[STATS] ACF past 7 days

[Sietse Fliege]

So, yes, I mentioned two different elements, but no, I did not get
them confused.

Riiiight! Let's do some very simple text analysis.
(I hope that it is not too difficult for you and that you may learn
something from it).


"badgolferman" :

"OE rules!!!! Number one user agent of a.c.f."

Comment: OP clearly referred to the number of posters, not posts.
OP understood that it's the number of posters that counts,
if you want to make a statement like "OE rules".

Max Quordlepleen :

"By 5 posts - that's a remarkably narrow margin."

Comment: You referred to the number of posts!
Not very relevant, is it now?

"Clearly this group has a much higher than average number of users who
do not use OE, if a niche client like Xnews can come that close to
unseating OE."

Comment: "that close" clearly referred to "By 5 posts".
So you still referred to the number of posts.
In the same sentence however you used "number of users".
Clearly you did not understand the distinction between posts
and posters, when you wrote your drivel.
Nor did you understand the significance of that distinction.

"It's not surprising, but it is encouraging to see that barely 1 post
in 5 here is made through Outhouse Excreta."

Comment: "1 post in 5" so clearly you still referred to the number
of posts.

Summing up: you once used the frase "number of users".
But by using ""By 5 posts" and in the next sentence : "that close" and
in the next sentence "1 post in 5" it is clear that you really were
talking about "number of posts".

Clearly, you did get posts and posters all confused.

I am sure that once you master the knack of comprehending written
English, you will enjoy it as much as I do.

Riiiiiiight!
Hint : writing "Outhouse Excreta" is "cool" only for 12 year olds.

 

[Max Quordlepleen]

Clearly, you did get posts and posters all confused.

Clearly, your arrogance knows no bounds, since you continue to insist
on telling me what I did and did not understand. As my previous post
demonstrated, I understood perfectly what the OP was saying, and I did
not "confuse" anything.

Hint : writing "Outhouse Excreta" is "cool" only for 12 year olds.

It was not intended to be "cool", or humorous. It was an expression of
my contempt for the software in question, nothing more. I shall leave
you to your delusions of omniscience. Reply if you wish, in fact I'm
sure your overweening ego will insist that you do, but I'm done with
this conversation.

 

[Sietse Fliege]

Clearly, your arrogance knows no bounds, since you continue to insist
on telling me what I did and did not understand.

You cowardly suggested that my understanding of English was the problem.
So you forced me to do a sentence for sentence analysyis to prove
unambiguously how misleading you have been throughout.
If you don't like that, you should not have forced me.

As my previous post demonstrated, I understood perfectly what the OP
was saying, and I did not "confuse" anything.

OK, let's look at that post.

<quote>
I said, "this group has a much higher than average number of users who
do not use OE" - a phrase that embraces all non-OE clients. As you
pointed out, Xnews alone has almost half the number of "agents by
poster" of OE, and that doesn't include all the other non-OE clients in
that list. Therefore, the statement that "this group has a much higher
than average number of users who do not use OE" was entirely accurate.
</quote>

As I demonstrated :
The stats for this period show : OE about 34% (=number of posters).
Your figures were misleading : OE 20%
The statement in your first post, that "this group has a much higher
than average number of users who do not use OE" was *highly inaccurate*
given that you used misleading figures throughout.

<quote>
Also, the statement, "that barely 1 post in 5 here is made through
Outhouse Excreta" is supported by the stat.s from the list.
</quote>

That is true enough, but it is also highly irrelevant and therefor
misleading, as I pointed out.

<quote>
So, yes, I mentioned two different elements, but no, I did not get them
confused.
</quote>

You either got them confused or you were deliberately misleading.
It's your call.

 

[Ravi]

Ravi, while I find your quoted:new ratios beyond all reproach,
and even exemplary...

Thanks .

I still must remark that you did not truly win First Place.
This script appears to look at only the first character in the
lines of a post, not say the second character.

I see - I was wondering. That's why I asked - because I know
something had to be wrong. I don't post much.

: counts as quoted text

S>> counts as new text

I have now fixed my quoting style to be more compatible with the
norm - thanks for clearning this up omega.

 

[omega]

Thanks .


I see - I was wondering. That's why I asked - because I know
something had to be wrong. I don't post much.

S>> counts as new text

I have now fixed my quoting style to be more compatible with the
norm - thanks for clearning this up omega.

I always liked that quoting style. And definitely it would have great
advantage in a message with lots of embedded quotes from multiple
participants; it would save having to sit there and count ticker marks.

The small downside is only that none of the newsreaders that I'm familiar
with -- support offsetting that as quoted text, eg colorizing it. The way
you used a single character, followed near-after by a quote marker, it
seems that should be something that one could configure a newsreader to
recognize as quoted text... At current, though, I don't know of any of
the readers having such an option. :/

 

[lsj7]

So it's still in beta? When will a stable version appear, and most
importantly, will it be freeware?

No freeware there.....

--
lsj7

It may be true that you can't fool all the people all the time, but you
can fool enough of them to rule a large country.
________will durant