post count and stats

Spiritoftheseventies

Is there a way of resetting post count stats or keeping those private.

TouchingVirus

Embarrassed? And no

My name is URL

I was actually thinking about this earlier for some reason.. I think it would be cool if users had an option to hide thier stats, mods could still see them though

Spiritoftheseventies

TouchingVirus wrote: »

Embarrassed? And no

Not at all.

Overheal

My name is URL wrote: »

I was actually thinking about this earlier for some reason.. I think it would be cool if users had an option to hide thier stats, mods could still see them though

Im not too bothered, but then I dont see why not, either.

mike65

Ahem..:o

TouchingVirus

mike65 wrote: »

Ahem..:o

You've been on boards for at most 104 months and have 51,000+ posts.

The OP has been on boards for at most 7 months and has 5,300+ posts. They're set to beat you if they keep it up mike :P

Spiritoftheseventies

Helps when you can type with all eight fingers

Overheal

TouchingVirus wrote: »

You've been on boards for at most 104 months and have 51,000+ posts.

The OP has been on boards for at most 7 months and has 5,300+ posts. They're set to beat you if they keep it up mike :P

Mike:

• Total Posts: 51,073
• Posts Per Day: 16.18

Overheal:

• Total Posts: 19,141
• Posts Per Day: 15.81

Bayviewclose:

• Total Posts: 5,626
• Posts Per Day: 28.45

And Sean Connery, with -$2,350.

itsallaboutheL

Overheal wrote: »

Bayviewclose:

• Total Posts: 5,626
• Posts Per Day: 28.45

it's 5,626 posts of absolute quality though

Conor

I've had a look at what I consider the "real" post-per-day stats. (Based on an actual count of the visible posts as opposed to the official postcount.)

Don't worry OP, you may be in the top 10, but there are 3 posters who post at twice your rate.

Zascar

Name and Shame

Conor

Zascar wrote: »

Name and Shame

Nah, that would only encourage competition.

Quality is more important than quantity.

Overheal

Big Cukcoos Nest contributors im guessing.

sceptre

Overheal wrote: »

Big Cukcoos Nest contributors im guessing.

Cuckoos Nest posts don't postcount++ at all.

Overheal

i know but when Conor is discussing Visible Posts..

Spiritoftheseventies

sceptre wrote: »

Cuckoos Nest posts don't postcount++ at all.

why not?

Conor

sceptre wrote: »

Cuckoos Nest posts don't postcount++ at all.

Overheal wrote: »

i know but when Conor is discussing Visible Posts..

Correct, I was discussing visible posts which includes TCN.

Conor

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

why not?

Primarily because of Count To A Million.

Spiritoftheseventies

Conor wrote: »

Primarily because of Count To A Million.

Oh i see. hows that thread going

My name is URL

So is it possible to add an option to hide post and thanks stats as the OP suggested?

Conor

My name is URL wrote: »

So is it possible to add an option to hide post and thanks stats as the OP suggested?

Nope.

Overheal

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

Oh i see. hows that thread going

Ironically its slower than the Nocturnal Forum's Lair

Spiritoftheseventies

Overheal wrote: »

Ironically its slower than the Nocturnal Forum's Lair

what on earth are they talking about on that forum

Overheal

Its a Chatroom, like in so many other forums. eg, the BGRH Bar

sceptre

Overheal wrote: »

i know but when Conor is discussing Visible Posts..

Aha, well spotted.

TouchingVirus

My name is URL wrote: »

So is it possible to add an option to hide post and thanks stats as the OP suggested?

Why does everybody ignore me?

Overheal

Because your post count isnt high enough to raid Icecrown with the big boys.

itsallaboutheL

Overheal wrote: »

Because your post count isnt high enough to raid Icecrown with the big boys.

Sceptre's post coust is huge (;)), who the hell are you talking to??

Tar.Aldarion

Conor wrote: »

Primarily because of Count To A Million.

That used to be a good reason...until boards got more 'social' forums...which have threads with a hell of a lot of content less valuable than a count to a million thread

Think I have a few thousand tucked away in TCN out of sight

ynotdu

Conor wrote: »

I've had a look at what I consider the "real" post-per-day stats. (Based on an actual count of the visible posts as opposed to the official postcount.)

Don't worry OP, you may be in the top 10, but there are 3 posters who post at twice your rate.

Hey Conor respect our privacy!!!!!!!!!!

You (it says)have 800 posts since 2003,Let us check that as We can be checked!!!!!:p
Sincerely, Totally outraged:mad:

Jeez we are stuck with ALL our bullsh*t posts that we regret and are helpless to take them back!................no fair.......:o:o:o

nesf

ynotdu wrote: »

Hey Conor respect our privacy!!!!!!!!!!

You (it says)have 800 posts since 2003,Let us check that as We can be checked!!!!!:p
Sincerely, Totally outraged:mad:

Jeez we are stuck with ALL our bullsh*t posts that we regret and are helpless to take them back!................no fair.......:o:o:o

Try being around nearly 9 years. I talked so much crap when I was younger... :pac:

Conor

ynotdu wrote: »

Hey Conor respect our privacy!!!!!!!!!!

Posts placed in the public view on a website are not private by definition. This is not a privacy issue. Note also that the only information I revealed was the fact that the OP was in the top 10 posters by posting speed.

In addition, a large part of my job (I'm an employee of Boards.ie Ltd) is to measure and monitor the patterns of posting on the site. We need to do this for several reasons, mostly related to capacity planning. The rate at which new posts appear is a critical piece of knowledge that we need to know in order to keep the site up and running.

ynotdu wrote: »

You (it says)have 800 posts since 2003,Let us check that as We can be checked!!!!!:p

I have 811 posts in total as of now.

ynotdu wrote: »

Sincerely, Totally outraged:mad:

Really? By publishing info that anyone can deduce?

ynotdu wrote: »

Jeez we are stuck with ALL our bullsh*t posts that we regret and are helpless to take them back!................no fair.......:o:o:o

I regret some posts (mostly with my personal account, IRLConor, but I'm sure if I look I'll find some posts with this account that I'd prefer I hadn't written) but, to me, it's the price of posting stuff online. The fact that what I post will be visible for a long time with my name attached is a factor in keeping me honest. With the power to have your words read by hundreds/thousands of people comes the responsibility to not act the maggot when it's not appropriate. When it is appropriate to mess around, there's no shame in doing it and no-one worth thinking about will judge you for it.

ynotdu

nesf wrote: »

Try being around nearly 9 years. I talked so much crap when I was younger... :pac:

Lol nesf,i know in some/many?:eek: posts i talk crap and knowing Me i will continue to do despite My best efforts not to!:o:(:)

ynotdu

Conor wrote: »

Posts placed in the public view on a website are not private by definition. This is not a privacy issue. Note also that the only information I revealed was the fact that the OP was in the top 10 posters by posting speed.

In addition, a large part of my job (I'm an employee of Boards.ie Ltd) is to measure and monitor the patterns of posting on the site. We need to do this for several reasons, mostly related to capacity planning. The rate at which new posts appear is a critical piece of knowledge that we need to know in order to keep the site up and running.



I have 811 posts in total as of now.



Really? By publishing info that anyone can deduce?



I regret some posts (mostly with my personal account, IRLConor, but I'm sure if I look I'll find some posts with this account that I'd prefer I hadn't written) but, to me, it's the price of posting stuff online. The fact that what I post will be visible for a long time with my name attached is a factor in keeping me honest. With the power to have your words read by hundreds/thousands of people comes the responsibility to not act the maggot when it's not appropriate. When it is appropriate to mess around, there's no shame in doing it and no-one worth thinking about will judge you for it.

Hi,ya Conner and thanks for the reply.I really have to learn to use the emocians/smileys at correct time in correct place:)

the respect our privacy bit was a leg-pull,it is fun having a go at Mods/admins/staff and even Devore just for craic.trying to ensure people realise i am trying to be lighthearted is something i Totally fail at sometimes!:),but mostly boardsies are a forgiving lot!

Devore has said about {in particulor serious threads}that the ability to delete or change a post lasts only 48 hours,after that I/We are stuck with whatever we have posted,in order that a quick 'revision' of history cannot be done!

It is that ethos and the fact that history will be preserved 'as it happened'that i respect boards for!!!{so little is put on paper now how will future historians be able to understand the past?}

It is a Living record of where we as people and as a Nation where at a particulor day in our personal or National thinking.
So even if My badly thought out Bull*hit posts are there for posterity:o:o:o.it is a small price to pay!:):):)

Cheers!

Spiritoftheseventies

Conor wrote: »

Nah, that would only encourage competition.

Quality is more important than quantity.

just to ask. is post count rate based on posts posted on weekly basis or from overall basis. Ie if lets say Poster posted 100 texts in first week and then lets say ten thereafter would his post count rate be reflected in what he posted thereafter.

Conor

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

just to ask. is post count rate based on posts posted on weekly basis or from overall basis. Ie if lets say Poster posted 100 texts in first week and then lets say ten thereafter would his post count rate be reflected in what he posted thereafter.

It's an overall average.

I know you can't post the name of the person, Conor, but what's the figure for the person with the highest "real" (i.e. including posts that aren't normally included) post rate?

Conor

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

I know you can't post the name of the person, Conor, but what's the figure for the person with the highest "real" (i.e. including posts that aren't normally included) post rate?

I don't have the stats to hand (I generated them as a "once off" thing) but if I remember correctly it was in the region of 80 posts per day.

Zascar

Years ago on Boards, the little tag line underneath the members username, used to say something different depending on the number of posts they had. For the top posters, it says "No Life" which is extremely apt imo - I recon we bring it back!

Spiritoftheseventies

Zascar wrote: »

Years ago on Boards, the little tag line underneath the members username, used to say something different depending on the number of posts they had. For the top posters, it says "No Life" which is extremely apt imo - I recon we bring it back!

think thats a good idea. Would at least demystify the whole thing.

ynotdu

Zascar wrote: »

Years ago on Boards, the little tag line underneath the members username, used to say something different depending on the number of posts they had. For the top posters, it says "No Life" which is extremely apt imo - I recon we bring it back!

Zascar I think the Cmod should ban you for no life life after that!:)

nesf

Zascar wrote: »

Years ago on Boards, the little tag line underneath the members username, used to say something different depending on the number of posts they had. For the top posters, it says "No Life" which is extremely apt imo - I recon we bring it back!

500 posts could nab you a "No Life" title back then iirc.

Rabies

nesf wrote: »

500 posts could nab you a "No Life" title back then iirc.

Was it not a thousand posts?

Zascar

Oh really I thought it was a certain amount of posts per day..

nesf

Rabies wrote: »

Was it not a thousand posts?

Can't remember, you're quite possibly correct.

Hobbes was the sole holder of the title for ages too iirc.

Spiritoftheseventies

There was a poster here who recently signed up under a duplicate name (assume it was because of boards breakdown). But his posts were wiped. As such he was handed a clean start. Should his old posts have been factored in.

5starpool

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

There was a poster here who recently signed up under a duplicate name (assume it was because of boards breakdown). But his posts were wiped. As such he was handed a clean start. Should his old posts have been factored in.

Noones posts were wiped. They created an account with a very similar name, and should they request it, once it is gotten to on the queue (assuming there is one) the accounts will be merged.

This is what I believe is happening with these type of accounts, but what I do know is that a persons account was not reset becuase of the attack thing. Obviously, I can't know that for 100% certainty as I am not involved in it, but I can be fairly sure of it.

Spiritoftheseventies

In that case why his zero post count. It was same poster from previous incarnation as he got immediate access to soccer boards without clocking up the fifty posts.

itsallaboutheL

Spiritoftheseventies wrote: »

In that case why his zero post count. It was same poster from previous incarnation as he got immediate access to soccer boards without clocking up the fifty posts.

Because the posts on his new account are now credited to his old account afaik.

Spiritoftheseventies

itsallaboutheL wrote: »

Because the posts on his new account are now credited to his old account afaik.

yes but surely his post count should have been added on.