Mr.Shrugglesã
Banned
I can't believe I knew what the Q / P referred to.
What a crazy metric.
What a crazy metric.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
What is your Q/P ratio? Is it improving or regressing?
- Thread starter hydrophilic attack
- Start date
- Status
hydrophilic attack
Member
I take it you haven't taken very advanced maths courses
hydrophilic attack
Member
If you are affected by the problem in that thread, it just means you showed a lack of foresight in your choice of username. It's not an indictment of the usefulness of the Q/P ratio
I'm a vanguard mod, I represent that will and interests of the common working GAFers, in fact, I'm the personification of them.
I, through the Standing Subcommittee for Poster Evaluation, have declared your post to be adequate, if counter-revolutionary.
Graphics Horse
Member
No, I chose this name to trick people into thinking I had a better Q/P ratio!
hydrophilic attack
Member
Having seen the error of my decadent ways, I have rescinded my previous, counter-revolutionary post. I will now admit myself into a re-education camp under my own volition.
Signed, hydrophilic attack.
OG Shaka Zulu
Member
Too much meta in this thread.
Blargonaut
Banned
Don't be surprised. Consider yourselves introduced to that alleyway to the shaded alcoves of NeoGAF.
Have you not remembered that "Neo-" as a prefix means "new"? Why do you think there are four sub-Boards of this forum? Four Boards to the forum, four walls to the room. But what is the floor? And where is the ceiling?
It's easy to forget that our posts are but light on a plane. For most of us, that is enough.
Yet I tell you there is an old GAF, and you may read each other's messages off your personal screens but what is up to us, is down to old GAF, from which our own opinions were born before they were forgotten. For whom that is enough, I tell you it is madness to glimpse this dimension.
To old GAF, your quotes are but echoes. Yet old GAF was not the chamber's roof.
To old GAF, GAF Gold is only the surface. Yet GAF Gold was never real to anyone but us.
There will come a time when our posts are lost count of and our avatars left unrecognizable to those who come after us, if anyone at all.
Yet old GAF will still be there, archived, awaiting.
Have you not remembered that "Neo-" as a prefix means "new"? Why do you think there are four sub-Boards of this forum? Four Boards to the forum, four walls to the room. But what is the floor? And where is the ceiling?
It's easy to forget that our posts are but light on a plane. For most of us, that is enough.
Yet I tell you there is an old GAF, and you may read each other's messages off your personal screens but what is up to us, is down to old GAF, from which our own opinions were born before they were forgotten. For whom that is enough, I tell you it is madness to glimpse this dimension.
To old GAF, your quotes are but echoes. Yet old GAF was not the chamber's roof.
To old GAF, GAF Gold is only the surface. Yet GAF Gold was never real to anyone but us.
There will come a time when our posts are lost count of and our avatars left unrecognizable to those who come after us, if anyone at all.
Yet old GAF will still be there, archived, awaiting.
chaosblade
Unconfirmed Member
Shitposts early in a huge thread can get dozens of quotes. And tons of good, informative posts get completely ignored.
I also question the method, I've been posting on GAF for around 7 years and have 20k posts but Google only returns 431 results for quotes. I'm pretty confident I've been quoted well over 431 times, especially since I have a history of being an active poster in threads that have an emphasis on back-and-forth conversation like the Need a PC ones.
Edit: Oh, I searched threads. 1499 in roughly 1 year, back to last May.
Extrapolating my posts gives me somewhere in the ballpark of 3k posts in that time. So right around 50%. Now THAT seems high to me.
I also question the method, I've been posting on GAF for around 7 years and have 20k posts but Google only returns 431 results for quotes. I'm pretty confident I've been quoted well over 431 times, especially since I have a history of being an active poster in threads that have an emphasis on back-and-forth conversation like the Need a PC ones.
Edit: Oh, I searched threads. 1499 in roughly 1 year, back to last May.
Extrapolating my posts gives me somewhere in the ballpark of 3k posts in that time. So right around 50%. Now THAT seems high to me.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
I usually quote bad posts, not good ones.
99 threads out of 100 where a poster gets quoted a dozen times in a row, it does not remotely reflect well on the quoted poster
hydrophilic attack
Member
🤔
Actually, that's a really funny edit.
Even funnier is that when people quote this edit to compliment it on its funniness, I will get the quote for it. I will be rewarded and not the one who made it. It even led to me quoting myself! This just goes to show how government overreach causes perverse incentives
Join date: 2013
old GAF, pffft. What a poser!
You have to use forum search. Google search won't work.
I'm so sorry
RyougaSaotome
Member
what is happening
hydrophilic attack
Member
But that was quoted as a meta joke to discredit my method. I found it very funny and well-deserving of quotes. So the system works.
Uh...I've apparently been quoted 1283 times in the last 6 months, but I've posted more than 1500 times so it's really impossible to tell.
If I had to hazard a guess, it's like...maybe 30%. Most of my posts are just speaking to the thread, not necessarily addressing a particular person.
I don't think quote amount really has anything to do with quality. It's a silly metric.
Lots of threads don't even quote people, they just respond to the most recent post (or whatever topic is currently about), as an implied quote. Community threads (like MovieGAF) tend to do that a lot.
Also, this. Shitposts or first post humor get quoted all the time. Obviously, I'm not saying they are bad, but it's silly to think that's "quality" neogaf content.
EDIT2: Ok, just did some envelope math. I post around 200-500 posts per month, roughly (good lord what am I doing with my life), so that 1500 posts I mentioned above goes back to January 31st. So adding 500 per month back, two extra months (to be conservative with my Q/P ratio), that yields 2,500 posts in 6 months (good lord what am I doing with my life).
So, 1500/2500 is 60%. Better than I'd thought.
EDIT3:
If I had to hazard a guess, it's like...maybe 30%. Most of my posts are just speaking to the thread, not necessarily addressing a particular person.
I don't think quote amount really has anything to do with quality. It's a silly metric.
Lots of threads don't even quote people, they just respond to the most recent post (or whatever topic is currently about), as an implied quote. Community threads (like MovieGAF) tend to do that a lot.
Also, this. Shitposts or first post humor get quoted all the time. Obviously, I'm not saying they are bad, but it's silly to think that's "quality" neogaf content.
EDIT2: Ok, just did some envelope math. I post around 200-500 posts per month, roughly (good lord what am I doing with my life), so that 1500 posts I mentioned above goes back to January 31st. So adding 500 per month back, two extra months (to be conservative with my Q/P ratio), that yields 2,500 posts in 6 months (good lord what am I doing with my life).
So, 1500/2500 is 60%. Better than I'd thought.
EDIT3:
Kilau
Member
Walter White Walker
Member
While you thought your post was highly important to GAF, for me it was merely a Tuesday.
you need mark yourself one by one good posters and bad one.
You earned a yellow tag from me
Oh shit, what plugin is this?
hydrophilic attack
Member
you need mark yourself one by one good posters and bad one.
You earned a yellow tag from me
Now I won't be able to sleep until I know whether a yellow tag counts as positive or negative
Which is good, because I'm up against a deadline and need to work all night
Earthbound64
Banned
"Meta joke"...
Yeah...
Sure...
That's exactly what I was doing...
Just a meta joke, bro.
Blargonaut
Banned
If I was a mayfly, that would be one-thousand-four-hundred-and-sixty lifetimes ago
Think about that, hotshot
Abstrusity
Member
I love statistics, but what's the relationship between quality and the number of posts that have been quoted? I mean, you say it's an objective measure, but if I go into a thread and start flailing some stupid garbage around, plenty of people are going to quote me with a reaction image at best.
And then the mods come and you'll be lucky to get a humiliating title!
Number of times you've been quoted is not an objective measure of the quality of your posts. Thus, I reject this claim.
The quantification of quotes is nice, but at best there's a correlation to quality, not a causal link.
And then the mods come and you'll be lucky to get a humiliating title!
Number of times you've been quoted is not an objective measure of the quality of your posts. Thus, I reject this claim.
The quantification of quotes is nice, but at best there's a correlation to quality, not a causal link.
Earthbound64
Banned
Really makes you think...
hydrophilic attack
Member
The fact that you manually misspelled my user name so as to not give me the satisfaction of getting quoted means that you on some level agree with the quote-as-a-reward theory
Lol!
Blargonaut
Banned
Earthbound64
Banned
The fact that you manually misspelled my user name so as to not give me the satisfaction of getting quoted means that you on some level agree with the quote-as-a-reward theory
.
Michael F. Assbender
Banned
I try to add to discussions and be funny and likable, but I think I just come off as a jerk or a Johnny Tryhard so I don't get quoted super often.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
Last year I did a study on what affected your chances of being quoted. It wasn't super robust (It was a for a professor who focuses on qualitative methods so he was easily impressed with what I managed to do) but maybe my data and conclusions would be interesting in this context.
I collected data on the number of times users were quoted and the number of times users quoted throughout a sample of 25 threads. Here's a history gram of the number of times users who posted in threads quoted others (outDegree).
So there is actually very little quoting going on compared to posting. I don't have the corresponding graph on this computer though but if anyone is interested to see it, I can dig it up.
I split the study in two: post content and user characteristics. For post content, I compared the emotional content including joy, anger, sadness, trust, surprise, anticipation, etc. The type of thread really seemed to have an effect on how much emotional content differed between quoted and non-quoted posts. In general, the angrier and more disgusted posts were quoted more often.
For user characteristics, I compared user title/tag, years of membership, posts per day, avatar, and position in the a sample of the NeoGAF social network. The regression I ran only explained about 25% of the variation in number of posts quoted. Posts per day and years of membership were the only significant predictors.
I didn't account for the interaction between post content and user characteristics, which would be the next step. Maybe one day I'll go back to it.
So according to my study, if you want to be quoted: stay longer, post more, and be angrier.
(I never checked to see if I was in any of the threads I used for the study so I don't know how I fared.)
I collected data on the number of times users were quoted and the number of times users quoted throughout a sample of 25 threads. Here's a history gram of the number of times users who posted in threads quoted others (outDegree).
So there is actually very little quoting going on compared to posting. I don't have the corresponding graph on this computer though but if anyone is interested to see it, I can dig it up.
I split the study in two: post content and user characteristics. For post content, I compared the emotional content including joy, anger, sadness, trust, surprise, anticipation, etc. The type of thread really seemed to have an effect on how much emotional content differed between quoted and non-quoted posts. In general, the angrier and more disgusted posts were quoted more often.
For user characteristics, I compared user title/tag, years of membership, posts per day, avatar, and position in the a sample of the NeoGAF social network. The regression I ran only explained about 25% of the variation in number of posts quoted. Posts per day and years of membership were the only significant predictors.
I didn't account for the interaction between post content and user characteristics, which would be the next step. Maybe one day I'll go back to it.
So according to my study, if you want to be quoted: stay longer, post more, and be angrier.
(I never checked to see if I was in any of the threads I used for the study so I don't know how I fared.)
Method 4 - do they use light theme
i found method 4
hydrophilic attack
Member
This responses in this thread have succeeded my expectations in terms of fun
Last year I did a study on what affected your chances of being quoted. It wasn't super robust (It was a for a professor who focuses on qualitative methods so he was easily impressed with what I managed to do) but maybe my data and conclusions would be interesting in this context.
I collected data on the number of times users were quoted and the number of times users quoted throughout a sample of 25 threads. Here's a history gram of the number of times users who posted in threads quoted others (outDegree).
So there is actually very little quoting going on compared to posting. I don't have the corresponding graph on this computer though but if anyone is interested to see it, I can dig it up.
I split the study in two: post content and user characteristics. For post content, I compared the emotional content including joy, anger, sadness, trust, surprise, anticipation, etc. The type of thread really seemed to have an effect on how much emotional content differed between quoted and non-quoted posts. In general, the angrier and more disgusted posts were quoted more often.
For user characteristics, I compared user title/tag, years of membership, posts per day, avatar, and position in the a sample of the NeoGAF social network. The regression I ran only explained about 25% of the variation in number of posts quoted. Posts per day and years of membership were the only significant predictors.
I didn't account for the interaction between post content and user characteristics, which would be the next step. Maybe one day I'll go back to it.
So according to my study, if you want to be quoted: stay longer, post more, and be angrier.
(I never checked to see if I was in any of the threads I used for the study so I don't know how I fared.)
This is very useful
I remember you talking about this study in another thread. You said you considered publishing it in a journal. Did you manage?
All Possible Ways
Member
Puck Beaverton
Banned
My entire motivation to post is to get quoted. Quality be damned.
- Status