Talk:RationalWikians by Edit Count
From RationalWikiWiki
I like this idea. --Admin 16:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Good. This is my Nov. Project for this site. Tyrannis 17:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm dropping the time on site, I may do another list for it later, and will merge them if you like. Also, for titles, I'm going with Church titles for Irony points. Tyrannis 17:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- The problem with this is that it would need to be updated fairly frequently, which would become even worse if these were categories. Also, I still don't see why we need these categories. The best thing to do would be to use a template that assigns the cat, and regularly update the edit count on every user's article. But even then it'd be a lot of work. -- Nx / talk 18:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Or I could just manually update it each month. If I drop the 200 edit category, that would be really easy, as there are only ~100 editors with 1000+edits, and several are inactive or bots. Tyrannis 21:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Patriarch. Oh yeah. Kneel before Zod, bitch! Armondikov 01:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- We all thought you were a woman. Tyrannis 01:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Patriarch, matriarch, all the same thing really. Armondikov 11:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- We all thought you were a woman. Tyrannis 01:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Patriarch. Oh yeah. Kneel before Zod, bitch! Armondikov 01:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Or I could just manually update it each month. If I drop the 200 edit category, that would be really easy, as there are only ~100 editors with 1000+edits, and several are inactive or bots. Tyrannis 21:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- The problem with this is that it would need to be updated fairly frequently, which would become even worse if these were categories. Also, I still don't see why we need these categories. The best thing to do would be to use a template that assigns the cat, and regularly update the edit count on every user's article. But even then it'd be a lot of work. -- Nx / talk 18:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm dropping the time on site, I may do another list for it later, and will merge them if you like. Also, for titles, I'm going with Church titles for Irony points. Tyrannis 17:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Mainspace
Nearly ready, also, would you like one done for just mainspace edits? I think it would contain quite a few surprises. Laughs Evilly at impending destruction of all you hold dear*Tyrannis 21:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Strikethroughs
Retired users get them. Tyrannis 00:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- What is bold supposed to be? Liveware Problem 19:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Cabal members
Somewhere there's a list. And RA certainly was not one. Liveware Problem 17:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- I got the names from there. Frankly, most appear either to have moved on or actually become productive. Unfortunately(IMHO) the demise of TK + the leak has reinforced the CP obsession. I'm getting serious lagtime with the site now. Tyrannis 18:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- You don't differentiate between old-school and arriviste cabalists. Neither Genghis Khant nor RA were originals. Genghis was possibly the first outsider to be let in, I think Pi was also admitted, SusanG came and went, RA was inducted when he became concerned about some scarf and butter-knife activities. There was also another cabalist who was the last to be admitted and is not mentioned and off the top of my head I think that the list of crats is incorrect. Ed Wig 16:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Then edit it. Noone is going to stop you. Tyrannis 17:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- What, Peter Noone of Herman's Hermits? Ed Wig 17:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. yes. he is :). Do what you like Tyrannis 17:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- The RWW list of cabal members is, perhaps rather unimaginatively, included in the article Cabal. --False Flag 16:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, that was the list I used. Ty 16:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- OK. I wonder if you could you tell me how up to date the stats on this page are? Thanks. --False Flag 16:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Valid to April 1st. I update it monthly. Ty 16:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- If you would like, I can update it later today. Ty 16:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, there's no rush. I was just finding the CP numbers for the big hitters interesting. The top three show an interest but not much. The next rank show an utter disinterest with the exception of Susan. I was also amused that Dalek who according to us "identifies very strongly as Post-Conservapedian" has a CP edit rate of 7.29 - higher than any of the second rankers with the exception of Susan. I've got to say that you, Ty, are in the front rank of cp ignoring though. I don't suppose this can be put into one of those sortable table things which allow people to rank them by various orders? If would show up those with the worst CP-obsession quite clearly. OH! and what period does it cover?--False Flag 17:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I can try to make a table, no problem. And it covers everything, since day 1. Ty 17:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, looking at this again, and to be fair to Dalek, his editing rate in mianspace is first class. I can't help but feel that there is more that could be done with this. For example should/could the stats be transcluded onto user pages? This would really give an objective assessment of whether a user is useful, just chats or is obsessed with CP. (In the light of current discussions, number of pages deleted would be good as well. (joke):-) ) --False Flag 17:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- ;) That is a good idea. I do this by hand, but OCD helps. I can also do it by every namespace if you would like. "The numbers they keep me sane" Ty 17:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I think it would be interesting as an objective measure, but I suddenly feel that I'm inventing a lot of work for you. Anyway, I wouldn't think that we'd need all namsespaces. Not recipe I suppose, and perhaps not fun? Or include them as "other"? What might be interesting would be to find out what percentage of edits people make in the SB - which really simple "chat space" rather than "article chat space". I imagine that people at RW would find the numbers interesting as well. So great.--False Flag 17:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- ;) That is a good idea. I do this by hand, but OCD helps. I can also do it by every namespace if you would like. "The numbers they keep me sane" Ty 17:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, looking at this again, and to be fair to Dalek, his editing rate in mianspace is first class. I can't help but feel that there is more that could be done with this. For example should/could the stats be transcluded onto user pages? This would really give an objective assessment of whether a user is useful, just chats or is obsessed with CP. (In the light of current discussions, number of pages deleted would be good as well. (joke):-) ) --False Flag 17:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I can try to make a table, no problem. And it covers everything, since day 1. Ty 17:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- No, there's no rush. I was just finding the CP numbers for the big hitters interesting. The top three show an interest but not much. The next rank show an utter disinterest with the exception of Susan. I was also amused that Dalek who according to us "identifies very strongly as Post-Conservapedian" has a CP edit rate of 7.29 - higher than any of the second rankers with the exception of Susan. I've got to say that you, Ty, are in the front rank of cp ignoring though. I don't suppose this can be put into one of those sortable table things which allow people to rank them by various orders? If would show up those with the worst CP-obsession quite clearly. OH! and what period does it cover?--False Flag 17:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- If you would like, I can update it later today. Ty 16:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Valid to April 1st. I update it monthly. Ty 16:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- OK. I wonder if you could you tell me how up to date the stats on this page are? Thanks. --False Flag 16:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you, that was the list I used. Ty 16:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- The RWW list of cabal members is, perhaps rather unimaginatively, included in the article Cabal. --False Flag 16:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. yes. he is :). Do what you like Tyrannis 17:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- What, Peter Noone of Herman's Hermits? Ed Wig 17:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- Then edit it. Noone is going to stop you. Tyrannis 17:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- You don't differentiate between old-school and arriviste cabalists. Neither Genghis Khant nor RA were originals. Genghis was possibly the first outsider to be let in, I think Pi was also admitted, SusanG came and went, RA was inducted when he became concerned about some scarf and butter-knife activities. There was also another cabalist who was the last to be admitted and is not mentioned and off the top of my head I think that the list of crats is incorrect. Ed Wig 16:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh relax, I've done sillier things. Problem with Saloon bar is that it is in the same space as WIGO:Everything else, as well as projects and policies. Ty 17:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ok - just a thought.--False Flag 18:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Surely the Old Cabal is simply those of us who were on RW1, plus a few very early joiners, such as Kels and Susan? humanbe in 07:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- The cabal is the people in the cabal article I believe. As nobody who was active her recently was a member, nobody know much about RW 1.0. Care to spin us a yarn? Ty 11:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Tables
Will be grand unified, w/total edits, likely at the end of the month. Right now, I'm just making lots of sub tables. Ty 17:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- You mean one single inclusive table?--False Flag 18:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- yeah. Ty 18:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Now I'm really going to be difficult. These tables are all-time. Is there any way to do an historical analysis of the data to show graphically how interest in CP has moved over time? Either by individual user or by whole site? I'm not really sure what data you have or how well you can manipulate it or what is possible. (I'm hopeless at it.) But some way to show the level of interest in CP over time would be exactly what the site is about, well, in my opinion. --False Flag 18:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Individual user, by month, I can do, all 100 would be absurd, but say, all the bureaucrats or the top 20 I could do. Ty 18:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Could you get site-wide totals? That is to say a breakdown by month of CP and non-CP edits since inception? Or just CP edits as a percentage of total edits? A simple graph would do it. It would tell us if interest in CP was stable, increasing or reducing. --False Flag 18:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do. Ty 18:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I can get most revised pages, but it is mainspace only :/ I can count edits by month by hand though. Ty 19:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Argh too many edits. I know a work around, but it would require me to have about 5 hours of free time. I can however do a month by month analysis of editors, by namespace. Ty 19:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Five hours is a looooooooong time. You can do the other thing by some sort of sort? If so really all we need is total edits by by month and total CP space by month. Then express CP as a percentage and see how that percentage moves across time. My prediction is a gradual percentage with spikes for things like Lenski. (I never claimed to be profound.)--False Flag 20:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Argh too many edits. I know a work around, but it would require me to have about 5 hours of free time. I can however do a month by month analysis of editors, by namespace. Ty 19:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I can get most revised pages, but it is mainspace only :/ I can count edits by month by hand though. Ty 19:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do. Ty 18:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Could you get site-wide totals? That is to say a breakdown by month of CP and non-CP edits since inception? Or just CP edits as a percentage of total edits? A simple graph would do it. It would tell us if interest in CP was stable, increasing or reducing. --False Flag 18:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Individual user, by month, I can do, all 100 would be absurd, but say, all the bureaucrats or the top 20 I could do. Ty 18:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Now I'm really going to be difficult. These tables are all-time. Is there any way to do an historical analysis of the data to show graphically how interest in CP has moved over time? Either by individual user or by whole site? I'm not really sure what data you have or how well you can manipulate it or what is possible. (I'm hopeless at it.) But some way to show the level of interest in CP over time would be exactly what the site is about, well, in my opinion. --False Flag 18:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- yeah. Ty 18:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I can do that, will take a few days though, I do do other things occasionally :)Ty 21:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Post CP
Ah! I see it's one big table now. Thanks. Very interesting. At what point should we call people "post CP editors"? My thought would be 5% of edits?--False Flag 16:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'll look up colors in a bit, 5% mains pace? 5% margin? <=5% CPtalk? Ty 16:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Colors would be good. I'm afraid that I don't really understand your question about margins, and also my initial 5% suggestion may have been a bit too harsh. One thing that leaps out of playing with this though is that the more interested an editor is in CP the less interested they are in mainspace. It holds almost as strongly in the other direction as well. I had expected that, but I hadn't expected it to be so striking. It almost looks like two separate communities.--False Flag 16:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- It almost is. People have mentioned "who are you" to me, and while I'm not the most social, I've been there over 15 months. Ty 16:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Colors would be good. I'm afraid that I don't really understand your question about margins, and also my initial 5% suggestion may have been a bit too harsh. One thing that leaps out of playing with this though is that the more interested an editor is in CP the less interested they are in mainspace. It holds almost as strongly in the other direction as well. I had expected that, but I hadn't expected it to be so striking. It almost looks like two separate communities.--False Flag 16:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Early update
I'm updating this today, cause I have finals when I would normally be updating. I am replacing the silly titles w/total edits. Ty 14:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
- Never mind, I like the titles. Ty 14:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Update
I will probably update this at some point this week, after which it will be back on it's regular schedule. Because you all care soooo much. Ty 21:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- The number of strike-throughs is depressing. Ty 00:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Hmm....
I am right now #134 at 785 edits. I would need to be at 1178 to reach the top 100. Only 393 edits to go. Of course, this is a moving target. But then too I could join the diaconate. Maratrean 11:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- As the Grand Metropolitan is very fond of telling us, edit count is meaningless. Ty 12:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Interestingly though, while it isn't always correlated to social standing, until this month,everyone over 6000 edits, and most over 4000(and all over 6000) either were or had been crates. For an example of a low edit editor with excellent social standing see Mei, for the opposite see David Gerard. Ty 12:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Some day
Someday I'm going to beat that squirrele guy. Sterile 03:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Quibble about titles
The titles of "patriarch" and "cardinal" are higher than that of "metropolitan" in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. 
ListenerXTalkerX 06:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's Grand Metropolitan. If you put "grand" in front of it then it automatically becomes the best. Nembus 06:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Socks
Out of boredom, I'm going to merge confirmed socks, as Hans did it for SusanG/Toast. Might as well be consistant. TyrannisAn iron, yet caring fist 15:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
