About this group

Every now and then I look at the Google Groups
"About this group" page for roff:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.o...ly/about?hl=en

Of the most frequent posters several have somehow been given
"ratings". I haven't figured out how one gives or gets a "rating"
but most everybody who has a "rating" is rated 3 stars out of 5.

rw has 10 "ratings", average 3 stars
'Tripper 8, average 3
I have 7, average 3
Tom Nakashima 23, average 3
Scott Seidman 55, average 3
Louie LaPlac 1 "rating" of 3
and roff's star poster BJ Conner 1 "rating" of 4 stars.

There is one other frequent poster who has 33 "ratings"
to date and he averages 1 star out of 5. I won't name
him, that is left as an exercise for the reader. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
t...
There is one other frequent poster who has 33 "ratings"
to date and he averages 1 star out of 5. I won't name
him, that is left as an exercise for the reader. ;-)


I'll give a shiny nickel to the first one that guesses correctly!g
Tom

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...
There are many ways to measure things......am i right, tommie......or am I
right.....huh?

yeah, I'm still wondering how that "ratings" system was generated. I suspect
that no one is going to use it for a published scientific article. You,
though, seem to have clearly ****ed off whoever is submitting the
ratings!g
Tom

On Apr 15, 7:32 am, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message

t...

There is one other frequent poster who has 33 "ratings"
to date and he averages 1 star out of 5. I won't name
him, that is left as an exercise for the reader. ;-)

I'll give a shiny nickel to the first one that guesses correctly!g
Tom

Fifteen THOUSAND??? Yow!

And yet, here we are...

--riverman

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
t...
Every now and then I look at the Google Groups
"About this group" page for roff:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.o...ly/about?hl=en

Of the most frequent posters several have somehow been given
"ratings". I haven't figured out how one gives or gets a "rating"
but most everybody who has a "rating" is rated 3 stars out of 5.

rw has 10 "ratings", average 3 stars
'Tripper 8, average 3
I have 7, average 3
Tom Nakashima 23, average 3
Scott Seidman 55, average 3
Louie LaPlac 1 "rating" of 3
and roff's star poster BJ Conner 1 "rating" of 4 stars.

There is one other frequent poster who has 33 "ratings"
to date and he averages 1 star out of 5. I won't name
him, that is left as an exercise for the reader. ;-)


There are many ways to measure things......am i right, tommie......or am I
right.....huh?

One way of measuring participation in this particular Usenet newsgroup that
I've never seen explored (to the best of my recollection) is the nature of
threads started by individual members. Who knows......it might be
revealing......ainna?

Wolfgang
who, to be sure, has never been especially tall.......but has also never
spent a great deal of money for a mail order foolproof "make yourself
taller" course.

On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 22:44:01 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Every now and then I look at the Google Groups
"About this group" page for roff:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.o...ly/about?hl=en

Of the most frequent posters several have somehow been given
"ratings". I haven't figured out how one gives or gets a "rating"
but most everybody who has a "rating" is rated 3 stars out of 5.

rw has 10 "ratings", average 3 stars
'Tripper 8, average 3
I have 7, average 3
Tom Nakashima 23, average 3
Scott Seidman 55, average 3
Louie LaPlac 1 "rating" of 3
and roff's star poster BJ Conner 1 "rating" of 4 stars.

There is one other frequent poster who has 33 "ratings"
to date and he averages 1 star out of 5. I won't name
him, that is left as an exercise for the reader. ;-)

The whole rating thing is a Google Groups paradigm. If you've ever been stuck
using their newsgroup interface (and I do mean "stuck") you'll see their
rating widget with every post you read.

What I find interesting is that someone would actually go through the
(admittedly modest) effort of rating posts just to stick them with a "3". I
mean, if it was moi, I'd only bother to peg the utter loser posts (with a 1,
of course) and the truly brilliant posts (with a 5, natch) and leave the rest
to the judgement of the unwashed masses...

/daytripper (the whole numbers thing reminds me of "The Prisoner")

"daytripper" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 22:44:01 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

Every now and then I look at the Google Groups
"About this group" page for roff:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.o...ly/about?hl=en

Of the most frequent posters several have somehow been given
"ratings". I haven't figured out how one gives or gets a "rating"
but most everybody who has a "rating" is rated 3 stars out of 5.

rw has 10 "ratings", average 3 stars
'Tripper 8, average 3
I have 7, average 3
Tom Nakashima 23, average 3
Scott Seidman 55, average 3
Louie LaPlac 1 "rating" of 3
and roff's star poster BJ Conner 1 "rating" of 4 stars.

There is one other frequent poster who has 33 "ratings"
to date and he averages 1 star out of 5. I won't name
him, that is left as an exercise for the reader. ;-)

The whole rating thing is a Google Groups paradigm. If you've ever been
stuck
using their newsgroup interface (and I do mean "stuck") you'll see their
rating widget with every post you read.

What I find interesting is that someone would actually go through the
(admittedly modest) effort of rating posts just to stick them with a "3".
I
mean, if it was moi, I'd only bother to peg the utter loser posts (with a
1,
of course) and the truly brilliant posts (with a 5, natch) and leave the
rest
to the judgement of the unwashed masses...

Well, what about the modest effort reading and beginning a thread to report
on those ratings......isn't THAT just a wee bit interesting.

/daytripper (the whole numbers thing reminds me of "The Prisoner")

Oh, we've got a WHOLE lot of prisoners here.

Wolfgang
on a dark desert highway.

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...
who would never have guessed that so many guns could be held to so many
heads with such AMAZING synchronicity!


stunning, when you think about it........
Tom

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...
And if you can find someone to whom that means less than it does to me,
it's yet another shiny new nickel for you!

you mean, you aren't concerned about your reputation,
standing and years of informative articles being dragged into the muck by
this worthless den of know-nothing
dumbos?? My gosh, there may be hope for ROFF yet,
should all heed your fine example!
Tom
.....but, then again.....

"Tom Littleton" wrote in message
news:1TeUh.1524$BS2.599@trndny01...

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...
There are many ways to measure things......am i right, tommie......or am
I right.....huh?

yeah, I'm still wondering how that "ratings" system was generated.

Actually, the question was directed not to you, but to ROFF's only admitted
professional mensurator.

I suspect that no one is going to use it for a published scientific
article.

Stranger **** happens every day. Trust me, I read a LOT of that crap.


You, though, seem to have clearly ****ed off whoever is submitting the
ratings!g

And if you can find someone to whom that means less than it does to me, it's
yet another shiny new nickel for you!

Wolfgang
who remembers a time when having an entire thread dedicated to him
meant.......um.......well, quite possibly more than
nothing......maybe......I suppose.