New Column request

[osmosis]

I don't know anybody requested this. They probably did. But anyway, I feel a new column next to "replies" and "Views" is needed.

This column may be called "PA", namely Proper Activity.
It is the number of replies divided by the number of views, so:

PA = replies / views

This ratio would be a great sign to see number of things: The number of people who are interested by just the topic (title of the topic), number of people who are interested about the content of the opening post (who views the topic but does not respond) and the number of the people who are interested about the both (people who responds). So we would be able to see all these three at a single glance when we see this ratio. And perhaps more...

thank you.

 

[Perfection]

I don't think those metrics properly show what you claim they do.

 

[osmosis]

why? can you explain?

 

[Abaddon]

You desire an odd thing. What purpose would these extra details serve?

 

[Perfection]

Well a person responding or not responding doesn't depend on whether they're interested in the OP or not. I don't think the ratio means a whole lot.

 

[osmosis]

You desire an odd thing. What purpose would these extra details serve?

I always find myself looking at the number of "replies" and the "number of views". But these two separated means nothing, unless I divide the first by the second. It shows a lot. There are some topics which people just read the title and forget about and there are some topics which people actively engage, respond.

This ratio would reveal the "quality" of the topic, taken together with the number of replies and views. These three values, taken together, would give an understanding of the "value" of the topic. It is a sign. I believe it has at least enough value as "replies" and "views".

 

[osmosis]

Well a person responding or not responding doesn't depend on whether they're interested in the OP or not. I don't think the ratio means a whole lot.

Yes, you are right at that point. On the other hand, I believe we cannot say that al the peope who responds to a topic isnt interested on the topic. Some people may not be interested in the OP but some are.

The point is, it is about which kinds of topic titles people click on, and which kinds of topic titles people respond.

İt is not the OP I am interested about, it is the title of the post.
That's all we see untill we click on the post.

People choose certain topics for certain reasons, maybe you don't, maybe you check every post, but I believe not all of us to that. Some of us are attracted by the title, we respond to the topic or we don't. I believe this ratio (replies/views) may give an hint about the activity of the post.

 

[Abaddon]

I don't understand why the number of replies doesn't reflect this? Or the position of the thread on the forum? No activity and it drops away of course.

After the first few pages, the OP is irrelevant anyway, the topic has usually moved a long way from it.

 

[Perfection]

Viewcount increments every time one views a thread, so liking the thread can be a cause for high viewcount, not just being interested in the title.

 

[ainwood]

Sorry, we won't be doing this. However, if you find a friendly capable person they could perhaps write a greasemonkey script to do this for you via your browser.

 

[osmosis]

I don't understand why the number of replies doesn't reflect this? Or the position of the thread on the forum? No activity and it drops away of course.

After the first few pages, the OP is irrelevant anyway, the topic has usually moved a long way from it.

Hmm. Because there are some threads, which because of their titles, are ignored.
There are also threads, because of their titles, get huge amount of hits.

The number of replies does not reflect this. But the position of the thread does reflect this, you are right at that point, but still, in order to compare similar threads, this ratio would help a lot.

This ratio, replies / views would show the reality at a single glance.

Now, I want to ask you a question, what is wrong for adding this extra ratio to the forums? I believe, it will be better than now, do you say that it will be worse?

 

[osmosis]

Viewcount increments every time one views a thread, so liking the thread can be a cause for high viewcount, not just being interested in the title.

The important thing is the title of the thread.
The interest part is what I'm trying to find out.
If people are really interested, then people would be more likely to respond.
That is why we divide the replies by the views.

 

[osmosis]

Sorry, we won't be doing this. However, if you find a friendly capable person they could perhaps write a greasemonkey script to do this for you via your browser.

Thank you for your reply. Is there a reason why you won't be doing this?

 

[Abaddon]

Hmm. Because there are some threads, which because of their titles, are ignored.
There are also threads, because of their titles, get huge amount of hits.

The number of replies does not reflect this. But the position of the thread does reflect this, you are right at that point, but still, in order to compare similar threads, this ratio would help a lot.

This ratio, replies / views would show the reality at a single glance.

Now, I want to ask you a question, what is wrong for adding this extra ratio to the forums? I believe, it will be better than now, do you say that it will be worse?

I am still lost why this matters.

So people can write terribly boring or terribly catchy titles to their threads.. so what?

It only takes a click to see the content.. heck, you can hover your mouse over the title and it displays in a box the first paragraph.

If a thread is getting replies, its something worth talking about.. the views is irrelevant in my eyes. The exceptions to this rule are obviously picture threads such as the babe thread, or the cool picture thread. These threads have hundreds of thousands of views in some cases, but few replies.

But to answer your question: I see it as pointless clutter that will take up screen space, require forum resources, both physically in the programming it, and electronically as displaying it with little to no merit. That's why. I would rather the forum controllers to expend their time adjusting the forum on matters I consider more important

 

[osmosis]

I am still lost why this matters.

So people can write terribly boring or terribly catchy titles to their threads.. so what?

It only takes a click to see the content.. heck, you can hover your mouse over the title and it displays in a box the first paragraph.

If a thread is getting replies, its something worth talking about.. the views is irrelevant in my eyes. The exceptions to this rule are obviously picture threads such as the babe thread, or the cool picture thread. These threads have hundreds of thousands of views in some cases, but few replies.

But to answer your question: I see it as pointless clutter that will take up screen space, require forum resources, both physically in the programming it, and electronically as displaying it with little to no merit. That's why. I would rather the forum controllers to expend their time adjusting the forum on matters I consider more important

I just felt that replies/views says more that the total of views and replies.
In fact it does to me.
It is a simple thing to copy those to columns to excel and divide them.
The examples you gave are true.
But I have already said, we should take into consideration of the 3 values: replies, views and the ratio. Only by taking these three together we would be reaching a point.

I know that if it is done, it would be more "scientific".
and it would be more, ah ı forgot the term...

 

[Abaddon]

Owh, your sad face is upsetting me...

I think we should get rid of the "replies/views" columns, and only have a single "ratio" column!


But, yeah, if you use GreaseMonkey + FireFox. The user "Till" on this forum will be able to create a script to actually do that for you.. probably..

 

[Perfection]

The important thing is the title of the thread.

Why do you think that is the case?

 

[ainwood]

Thank you for your reply. Is there a reason why you won't be doing this?

Because it uses up screen real estate, it takes significant work to introduce, and it greatly increases server load by forcing a recalculation (more than than just incrementing an integer, from a programming perspective it requires converting two integers into a floating point number, carrying out a division, then truncating the output for display) every time someone views a thread.

 

[Abaddon]

But to answer your question: I see it as pointless clutter that will take up screen space, require forum resources, both physically in the programming it, and electronically as displaying it with little to no merit. That's why. I would rather the forum controllers to expend their time adjusting the forum on matters I consider more important

Because it uses up screen real estate, it takes significant work to introduce, and it greatly increases server load by forcing a recalculation (more than than just incrementing an integer, from a programming perspective it requires converting two integers into a floating point number, carrying out a division, then truncating the output for display) every time someone views a thread.

 

[osmosis]

Oh your face makes me want to cry

Alright, I'll just use excel, and do my analysis on my own. Thank you for your interest anyways.