| Author |
 Topic  |
|
benj clews 
"...."
United Kingdom
|
 Posted - 10/07/2004 : 17:41:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by bife
How does the 'F' function work benj? {f me} returns 707, but that's the number of reviews I have, not the number of films I reviewed.
Try it now 
|
 |
|
|
bife 
"it's a bit nippy ..."
Singapore
|
Posted - 10/07/2004 : 17:42:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by bife
How does the 'F' function work benj? {f me} returns 707, but that's the number of reviews I have, not the number of films I reviewed.
Try it now
Yep (554, not that anyone else cares!)
|
|
|
|
bife
"it's a bit nippy ..."
Singapore
|
Posted - 10/07/2004 : 17:57:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Al Swearengen
Excellent feature, benj! I'm restraining myself from sending you tons of different formulas to add.
Let me know what they are and I'll see what I can do. I've done most of the functions I can think of.
How about a stat that gives max number of reviews for any one film? I tried to construct it from what is there now but don't think I can (eg {MR me} returning 17 as the max number of reviews I have for any given film, or {MR 3268} giving 101 for Cheese_Ed).
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
United Kingdom
|
Posted - 10/07/2004 : 19:05:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by bife
How about a stat that gives max number of reviews for any one film? I tried to construct it from what is there now but don't think I can (eg {MR me} returning 17 as the max number of reviews I have for any given film, or {MR 3268} giving 101 for Cheese_Ed).
Took me a while to get my head around this for some reason, but it's there now
|
|
|
|
bife
"it's a bit nippy ..."
Singapore
|
Posted - 10/07/2004 : 19:14:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by bife
How about a stat that gives max number of reviews for any one film? I tried to construct it from what is there now but don't think I can (eg {MR me} returning 17 as the max number of reviews I have for any given film, or {MR 3268} giving 101 for Cheese_Ed).
Took me a while to get my head around this for some reason, but it's there now
You're on fire, benj 
If I leave the parameters blank on RM, it returns 101 (Cheese_ed's chatterbox) but i was expecting it to return 250 or so for something like titanic (ie not restricted to a user). however, it does everything i wanted it to (which was to check by user, wasn't expecting to leave it blank).
Do you think VL and RL will ever be used? They vboth seem to return zero for all scennarios.
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
United Kingdom
|
Posted - 10/07/2004 : 19:20:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by bife
If I leave the parameters blank on RM, it returns 101 (Cheese_ed's chatterbox) but i was expecting it to return 250 or so for something like titanic (ie not restricted to a user). however, it does everything i wanted it to (which was to check by user, wasn't expecting to leave it blank).
Bugger- didn't think of that. I'll have to think about how to handle the both.
quote:
Do you think VL and RL will ever be used? They vboth seem to return zero for all scennarios.
They seem to return 1 for me. Don't know about them- they're certainly correct, just seem a bit pointless I agree.
|
|
|
|
bife
"it's a bit nippy ..."
Singapore
|
Posted - 10/07/2004 : 19:22:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
They seem to return 1 for me. Don't know about them- they're certainly correct, just seem a bit pointless I agree.
sorry, meant 1. they dont do any harm, they just don't say much
On some of the averages, maybe having decimals will help. Eg VA returns either 0 or 1 for most films and reviewers, which is pretty pointless, but 1.5 against 1.1 might be more interesting. We can actually already do these using formulas (eg {vr me}/{R me} or {vr titanic}/{r titanic}), but i think the 'average' function is simpler. |
Edited by - bife on 10/07/2004 19:28:20 |
|
|
|
Al Swearengen 
"Sneaking in an extra word."
USA
|
Posted - 10/07/2004 : 20:20:21
|
A nice down-the-road enhancement would be to let us construct our own "Top 10" lists, like the "Top Reviewers" on the home page. This would a) allow us to create some lists that focus more on quality than quantity (which might also have the side benefit of making things easier on you approval-wise), and b) allow me to find the peculiar combination of stats (if it exists) that places me at the top of the list. 
|
|
|
|
LPH
"Cusack Loving Film Addict"
USA
|
Posted - 10/07/2004 : 21:39:41
|
Well this is enlightening. At least I feel okay about my votes cast given the amount of time I've been around (about 4 months now). I think my standards are relatively high but it seems some people's are.....impossibly high?
LPH
|
|
|
|
Mr Savoir Faire
"^ Click my name. "
ATL, Georgia (USA)
|
Posted - 11/07/2004 : 01:52:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by bife
quote:
Originally posted by Al Swearengen
Everyone should visit Conan the ?, benj, me, Salopian, bife, Sean, Markandlain, Batty, AussieCannuck, and shower us with votes as compensation for our loose standards. I only looked at some of the more frequent fourum posters, so I'm sure there are others out there.
I went through most of the top 100 - only big voters I think you missed were thefoxboy, over 1700 votes cast, koli (1200) and Ms Pillow, just over 1000. In relation to number of films reviewed, Joss and Obie are also pretty liberal, with 800-900 votes cast apiece. I found 1 active top 100-er that has never cast a vote, and a couple of others with less than 10, but they shall remain nameless!
I also didn't think my standards were that low, but apparently they are!
I didn't make the list? Oh well. I have a little over 800 votes. Not as good as many of the veterens here, but not really that bad either. For a while, a lot of my votes were anonymous since I didn't have "remember me" checked and that was the way i reviewed the latest 100, which has a link to the top 100 reviewers.
|
|
|
|
Salopian 
"Re: any comment in this post on English usage..."
If it doesn't say it's FWFR-specific, it's not!
|
Posted - 11/07/2004 : 03:02:45
|
Benj, now this really is awesome. I haven't even tried it out yet (as I want to finish reading this thread) but I can just tell that it is amazing. All those statistics that we have been adding up by hand, and many more that were unobtainable, are now at our fingertips in seconds.
Thank you. 
|
|
|
|
Salopian
"Re: any comment in this post on English usage..."
If it doesn't say it's FWFR-specific, it's not!
|
Posted - 11/07/2004 : 03:05:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Al Swearengen
Everyone should visit Conan the ?, benj, me, Salopian, bife, Sean, Markandlain, Batty, AussieCannuck, and shower us with votes as compensation for our loose standards. I only looked at some of the more frequent fourum posters, so I'm sure there are others out there. It's interesting that some of the more cranky posters in the fourum (and I am definitely including myself in that group) are also by far the most generous with their votes.
Thanks Al. Yes, I know that I may moan, but I do make an effort to vote when I have time, as well as coming up with positive Fourum topics. I have not yet plugged in to see how much I have voted, so that will be interesting, as well as all the other data available. I just love it!
|
Edited by - Salopian on 11/07/2004 03:28:16 |
|
|
|
thefoxboy 
"Four your eyes only."
Eastern Suburbs, Melbourne, Australia
|
Posted - 11/07/2004 : 03:23:21
|
quote:
Originally posted by bife
quote:
Originally posted by Al Swearengen
Everyone should visit Conan the ?, benj, me, Salopian, bife, Sean, Markandlain, Batty, AussieCannuck, and shower us with votes as compensation for our loose standards. I only looked at some of the more frequent fourum posters, so I'm sure there are others out there.
I went through most of the top 100 - only big voters I think you missed were thefoxboy, over 1700 votes cast, koli (1200) and Ms Pillow, just over 1000. In relation to number of films reviewed, Joss and Obie are also pretty liberal, with 800-900 votes cast apiece. I found 1 active top 100-er that has never cast a vote, and a couple of others with less than 10, but they shall remain nameless!
I also didn't think my standards were that low, but apparently they are!
Thanks Bife for pointing your finger at me too
When I first registered I never voted...too bust trying to review.
I then thought, hey this is about voting too!
Note to Benj....this new function is awesome...well done
|
Edited by - thefoxboy on 11/07/2004 07:32:34 |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Re: any comment in this post on English usage..."
If it doesn't say it's FWFR-specific, it's not!
|
Posted - 11/07/2004 : 03:27:43
|
I have given 1,903 votes, 2.95% of the 64,481 total votes, and have thus voted on 2.41% of all reviews.
 I have got 187 reviews for 142 films, 0.24% of the 78,872 total reviews for 1.64% of the 8,670 total films.
I have recieved 599 votes, 0.93% of the total votes, and have thus received an average of 3.20 votes per review - sort of.
 I have made 4 accolades and completed 1, which means that (due to deletions) I have not even completed my own Salopian's Cornucopia one!
I'm loving it, as McDonald's would say (though in a horribly mangled form).
|
Edited by - Salopian on 11/07/2004 03:43:21 |
|
|
|
bife
"it's a bit nippy ..."
Singapore
|
Posted - 11/07/2004 : 09:00:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mr Stupid
I didn't make the list? Oh well. I have a little over 800 votes. Not as good as many of the veterens here, but not really that bad either. For a while, a lot of my votes were anonymous since I didn't have "remember me" checked and that was the way i reviewed the latest 100, which has a link to the top 100 reviewers.
Sorry Mr S, I actually had you down at 150 votes cast, think I used the wrong id number  . You should indeed be there with the Joss, obie and slippy tin (also missed off originally) for high relation of votes cast to reviews posted (that seems to be a fairer indicator of voing pattern than just total number of votes cast)
But anyways, I wouldn't want us to only focus on votes cast - lots of other interesting stats here too
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
