The rules are changing, we are going to start showing the assholes the door

Oh my God I love those guys. Ive been trying to buy their music for several years. They tour in the Netherlands and some Eastern European Countries. I'm not even sure if they are still a group. But their recordings with the Red Army Band are works of art. I think they are from Finland, and if you can find their version of Elvis Presley's "That's all right Mama" they sing 'That's all right my Mama"...charming but one of the few mistakes they make. Great show.

When you finish watching Sweet Home Alabama, let YouTube direct you to Delilah, the old Tom Jones thing. They have the Red Army Band and Choir on that version.

Ummm, that aint no Elvis tune, eh? It's Big Boy Crudup, from 1946.

Incidentally, that aint the onliest Big Boy tune Presley covered, neither. He went on to have 4 boys who played with him. Here they are playin a tune for a small crowd in a Mississippi juke joint around 1970:

re Delilah

Brilliant. The collaboration with the Red Army Band/choir was a stroke of genius. And really quite subversive of old cliches and modes of thought. Plato was quite correct in his notion that artists are trouble-makers. He was just wrong in what does or doesn't constitute "trouble".

I hope in the new incarnation of the site we can still count how many views a topic has. Some topics get few replies, but, one I could name like that gets an average hundred views per day. Without viewer counting, one would never know whether to pursue such a thread.

That is valuable data, edgar. I suspect it's no great matter to code that one.

you can't tell how many different humans have looked at a given thread with the current software - let alone how many human views there have been

Then what is being measured, beth.

I don't recall all of the right language but the view counter not only records every time a human looks at the thread it also counts search engine spiders when they go through.

There are some old threads on search engine optimization (SEO) from 2003/2004 where Robert talks about it (- they're actually easiest to find by way of google).

x # views doesn't tell you anything about the number of human viewers or views

___

as I recall from way way way back when, the standard ratio is roughly 10/15:1 (views/posts). anything over that is likely to be a thread that a lot of people are reading.

thanks Beth. I hadn't thought of search engines.

Even though web crawlers affect the views, there does appear to be some proportionality between human interest and view count. A quick check of 'uninteresting looking' threads (low comment value) showed 8 year old threads with only ~850 views. The web crawlers probably have some algorithm to gage interest level to actual people.

high count thteads are not a metric re: huge interest. All the evolution threads Ive been in have at most 5 people involved

Many of the really high count threads (like the "Rape crap" are peopled by a just a few wackadoos (with common sense appearing every few pages)

Sorry you feel that way.

I just don't want to let the mooks think they can get away with their hateful anti-women crap.

As a computing dude you should know that crawlers (well google's) don't make many judgements at the crawling stage - all their algorithmic wizardry is in matching your search terms to their crawed database of all things (using your browsing history to filter and rank as well).

Well then, how would you account for those boring old threads having low 'view counts' if the crawlers don't care?

But human behavior does interest me more than web crawlers. On such a benign non-emotional subject as 'web crawlers and view counts', how would you account for your post having a thumbs up value of +3 while mine has a -1?

It's enough to give a guy an inferiority complex I tell ya! :-)

Ive got , specifically, 3 others on my mind, not you. Ive only looed at that thread a few times and mostly see one or two of the "Goonad crowd"

Gotcha. You're right.

I think you are confusing the thumbs up on threads with 'view counts', which we can't see - only the hamsters have access.

Did you know that if you reply to a thread it automatically adds a thumb up? A reply isn't necessarily an endorsement of the topic.



Thumb ups/downs on posts are down to individuals doing them. Not ever having actually thumbed down one of your posts I can't speak for those who did.

uhhh no

but adding tags does

__

56

The rules are changing, we are going to start showing the assholes the door
NSFW Forums: a2k, a2k Next Gen, able2know, Community, Netiquette
Discussion by Robert Gentel

Replies: 1,039

Views: 17,167


___

what can we really tell from those numbers?

the number of replies

it's the only number that's accessible to us

---

56 thumbs tells you the end result of thumbs up/thumbs down/number of people who added tags

views is spiders and views/re-views/gawd knows what else

(it's pretty close to the 1:15 ratio - so a pretty standard thread around here)