos is this pertinent? I dunno!

P. P. S. Also, is there a mathematical procedure to calculate if the volume of respondents to any one post is influenced by the number of responses later posted by the original poster? Whew, that’s a lot of ‘posts!’

P. P. P. S. To maintain scientific integrity and rigor, I would request that all responses herein be limited to those of you with doctorates in Hegelian Dialectics … which, I compute, would constitute approximately 42.6% of the membership. (Okay, I have zero idea what Hegelian Dialects is -- I just lamped the phrase in something I was reading the other day. Carry on!)

verrrry amusing !! I hope you (and others) know my reply is harmless; aka A gentle tickle to your ribs. Truth is: I both enjoy and lament your posts all at the same time !

 

[CreeDo]

Everything you do is Quirky, Sunny. I bet you have quirky visits to the dentist or perhaps
a quirky hassock

So … the question before the cognoscenti is … is there a measurable
relationship between how many people look at a particular post and how many actually respond to it?

It depends on the topic entirely, no concrete way. It depends on how "Arguey" the thread is.
The pattern is, more controversial subjects get tons of replies in addition to view count.
Stuff that's mostly entertainment is high on view count, lower on replies.

For example many of our highest view count + reply threads are about CTE aiming.
It's the same handful of people visiting religiously and replying several times a day.
"How Fractional Aiming Systems Help" ...~35,000 views, 855 replies.

Then you have something like Jay's trips to the phillippines or road stories.
Less arguing, mostly entertainment.
"The Rack in Detroit"... ~35,000 views, only 242 replies.

P. S. Further, is there an algorithm to determine, formulaically, the number of unique viewers to any one post as opposed to repeaters? Why in the cosmos is this pertinent? I dunno!

Formulaically, no, but it's possible the forum software tracks it and doesn't display those internal statistics
except by request only from one of the administrators.

P. P. S. Also, is there a mathematical procedure to calculate if the volume of respondents to any one post is influenced by the number of responses later posted by the original poster? Whew, that’s a lot of ‘posts!’

Not exactly but you can probably craft some statistical models thats reveal trends.
For example "in threads mentioning CTE, the average number of views and replies will be ________"
"after JB Cases posts in a thread the rate of replies doubles for the next 30 hours"
"On average, Jay Helfert's posts get 20x as many views as replies"

Stuff like that.

 

[pwd72s]

Huh???????

 

[Mr. Bond]

Yes
Yes
Probably
No

FWIW: if you click on the number of responses, it will show you a breakdown of who responded how many times in that thread.