Bad Math?

[Derwood]

I know that the post count of our membership is heavily skewed at the top, but I just looked at the top 20 posters and according to the site stats, those 20 people are accountable for 85.19% of the total posts on this board. Can that be true? I have a feeling that if I counted up the 2nd page (21-40) of members that I would quickly surpass 100%...

[Derwood]

confirmed. I got to just Member #25 when I hit over 100% of "total posts". Clearly the database is miscounting. I mean I know that JonMDavis has a lot of posts, but it says he accounts for nearly 10% of the total posts on the board!

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I know that the post count of our membership is heavily skewed at the top, but I just looked at the top 20 posters and according to the site stats, those 20 people are accountable for 85.19% of the total posts on this board. Can that be true? I have a feeling that if I counted up the 2nd page (21-40) of members that I would quickly surpass 100%...

 

I think that has to do with the purging of posts that went on. It kept all of the post counts, but in the total number of posts it got cut.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Tim's padding their stats. I haven't figured out why yet, but I know he is...

[Derwood]

I know that the post count of our membership is heavily skewed at the top, but I just looked at the top 20 posters and according to the site stats, those 20 people are accountable for 85.19% of the total posts on this board. Can that be true? I have a feeling that if I counted up the 2nd page (21-40) of members that I would quickly surpass 100%...

 

I think that has to do with the purging of posts that went on. It kept all of the post counts, but in the total number of posts it got cut.

 

so the purging of posts modified the % but npt the total post count? i see...

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I know that the post count of our membership is heavily skewed at the top, but I just looked at the top 20 posters and according to the site stats, those 20 people are accountable for 85.19% of the total posts on this board. Can that be true? I have a feeling that if I counted up the 2nd page (21-40) of members that I would quickly surpass 100%...

 

I think that has to do with the purging of posts that went on. It kept all of the post counts, but in the total number of posts it got cut.

 

so the purging of posts modified the % but npt the total post count? i see...

 

To clarify...

 

Total number of posts at NSBB = cut by the purge

 

Individual post counts = maintained

 

At least that's what I think it is.

[Marco4]

Tim's padding their stats. I haven't figured out why yet, but I know he is...

 

...I agree. How can anyone have so many posts without a lot of them being worthless? Like this one.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Tim's padding their stats. I haven't figured out why yet, but I know he is...

 

...I agree. How can anyone have so many posts without a lot of them being worthless? Like this one.

 

I agree! :lol:

[Derwood]

Tim's padding their stats. I haven't figured out why yet, but I know he is...

 

...I agree. How can anyone have so many posts without a lot of them being worthless? Like this one.

 

good

[Derwood]

question

[Derwood]

Marco

[Derwood]

4!!!

[Marco4]

Thanks,

[Marco4]

Derwood.

[sethuel1]

You guys are so lame.

 

*makes another check mark on wall*

[brinoch]

Just for fun I think I'll delete y'all's posts... :P

[hardcorecubfan]

confirmed. I got to just Member #25 when I hit over 100% of "total posts". Clearly the database is miscounting. I mean I know that JonMDavis has a lot of posts, but it says he accounts for nearly 10% of the total posts on the board!

its new math, standards just adopted byt the no child left behind team

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I know that the post count of our membership is heavily skewed at the top, but I just looked at the top 20 posters and according to the site stats, those 20 people are accountable for 85.19% of the total posts on this board. Can that be true? I have a feeling that if I counted up the 2nd page (21-40) of members that I would quickly surpass 100%...

 

I think that has to do with the purging of posts that went on. It kept all of the post counts, but in the total number of posts it got cut.

 

so the purging of posts modified the % but npt the total post count? i see...

 

To clarify...

 

Total number of posts at NSBB = cut by the purge

 

Individual post counts = maintained

 

At least that's what I think it is.

 

I believe you're right.

 

P.S. Jon better watch out, I'm coming for him.

[Roast]

Holy crap, i've lost alot of ground. I was as high as 8th or 9th on the list at one point. I'm all the way down to 16th now. I really dont come here as much as i used to.

[Andy]

How does one get the measuring of who has the most posts? Every time I try it, I get a list of people with the most 9's in their post count...

[Transmogrified Tiger]

How does one get the measuring of who has the most posts? Every time I try it, I get a list of people with the most 9's in their post count...

 

Memberlist --> Select Sort Method: Total Posts --> Order: Descending

[Andy]

How does one get the measuring of who has the most posts? Every time I try it, I get a list of people with the most 9's in their post count...

 

Memberlist --> Select Sort Method: Total Posts --> Order: Descending

Same thing...it starts at 999 and goes down based on the number it starts with rather than total post count.

[NCCubFan]

How does one get the measuring of who has the most posts? Every time I try it, I get a list of people with the most 9's in their post count...

 

Memberlist --> Select Sort Method: Total Posts --> Order: Descending

Same thing...it starts at 999 and goes down based on the number it starts with rather than total post count.

I get the same thing. My guess is that it may be related to the search function being disabled. It's as though the number of posts is being interpreted as text rather than numeric, and it's ordered based on the first digit of the number of posts regardless of how many total digits there are.

[soccer10k]

How does one get the measuring of who has the most posts? Every time I try it, I get a list of people with the most 9's in their post count...

 

Memberlist --> Select Sort Method: Total Posts --> Order: Descending

Same thing...it starts at 999 and goes down based on the number it starts with rather than total post count.

I get the same thing. My guess is that it may be related to the search function being disabled. It's as though the number of posts is being interpreted as text rather than numeric, and it's ordered based on the first digit of the number of posts regardless of how many total digits there are.

 

Go into the normal user interface and not the Premium interface. Then do what TT said to do.

[NCCubFan]

How does one get the measuring of who has the most posts? Every time I try it, I get a list of people with the most 9's in their post count...

 

Memberlist --> Select Sort Method: Total Posts --> Order: Descending

Same thing...it starts at 999 and goes down based on the number it starts with rather than total post count.

I get the same thing. My guess is that it may be related to the search function being disabled. It's as though the number of posts is being interpreted as text rather than numeric, and it's ordered based on the first digit of the number of posts regardless of how many total digits there are.

 

Go into the normal user interface and not the Premium interface. Then do what TT said to do.

Sure enough, it does. It seems backwards that something works correctly in regular but not Premium.