| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/14/2006 03:47:42 AM · #51 |
Thank you very much for all the feedback and critique!
I have to apologize for the Age frequencies as I did not take into account the users with 0 age (that is user who have not entered their birthday in their profile), thank you L2 for point this out. I've corrected this, please check the first post. This of course does not correct the problem with users age 5 or 6, but since they actually entered a birthday I thing they do not belong to the unknown age class.
Regarding statistics, I'm the first one to admit that it is one of best ways to lie without being called a lier (-:
But I'm sure you will agree that this data are more "demographic" and less "statistical", in the sense that it is an attempt to describe the structure of the DPC community.
A statistical analysis would be appropriate if there were questions like "Is there statistical evidence that the X hypothesis is true?" were a hypothesis would be for example "Icelanders get more ribbons on average" (this was actually the motivation for doing all this in the first place, when I heard the relevant discussion on DPC Podcast - episode 3 or 4 if I remember correctly (-:. By the way, great job with the podcast guys, keep it up!).
Regarding the "active users" assumption, I was interested in the users who actually post photographs in the challenges. I'm fully aware that this is not the only type of activity, in fact I admire even more the users who spend hours voting, commenting and posting all kinds of interesting stuff in the forums.
I've come up with an index for "active DPC voter" and similar indexes can be created for any other measure (comments, forum posts, threads created, etc) but again there will be a lot of controversy since even more assumptions must be made (think about the 20% rule and how can we differentiate the user who votes on the 20% of the challenge entries from the user who votes on every single photograph).
Regarding the suggestions already made, some of them have already been calculated, others are possible with a little more work.
This discussion can of course continue endlessly but to wrap this up, I'd just like to say that unless there is an official approval from the SC regarding site statistics, I'm not going to post any more numbers.
Perhaps, if there is really a big interest in this kind of content, an official link (called for example "Demographics") could be added under Community were all kinds of indexes, graphs and data can be presented (yeahhh, even more work for the SC!!!)
I hope I have not made my case even worst, does anyone actually know if you get a PM before you get suspended or your password suddenly stops functioning (-:
happy photo-shooting
yianis
|
|
|
|
11/14/2006 03:52:56 AM · #52 |
Originally posted by yianisn:
I hope I have not made my case even worst, does anyone actually know if you get a PM before you get suspended or your password suddenly stops functioning (-:
|
No, no, no, nothing like that. The SC hit squad just comes to your house dressed in their black pajamas, kicks in the door and gives you a spanking before they disable your password. |
|
|
|
11/14/2006 04:42:32 AM · #53 |
Originally posted by GuGi:
Originally posted by idnic:
Interesting.... I love stats. Now if you'd checked the ribbon hogs, you'd probably find out that most ribbons are won by ~20 people. |
and that gave me an idea, why not have a challenge every now and then only open for those that have never ribboned?!? There have been challenges for ribbonwinners only, why not turn it around. |
If that hasn't been suggested in the web site suggestion forum you should post it, I think - it's a great idea! |
|
|
|
11/14/2006 04:46:54 AM · #54 |
Originally posted by klstover:
Originally posted by GuGi:
Originally posted by idnic:
Interesting.... I love stats. Now if you'd checked the ribbon hogs, you'd probably find out that most ribbons are won by ~20 people. |
and that gave me an idea, why not have a challenge every now and then only open for those that have never ribboned?!? There have been challenges for ribbonwinners only, why not turn it around. |
If that hasn't been suggested in the web site suggestion forum you should post it, I think - it's a great idea! |
I think it should be a perpetual running challenge until we get down to only one eligible person -THEN I WILL FINALLY RIBBON! Muwahaaaha. |
|
|
|
11/14/2006 05:42:53 AM · #55 |
Originally posted by klstover:
Originally posted by GuGi:
Originally posted by idnic:
Interesting.... I love stats. Now if you'd checked the ribbon hogs, you'd probably find out that most ribbons are won by ~20 people. |
and that gave me an idea, why not have a challenge every now and then only open for those that have never ribboned?!? There have been challenges for ribbonwinners only, why not turn it around. |
If that hasn't been suggested in the web site suggestion forum you should post it, I think - it's a great idea! |
off topic, but it has been suggested many times -- the main objection is that it waters down the ribbon winners and the challenge aspect of the site.
David
|
|
|
|
11/14/2006 05:46:10 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by banmorn:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
Wow - I think I just fall into the DPCholic category - 39 weeks and 79 entries - 2.03 per week. Thats probably not a good thing. |
So YOU are the other one, huh? Welcome, friend!
R. |
Ahem: 2.11 (205 challenges, 97 weeks) TY |
??? Your profile says May 24 2003, puts you here 3 years and 6 months roughly, call it 168 weeks, with 314 challenge entries. I'm afraid you simply can't cut the "holic" mustard, friend. You're 12 challenges shy of that exalted level :-)
R. |
|
|
|
11/14/2006 07:17:00 AM · #57 |
|
|
|
11/14/2006 08:05:35 AM · #58 |
addicted:
154 challenges
92 weeks .... |
|
|
|
11/14/2006 08:46:39 AM · #59 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by banmorn:
Ahem: 2.11 (205 challenges, 97 weeks) TY |
??? Your profile says May 24 2003, puts you here 3 years and 6 months roughly, call it 168 weeks, with 314 challenge entries. I'm afraid you simply can't cut the "holic" mustard, friend. You're 12 challenges shy of that exalted level :-)
R. |
Ummm...not to be disrespectful, but 168 weeks X 2 challenges per week = 336, making him short 22 challenges short. You're safe for a while yet Bear (and Tim)! :D
|
|
|
|
11/14/2006 08:47:17 AM · #60 |
I think you should count a user's time from their first challenge entered, not when they join the site.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2006 09:02:12 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
I think you should count a user's time from their first challenge entered, not when they join the site. |
That was actually the original idea, but I was too lazy and didn't parse the challenges each member had entered, so I preferred the 'easy' way and used the registration date instead (-:
|
|
|
|
11/14/2006 09:52:38 AM · #62 |
No, we're not going to boot you off the site without warning.
I would respectfully ask, though, if you (or anyone) decide to do another intensive data collection of this sort again, please run it by Langdon first. That way, you can be assured that you are not violating the terms of service, you will have permission, and he can make sure that it doesn't slow anything down on the dpc end of things.
'kay? |
|
|
|
11/14/2006 10:28:23 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by banmorn:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by timfythetoo:
Wow - I think I just fall into the DPCholic category - 39 weeks and 79 entries - 2.03 per week. Thats probably not a good thing. |
So YOU are the other one, huh? Welcome, friend!
R. |
Ahem: 2.11 (205 challenges, 97 weeks) TY |
??? Your profile says May 24 2003, puts you here 3 years and 6 months roughly, call it 168 weeks, with 314 challenge entries. I'm afraid you simply can't cut the "holic" mustard, friend. You're 12 challenges shy of that exalted level :-)
R. |
Well then, that would explain how I flunked statistics twice.LOL! |
|
|
|
11/14/2006 12:45:11 PM · #64 |
| I am just under 1 per week. |
|
|
|
11/14/2006 01:12:33 PM · #65 |
DPC Addict. Somewhere in the 1.3-1.4 challenge/week range. My ribbons are a direct application of the "blind squirrel and the nut" theorem.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2006 01:18:51 PM · #66 |
92 challenges, 92 weeks.
Gotta get a life..... |
|
|
|
11/14/2006 01:27:42 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by David.C:
Originally posted by klstover:
Originally posted by GuGi:
Originally posted by idnic:
Interesting.... I love stats. Now if you'd checked the ribbon hogs, you'd probably find out that most ribbons are won by ~20 people. |
and that gave me an idea, why not have a challenge every now and then only open for those that have never ribboned?!? There have been challenges for ribbonwinners only, why not turn it around. |
If that hasn't been suggested in the web site suggestion forum you should post it, I think - it's a great idea! |
off topic, but it has been suggested many times -- the main objection is that it waters down the ribbon winners and the challenge aspect of the site.
David |
Yeah, it would be my only chance to beat Kiwiness, Larus, etc, because they cannot compete. Oh wait, I wouldn't be able to enter either. :(
|
|
|
|
11/14/2006 02:05:11 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by PhantomEWO:
Originally posted by karmat:
I hate to be a wet blanket here, and while I do think your use of the script and subsequent activity is innocuous, I will point out one little line from the Terms of Service
(section 4.3) (iv) use a robot, spider or other device or process to monitor the activity on or copy pages from the DPChallenge.com Web Site,
Having said that, I am only one SC member and am just speaking for myself. Others can chime in if they feel differently. |
Google does it very actively on DPC, very easy to see all the photos and even all the forum entries by googling your user name. |
The two fundamental differences, in my opinion, are that Google asks permission (in the form of following the robots exclusion protocol) before spidering the site, and that the Googlebot rate-limits itself to prevent excesive load on the site. Yianisn's script did neither, and, in fact, did cause severe performance issues for the site. His very thread title suggests he knew this was questionable, and therefore that he should have contacted us first.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
11/14/2006 02:11:19 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
DPC Addict. Somewhere in the 1.3-1.4 challenge/week range. My ribbons are a direct application of the "blind squirrel and the nut" theorem. |
Then you're either blinder or nuttier than I am, since you have more ribbons for less participation :-) I've never understood that saying, anyway, since you'd think a blind squirrel could smell out nuts, right?
R. |
|
|
|
11/14/2006 02:20:17 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
and that the Googlebot rate-limits itself to prevent excesive load on the site. Yianisn's script did neither, and, in fact, did cause severe performance issues for the site. His very thread title suggests he knew this was questionable, and therefore that he should have contacted us first.
~Terry |
At least from his numbers, that's only one access, every 1.3 seconds, which doesn't seem to be a particularly high (additional) load ?
I agree in general that it should rate limit down to something more around 10 or 20 seconds per access, but still. Unless of course it launched a few thousand at a time and it just took a while for the server to catch up each time. That would just be crappy coding in the script though.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2006 02:25:27 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by lesgainous:
Originally posted by yianisn:
Age
-----
under 20: 563 (~38%)
[20-30): 242 (~16%)
[30-40): 310 (~21%)
[40-50): 215 (~15%)
[50-60): 113 (~8%)
above 60: 35 (~2%)
|
I can't believe the majority of the active members are teenagers (or younger).
Case-in-point: I'm well out of my teens and according to my profile, I fall into the "Under 20" category (on purpose, BTW). LOL!! |
I feel I have to correct your perception of the figures. The majority of active members are not teenagers according to these figures - 62% of active members are over the age of 20, using these stats. Herein lies the interesting power of statistics and how people read them. |
|
|
|
11/14/2006 02:29:31 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Pegasus:
Originally posted by lesgainous:
Originally posted by yianisn:
Age
-----
under 20: 563 (~38%)
[20-30): 242 (~16%)
[30-40): 310 (~21%)
[40-50): 215 (~15%)
[50-60): 113 (~8%)
above 60: 35 (~2%)
|
I can't believe the majority of the active members are teenagers (or younger).
Case-in-point: I'm well out of my teens and according to my profile, I fall into the "Under 20" category (on purpose, BTW). LOL!! |
I feel I have to correct your perception of the figures. The majority of active members are not teenagers according to these figures - 62% of active members are over the age of 20, using these stats. Herein lies the interesting power of statistics and how people read them. |
Though pick any other 20 year age bracket, and you'll see, 20 & under is the largest single group. It is likely that most of that block are in the 10-20 end of the scale, so it is likely that the original assumption is true...
|
|
|
|
11/14/2006 02:43:11 PM · #73 |
| How many Icelandic people are there, and on average how many points higher do they score than the average non-Icelandic photographer? |
|
|
|
11/14/2006 02:51:37 PM · #74 |
Did his script cause the recent performance difficulties on 11/7?
|
|
|
|
11/14/2006 02:58:34 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Pegasus:
Originally posted by lesgainous:
Originally posted by yianisn:
Age
-----
under 20: 563 (~38%)
[20-30): 242 (~16%)
[30-40): 310 (~21%)
[40-50): 215 (~15%)
[50-60): 113 (~8%)
above 60: 35 (~2%)
|
I can't believe the majority of the active members are teenagers (or younger).
Case-in-point: I'm well out of my teens and according to my profile, I fall into the "Under 20" category (on purpose, BTW). LOL!! |
I feel I have to correct your perception of the figures. The majority of active members are not teenagers according to these figures - 62% of active members are over the age of 20, using these stats. Herein lies the interesting power of statistics and how people read them. |
Though pick any other 20 year age bracket, and you'll see, 20 & under is the largest single group. It is likely that most of that block are in the 10-20 end of the scale, so it is likely that the original assumption is true... |
Fair point. Maybe it is simply a matter of available time/energy - fewer commitments? Or a lot of people "fell" into the "under 20 category" by choice? (I know of at least one, lol) |
|
