User Ranks and post counts

[Stu]

1 hour ago, cloudsweeper said:

Blimey - the minimum value of L is 1 for this ratio to be meaningful, so that's at least 1000 Ps for one L.  Or better, 2000 Ps for 2 Ls.  Are you about this Stu?

Doug.

Well the member in question had around 16000 posts with 17 likes..... ???. Perhaps he posted in a rather obscure area of the forum?

I think it is easier to get more likes now as there are significantly more members than when some of the original members (a few of whom are into the 20k or even 30k Mark) started, so their ratios will likely be lower.

I think I'm around 0.66 too, FWIW, not really considered it before.

There was a time, when I had a silly name on here that I had more profile views than posts which was weird! Something like 4000 views with 3000 posts if I remember correctly.

[t0nedude]

55 minutes ago, Stu said:

Well the member in question had around 16000 posts with 17 likes..... ???. Perhaps he posted in a rather obscure area of the forum?

I think it is easier to get more likes now as there are significantly more members than when some of the original members (a few of whom are into the 20k or even 30k Mark) started, so their ratios will likely be lower.

I think I'm around 0.66 too, FWIW, not really considered it before.

There was a time, when I had a silly name on here that I had more profile views than posts which was weird! Something like 4000 views with 3000 posts if I remember correctly.

It's cos you look like Bruce Lee...

Tony.

[Piero]

2 hours ago, acey said:

Perhaps "Like:Post Ratio" could be categorised logarithmically rather than linearly. For example:

10: Super-particle (probably non-existent: an average of 10 likes for every post!)

1: Higgs (impressive but rarely seen, and only likely to exist for a short time)

0.1: WIMP (weakly interacting massive poster, pretty average)

0.01: Neutrino (abundant but too often ignored)

0.001: Dark matter (possibly ubiquitous and best left unnamed)

This is actually interesting as it is not monotonic compared to the currently implemented ranking. 

I must admit that I find a bit confusing that after less than 100 (or something like that) likes, a user contribution becomes automatically excellent in a profile. So eventually we all have an excellent reputation which is nice of course, but seems a bit useless in the end as it does not distinguish anybody as a measure (assuming that we want this measure of course).

Something similar could be said about the new member (0-25 posts?), member (<100 posts?), advanced members. Eventually we all end up very quickly in the advanced category while we often are still very beginners. To me, it would make more sense if one is a new member until the 500th post, and a member until 2000th post, or something like that. 

 

Anyway, to me Acey's scale would make more sense than the "community reputation" text (which reports excellent for almost everybody who regularly attends this forum). I also like the selection of names (dark matter, neutrino, higgs, etc).

On the other hand.. how many rankings / scores do we already have??

Edited May 24, 2016 by Piero

[RichM63]

FWIW, + 1.2 : Rich

[cloudsweeper]

The only reason I went off on this LPR tack at all is because I can't resist spotting and analysing figures!  No intention of introducing any sense of competition, of course - we're all helping each other out in various ways!  Nevertheless, an LPR>1 certainly appears to be unusual.

Nice one, @RichM63!

Doug.

[Stu]

12 hours ago, t0nedude said:

It's cos you look like Bruce Lee...

Tony.

Thank you sir. May I say you bear a passing resemblance to the Invisible Man? ??

[hjw]

4 hours ago, RichM63 said:

FWIW, + 1.2 : Rich

I can beat this, although I haven't quite as many posts yet : L/P=1.4

[acey]

From a quick look at the start of the members list ranked by reputation, I see that StuartJPP has a score of 3,508 for a content count of 1,738, giving a very impressive Like:Post Ratio of 2.02. That must be hard to top...

Edit:

Hang on, davefrance has 3244/1325 = 2.45 - is there possibly a 3 out there?

Edit again:

Congrats to astroavani who scores 1737/541 = 3.21.

Can someone automate the search and let me get back to work please?

Edited May 25, 2016 by acey

[cloudsweeper]

Glad I stirred up something of interest here.  Thanks for the contributions, and thanks to the members with those impressive LPRs.  

And I thought something just over unity was unusual!

Doug.

 

[Scott]

with the likes of twitter and fb it's no wonder that "likes" are becoming more popular than comments. Back in the day, people had something to add...now its just all too easy to like a post and move on  . In fact, I seem to recall hearing that in the earlier days of sgl, there was no "like" button so this may go some way to explaining why members with 10k,20k or more posts have a much lower lpr than newer members. When alls said and done, it's just a bit of fun .

Oh, @Stu, I found a 5000+with 1 like although I do wonder if any of these figures have been messed up with software upgrades etc

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Likes were only implemented a comparatively short while back. So if, like me, you had many posts to your name before the introduction of likes, your L/P ratio is inherently going to be lower (although asymptotically it will approach some platonic "true" value). There was even a brief period after introduction when a bug gave everyone ten likes for starters, hence some single-post members with a L/P ratio of 10.  People who effectively left before or just after the introduction of likes will have a dismal L/P ratio.

 

Just for the record, mine is currently 0.356

[acey]

Indeed, it's all totally harmless fun for the number-crunchers among us. Good to know I have honourable cause for my indifferent LPR. And worth remembering that when people receive good advice they don't necessarily like what they're hearing...

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I also note that my posts with images in them tend to gather more likes posts without.

[EWHB]

On 21/03/2009 at 21:13, Ant said:

We have been asked a number of times what the words below the usernames signify.

Well TBH they are just a bit of fun really!

As you post more in the Astro sections of Stargazerslounge you're post count goes up by one (posting in The Lounge doesn't).

With this post I've attached a list of the User Ranks and the posts required to get to each rank.

All they signify is the number of posts that user has made and it doesn't necessarily mean that the person knows what they are talking about (take me for example ).

I think we'll have these bands for some time, but as always we cannot rule out a change at some point.

Cheers
Ant

Very nice ranking system, glad to be apart of the community!

[elliot]

If I were to say I wasn't just posting this to get away from being called a vacuum, what would that make me?

[Ant]

I'll give you a like as well for that, just to skew the numbers.

I do think that software updates do muck things up a little. For example technically i'm member #1 or #2 (I cannot remember it was nearly 15 years ok). But due to an error during one of the software changes according to the current software I didn't join until may 30 2012.

In fact I cannot even remember if the previous software had 'likes' or not. 

[DrMaryruth]

Thanks for clarifying! As I am brand new here, I am finding it difficult to know where to start or go first!

[Swoop1]

Welcome to the forum DrMaryruth. Love your location! We started our honeymoon a few miles south of you in Hilo.

Are you anything to do with the collection of observatories on top of a volcano near you?

P.S. Have a like just because

[laspirit]

I wanted to share a link that has been useful to me in reading all the posts on this site: https://www.go-astronomy.com/glossary/astronomy-abbreviations.htm

Happy stargazing! LA

[Gina]

Hi and welcome to SGL

[MARS1960]

On 27/11/2011 at 12:11, Mr Spock said:

I still want the title 'Science Officer', but I'm not going to get it

And i thought Mr Spock knew everything .

[AstroKerr]

On 4/7/2009 at 09:13, ashenlight said:

I have been wondering what constitutes a 'nebula' etc for a while, so cheers for that Ant! For some reason I didn't like being said Nebula, so was glad when I passed 100 posts, lol!

Amanda

'Manda,

I was I'm a 'vacuum' - I want ta know how they new, eh? I'd only just arrived - hadn't even opened me gob - and they had me pegged! Some "MI-X"-level stuff gaen on... aye.

Bye the bye - I'm inventing the word 'fondulant' - I didn't set out to; I thought it was a word already. I cannot find a definition anywhere, so I am claiming it - FONDULANT (proper eng.)/FONDULENT (us eng.) from the Kerrish "fondulaent" - precise meaning to be released upon determination (tbrud), but it will be such that one could say "Ashen, you're quite the fondulant Nebula!" in either a supportive or smarmicky fashion.

Didn't mean to change trajectory there, I think I would have preferred to be a 'photon' instead of a 'vacuum'

This is post 10 to clear 'vacuum', mind, don't expect quality...

"..." to me means either a pause OR settling back in one's chair after having said summat of intended value (even if only t' saelf) whilst placing tea cup/coffee cup/pint/flaggon upon nearest horizontal surface without looking.

Anyways, pleased t' meet ye...

Edited September 29, 2017 by AstroKerr

[cletrac1922]

Amanda, nothing wrong been a nebula

Most viewed objects in space

Most stunning

Cheers

 

John from land down under, where Orion is even upside down

 

 

[Dave In Vermont]

Figure me out - if you dare!

evaD

[Ledge1962]

The wife would definitely agree with me being a Nebula, she is always complaining about the gaseous clouds I leave behind.