Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'statistics'.
Found 2 results
Kipper recently noted that the 17th Shard has over 9000 members...to which Chaos chimed in to say that that number would change if we banned all of the spammers. Well, turns out, there is information on the 17th that leads me to assume that I can calculate the total number of banned Sharders and thus determine the total number of non-banned Sharders. The front page of the forum tells us that we have, as of this writing, 9521 members of the 17th Shard; however if you look at the data behind the "Overall Top Posters", we only have 7606 members, including those who have never posted before. Thus, we have a grand total of 1915 banned users. The following pie chart shows this break down in percentages: Percent of Banned Users This chart implies that our mods here at the 17th deserve a HUGE shout out for the work that they do on our behalf. If we assume that the vast majority of these banned users are spammers and that each of these spammers have created at least 2 spam threads…then our mods are working tirelessly to ensure that our corner of the internet is extremely user friendly for active users. So: With that said, the sort/search function within the “Overall Top Posters” is actually quite rich, and as a result I am able to determine even more user statistics. Of the 7606 non-banned users, 49.6% have NEVER posted a topic. That means that roughly half of our users are lurkers! o Lurkers who see this, please feel free to contribute to the community, or at least introduce yourselves! We don’t bite, but some of us do spike a lot. Since WOR was released, 56.1% of our user base, or 4265 users, have been active on the 17th o Active is defined as simply logging on and viewing the forum o Thus 43.9% of users have not been active or could have abandoned the 17th Shard since the release of arguably Brandon’s biggest book to date! o 36.5% of Sharders have posted at least 1 time somewhere on the forum since WOR was released In 2015, only 1887 users have been active on the 17th o Roughly only 24.8% of our total user base o 17.1% of Sharders have posted at least 1 time in 2015 During the month of July, 2015 only 737 Sharders were active o This is roughly 9.7% of or total user base o Of these active users, 519 have made at least 1 post, or roughly 6.8% of our user base [Note: While I wrote this, we had two new Spammers join the 17th! This means we’ll get to increase the percent of banned Sharders soon!]
I was pondering RAFOs, and wondering if and how it might be possible to derive useful information from them. I realized a few things, which are pretty obvious. 1. It's significantly easier to derive information from RAFOd yes/no questions than from RAFOd questions with more than two answers. 2. If the answer to a question has no/very little significance, Brandon is unlikely to RAFO it, no matter what the answer, because it won't affect the plot and is less likely to be revealed in a book. 3. If the answer to a question is extremely significant, Brandon is extremely likely to RAFO it, no matter what the answer, because it will affect the plot and is more likely to be revealed in a book. 4. If a question is confirming/denying only one theory from a large pool of theories, Brandon is less likely to RAFO it. 5. If the answer to such a question is no, Brandon is less likely to RAFO it than if the answer is yes. This is because removing one theory from a pool is less significant than removing all theories from a pool. So, using only this information, on average more questions that are RAFOd will turn out to be true than false. The margin expands when we narrow the parameters to "yes/no questions that refer only to one theory out of a pool". However, it's likely that Brandon knows this, and RAFOs more questions than he might otherwise, in order to make it more difficult to analyze. As such, more information is needed to fully analyze RAFOs. I haven't been around here that long, so I don't know much about which questions were RAFOd. So I need help. If anyone remembers any questions that were originally RAFOd, but were later answered by some means, could you post them? If all goes well, I hope to be able to find a pattern among the data which will help determine the quality of evidence provided by RAFOs.