| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/09/2008 04:45:03 PM · #201 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm not famous at all. |
Oh, Puuuuuhleeeeeeeze!!!!!......8>)
|
|
|
|
09/09/2008 04:46:35 PM · #202 |
Originally posted by Doyle:
328...I must have done something wrong. I'm not that famous! |
Don't use that formula. It's dumb. It divides by the number of times you are selected as favorite photographer. In other words, it penalizes you for being favorited. Use my formula, which penalizes you for scoring high! |
|
|
|
09/09/2008 04:48:45 PM · #203 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Doyle:
328...I must have done something wrong. I'm not that famous! |
Don't use that formula. It's dumb. It divides by the number of times you are selected as favorite photographer. In other words, it penalizes you for being favorited. Use my formula, which penalizes you for scoring high! |
Then both formulas are flawed. To be truly famous, you should be penalized for adding photographers and photos to your own favorites list. Famous people don't recognize others. Sheesh. |
|
|
|
09/09/2008 04:49:23 PM · #204 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by Doyle:
328...I must have done something wrong. I'm not that famous! |
Don't use that formula. It's dumb. It divides by the number of times you are selected as favorite photographer. In other words, it penalizes you for being favorited. Use my formula, which penalizes you for scoring high! |
I think I made up my own formula. It makes me feel more famous. :P |
|
|
|
09/09/2008 04:51:43 PM · #205 |
|
|
|
09/09/2008 04:58:22 PM · #206 |
ok.. well I don't even have enough numbers to bother with any formula. I know I suck... but can I please pay someone to pick some of my horrible images as favorites so I can at least rate on the fame-o-meter, cause I'm feeling like the most un-famous person on this site right now, and I don't LIKE IT!! :(
Stomps away/ |
|
|
|
09/09/2008 05:08:49 PM · #207 |
Why do the formulas have to be so crazy difficult anyway?
You want an easy one....
Avg Vote Received: 4.9724
divided by
Total Image Views: 61,602
8.07
|
|
|
|
09/09/2008 05:11:41 PM · #208 |
Avg Vote Received: 5.9890
divided by
Total Image Views: 1,073,208
0.0000055
Can ya get any lower than that?
|
|
|
|
09/09/2008 05:21:23 PM · #209 |
| wow this thread has gone in a direction i did not anticipate! LOL :) |
|
|
|
09/09/2008 05:24:52 PM · #210 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Avg Vote Received: 5.9890
divided by
Total Image Views: 1,073,208
0.0000055
Can ya get any lower than that? |
I got 5.58, your math is off a bit... perhaps? 5.989/1,073,208
|
|
|
|
09/09/2008 05:25:22 PM · #211 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
wow this thread has gone in a direction i did not anticipate! LOL :) |
Isn't that pretty much par for the course? |
|
|
|
09/09/2008 05:25:56 PM · #212 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
Originally posted by Judi:
Avg Vote Received: 5.9890
divided by
Total Image Views: 1,073,208
0.0000055
Can ya get any lower than that? |
I got 5.58, your math is off a bit... perhaps? 5.989/1,073,208 |
How did you figure that. 5.9890 divided by 1,073,208 = 0.0000055.
|
|
|
|
09/09/2008 05:29:42 PM · #213 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by littlegett:
Originally posted by Judi:
Avg Vote Received: 5.9890
divided by
Total Image Views: 1,073,208
0.0000055
Can ya get any lower than that? |
I got 5.58, your math is off a bit... perhaps? 5.989/1,073,208 |
How did you figure that. 5.9890 divided by 1,073,208 = 0.0000055. |
Are you using some kind of crazy inverted upside down Australia calculator? ;)
ahh, heck, my apologies. I'm blind to the ways of the negative connotation at the end of 5.58 (or, at least, the fact that windows calculator isn't powerful enough to divide these numbers correctly. But doing a 5.9 / 1,000,000 works better.)
Message edited by author 2008-09-09 17:33:38. |
|
|
|
09/09/2008 05:32:15 PM · #214 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by littlegett:
Originally posted by Judi:
Avg Vote Received: 5.9890
divided by
Total Image Views: 1,073,208
0.0000055
Can ya get any lower than that? |
I got 5.58, your math is off a bit... perhaps? 5.989/1,073,208 |
How did you figure that. 5.9890 divided by 1,073,208 = 0.0000055. |
Are you using some kind of crazy inverted upside down Australia calculator? ;) |
What am I missing?
|
|
|
|
09/09/2008 05:32:33 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by littlegett:
Originally posted by Judi:
Avg Vote Received: 5.9890
divided by
Total Image Views: 1,073,208
0.0000055
Can ya get any lower than that? |
I got 5.58, your math is off a bit... perhaps? 5.989/1,073,208 |
How did you figure that. 5.9890 divided by 1,073,208 = 0.0000055. |
Are you using some kind of crazy inverted upside down Australia calculator? ;) |
As upside down as Judi is, that's what gett asked for. Avg vote DIVIDED BY Images views... |
|
|
|
09/09/2008 05:34:10 PM · #216 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by littlegett:
Originally posted by Judi:
Avg Vote Received: 5.9890
divided by
Total Image Views: 1,073,208
0.0000055
Can ya get any lower than that? |
I got 5.58, your math is off a bit... perhaps? 5.989/1,073,208 |
How did you figure that. 5.9890 divided by 1,073,208 = 0.0000055. |
Are you using some kind of crazy inverted upside down Australia calculator? ;) |
What am I missing? |
Nothing, I amended my post. |
|
|
|
09/09/2008 05:38:25 PM · #217 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
NEW REVISED HYPOALLERGENIC FAME FORMULA
1. Take your "selected as favorite photographer" total.
2. Subtract 4 from your Avg Vote Received.
3. Take the square of #2.
4. Divide #1 by #3.
5. Round to nearest integer.
|
hmmm, let's see here....um, 1.
That must mean...I'm #1 !!!
Thank you very much, I'll be here all week.
|
|
|
|
09/09/2008 05:40:53 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by LVicari:
How about some simple math.
1.Take profile views and divide by # of fav photig selected by others.
mine is 186
|
195 |
Judi's Profile Views: 105,198
yanko's Profile Views: 31,217
Umm you wanna model for me????
|
|
|
|
09/09/2008 05:45:51 PM · #219 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by LVicari:
How about some simple math.
1.Take profile views and divide by # of fav photig selected by others.
mine is 186
|
195 |
Judi's Profile Views: 105,198
yanko's Profile Views: 31,217
Umm you wanna model for me???? |
Okay.
|
|
|
|
09/09/2008 05:48:37 PM · #220 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
wow this thread has gone in a direction i did not anticipate! LOL :) |
Maybe it'll be as famous as the Ken Rockwell - Genius or Fool? thread. Only about 80,000+ views to catch up to it.
|
|
|
|
09/09/2008 05:50:28 PM · #221 |
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by littlegett:
Originally posted by Judi:
Avg Vote Received: 5.9890
divided by
Total Image Views: 1,073,208
0.0000055
Can ya get any lower than that? |
I got 5.58, your math is off a bit... perhaps? 5.989/1,073,208 |
How did you figure that. 5.9890 divided by 1,073,208 = 0.0000055. |
I just used windows Calc... no fancy stuff here.
|
|
|
|
09/09/2008 05:53:21 PM · #222 |
Originally posted by littlegett:
Originally posted by Judi:
Originally posted by littlegett:
Originally posted by Judi:
Avg Vote Received: 5.9890
divided by
Total Image Views: 1,073,208
0.0000055
Can ya get any lower than that? |
I got 5.58, your math is off a bit... perhaps? 5.989/1,073,208 |
How did you figure that. 5.9890 divided by 1,073,208 = 0.0000055. |
I just used windows Calc... no fancy stuff here. |
If you notice, windows calc will give you a figure of: 5.5804652965687918837727635276666e-6.
That e-6 at the end of that number is important. It means that the number isn't actually 5.58. It means that it's 0.00000558. Basically an error saying, "we can't calculate this". Of course, someone with a better understanding of actual maths and calculators can confirm and/or correct me on this. (originally, I'd made the same mistake and thought it was 5.580 too, but when I did a simpler calculation of 5.9 (rounded up), and 1,000,000 (rounded down), I got 0.0000059. Which confirmed that the 5.58 with the e-6 must actually be closer to 0.00000558.)
Message edited by author 2008-09-09 17:54:59. |
|
|
|
09/09/2008 06:00:14 PM · #223 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
If you notice, windows calc will give you a figure of: 5.5804652965687918837727635276666e-6.
That e-6 at the end of that number is important. It means that the number isn't actually 5.58. It means that it's 0.00000558. Basically an error saying, "we can't calculate this". Of course, someone with a better understanding of actual maths and calculators can confirm and/or correct me on this. (originally, I'd made the same mistake and thought it was 5.580 too, but when I did a simpler calculation of 5.9 (rounded up), and 1,000,000 (rounded down), I got 0.0000059. Which confirmed that the 5.58 with the e-6 must actually be closer to 0.00000558.) |
I have no idea what you just said...my head hurts now |
|
|
|
09/09/2008 06:00:30 PM · #224 |
Originally posted by LadyTara:
Originally posted by sher:
Math is evil! Evil, I tell you! It's just behind clowns and just ahead of polyester leisure suits! |
Am I seriously the only person in the world who isn't creeped out by clowns....? |
Clowns are cool... Now what is scary is seeing Santa Claus on Halloween. |
|
|
|
09/09/2008 06:06:27 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
If you notice, windows calc will give you a figure of: 5.5804652965687918837727635276666e-6.
That e-6 at the end of that number is important. It means that the number isn't actually 5.58. It means that it's 0.00000558. Basically an error saying, "we can't calculate this". Of course, someone with a better understanding of actual maths and calculators can confirm and/or correct me on this. (originally, I'd made the same mistake and thought it was 5.580 too, but when I did a simpler calculation of 5.9 (rounded up), and 1,000,000 (rounded down), I got 0.0000059. Which confirmed that the 5.58 with the e-6 must actually be closer to 0.00000558.) |
Like I said, I wanted it simple... though suppose there is no simple method.
Famous is known, not number of views, or average vote. Has nothing to do with favorites or anything. It is simply being known.
Not really a way to find out how famous one is without asking everyone if they know them.
So suppose, if one person knows you, you are famous enough for one.
p.s. to add, I just ignored the long number and took two spots, so my fault for being a dork.
Message edited by author 2008-09-09 18:11:09.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/20/2025 07:03:52 PM EDT.
