|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 299 responses total. |
keesan
|
|
response 50 of 299:
|
Mar 29 04:10 UTC 2005 |
Would staff determine who counts as a twit?
|
scholar
|
|
response 51 of 299:
|
Mar 29 04:27 UTC 2005 |
I show not but disdain to the idea of a global twitfilter.
What better way for staff members to "off" people who have become out of sync
with their ideology?
|
naftee
|
|
response 52 of 299:
|
Mar 29 05:28 UTC 2005 |
staff members supporting the censorship idea of a global filter should talk
to Walter Cramer about deleting responses from the raw item files, and its
merits.
|
other
|
|
response 53 of 299:
|
Mar 29 14:48 UTC 2005 |
It would be nice if the twit filters in Backtalk would filter out the
headers of filtered responses as well as the text itself. I would be
happy if the only evidence of a filtered response is a gap in the
sequence of response numbers showing.
Second choice would be to have the "View filtered response" link display
the filter options page with that response added onto it. That way,
people can edit their filters quickly and easily on the fly. Also,
having the filter options among the default links/buttons at the bottom
of every page would go a long way toward helping users make use of
filters.
|
bru
|
|
response 54 of 299:
|
Mar 29 23:45 UTC 2005 |
I guess I should not be surprised that some people find my responses
offensive, but I do because I never attack the person, their family, or use
vile and vulgar language in my responses.
If you find my considered opinions offensive, then so be it. But if you can't
see a difference between my discussions, and their vile filth, then you really
need to go back to school.
even so, something needs to be done.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 55 of 299:
|
Mar 29 23:58 UTC 2005 |
So you admit that the issue is one of content. Frankly, I find the ignorance
of youth far less offensive than the ignorance of someone your age. And don't
wonder what I'm talking about, just go back and look at how quick you were
to make rash statements in the banktrupcty item without any facts to back them
up. Opinions are like assholes; everyone has one. And on grex there's often
little distinction between the two.
|
tod
|
|
response 56 of 299:
|
Mar 30 00:38 UTC 2005 |
re #50
I would not want to opt into someone else's interpretation of "annoying user".
I think it would be nice to be able to just type in "ignore russ" if I wanted
to not see his responses anymore in BBS.
(using russ as an example only)
|
spooked
|
|
response 57 of 299:
|
Mar 30 01:27 UTC 2005 |
Two types of filters could be set up:
i) A user-defined filter list, so if I wanted to ignore a, b, c I could
ii) A global staff-defined or conf-admin defined list, defined by those
respective person/s
Which filter to employ, if any, would be up to the individual user (and
should be configurable once on first entering BBS, and then re-configurable
thereafter at the individual user's discretion).
|
twinkie
|
|
response 58 of 299:
|
Mar 30 01:27 UTC 2005 |
Maybe newuser could set that by default if someone enters a birthdate that's
after 1990.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 59 of 299:
|
Mar 30 01:27 UTC 2005 |
Spooked slipped.
|
sholmes
|
|
response 60 of 299:
|
Mar 30 02:57 UTC 2005 |
might as well have a universal ignore then , ignore xyz to ignore xyz on bbs
, party ,telegram and talk requests.
|
naftee
|
|
response 61 of 299:
|
Mar 30 03:49 UTC 2005 |
Yeah, let's ignore all the Jews.
|
twenex
|
|
response 62 of 299:
|
Mar 30 06:48 UTC 2005 |
Re: #55. Whooo!
You know, you really can't blame stupid people for being stupid.
Unfortunately.
|
naftee
|
|
response 63 of 299:
|
Mar 30 07:14 UTC 2005 |
People who use twit filters are stupid. Unfortunately.
|
tod
|
|
response 64 of 299:
|
Mar 30 16:35 UTC 2005 |
re #58
Maybe we could advocate throwing Catcher in the Rye into a bonfire, too.
|
twinkie
|
|
response 65 of 299:
|
Mar 30 17:45 UTC 2005 |
I don't think you "got" it.
|
scholar
|
|
response 66 of 299:
|
Mar 30 17:59 UTC 2005 |
AHAHA THE POINT WAS THAT RUSS IS A PAEDOPHILE
"
AHAHAHA
THAT"S
OH GOD
|
tod
|
|
response 67 of 299:
|
Mar 30 18:38 UTC 2005 |
No, it gives WORMS to ex girlfriends
|
remmers
|
|
response 68 of 299:
|
Mar 30 20:16 UTC 2005 |
The question came up earlier about how many people use the conferences,
or Agora in particular, as a proportion of the total Grex user base.
Mabye some tools already exist for generating relevant data, but I don't
know where to find them, so I wrote a couple of my own that might be
useful. I'm sure they can be improved on; any local shell script
hackers are welcome to have at 'em.
The following commands are in the directory ~remmers/bin:
confstats -number of items, responses, and distinct responders
in a conference
confusers -list number of responses by all or a selected set of
users in a conference (Regardless of what you're
thinking, the name "confusers" stands for "conference
users".)
at-least-10-logins-in-march
-a command with a silly name that displays the number
of users who logged into Grex at least 10 times during
March 2005.
To save you the trouble of running that last command, which takes some
time, I'll report that at this writing the number of users who logged in
at least 10 times in March is 947. (That might include a small number
of administrative accounts that aren't really people, but I don't think
that's significant.) I chose a threshhold of 10 because it's the first
2-digit number and also because there are a lot of people who go through
newuser to check out the system, log in only once or a handful of times,
and then never come back. So they're not really users. On the other
hand, if someone logs in 10 or more times, I think it's likely that
they've found something to do here.
So anyway, about 1000 real users, give or take a bit.
The "confstats" command gives you statistics on a conference. You have
to give the actual directory name of the conference as an argument, e.g.
"agora53" (for the current Agora) instead of "agora". The command
~remmers/bin/confstats agora52
(that would be winter agora) gives the output
# items: 259
# responses: 12960
# talkers: 170
The number of "talkers" is the number of distinct logins who entered at
least one response. It might be reasonable to subtract off people who
made only one or two responses, but I didn't do that. Estimating the
number of "readers" is problematic due to the fact that no central
records are kept of those, and it's possible to read anonymously.
Maybe this says that about 15% of active Grex users participate in
Agora. Maybe less, if you subtract off one-time-only responders.
Compare this to an Agora from 6 years ago:
~remmers/bin/confstats agora22
# items: 132
# responses: 9492
# talkers: 262
A telling comparison. Roughly half as many items 6 years ago, but
significantly higher average number of responses per item, and a whole
lot more people participating in the conversations. The base of Agora
participants appears to have shrunk significantly.
The "confusers" takes a conference and a list of login id's as arguments
and gives you the number of responses by each of those users in the
conference. Or if you just specify a conference, it lists responses by
all users in alphabetical order. Example for the current Agora:
~remmers/bin/confusers agora53 other remmers scott
18 other
8 remmers
20 scott
Because they're too long for a response, I've saved the all-users lists
in my web directory, sorted in descending order of number of responses.
http://cyberspace.org/~remmers/winter-agora.txt
http://cyberspace.org/~remmers/spring-agora.txt
Well, I hope somebody finds something useful to do with these tools in
terms of gauging where Grex is and where it's headed.
|
scholar
|
|
response 69 of 299:
|
Mar 30 21:23 UTC 2005 |
Respond, pass, forget, quit, or ? for more options? !last other
other ttyq4 pcp05305840pcs.wanarb01.mi.comcast.net Mon Mar 14 17:36
- 17:55 (00:19)
other ftp pcp05305840pcs.wanarb01.mi.comcast.net Sat Feb 12 03:37
- 03:37 (00:00)
other ftp pcp05305840pcs.wanarb01.mi.comcast.net Sat Feb 12 03:37
- 03:37 (00:00)
other ttyp2 pcp05305840pcs.wanarb01.mi.comcast.net Sat Feb 12 03:25
- 03:26 (00:01)
wtmp begins Sun Dec 19 14:45 2004
OTHER has logged in only four times this month (and two of those were ftp
sessions!), yet i don't think anyone would consider him an insignificant user.
thus, logging in at least ten times a month doesn't seem like a very useful
way of measuring who's a significant user and who's not.
|
other
|
|
response 70 of 299:
|
Mar 30 21:44 UTC 2005 |
It does appear that wtmp is not logging account usage via Backtalk.
Remmers, how can your script account for those who are active users but
who primarily (or nearly exclusively) use Grex to conference via http?
|
remmers
|
|
response 71 of 299:
|
Mar 30 23:30 UTC 2005 |
Hmm, weird. If I recall correctly, http logins *were* logged in wtmp on
OldGrex, but you're right, they're not being logged now. I suspect
that's a bug that needs to be fixed.
If it's not in wtmp, then offhand I'm not sure where's the best place to
get http login information. It's probably extractable from the httpd
logs, but I suspect there's a simpler way, since the "laston" command
knows about http logins even if "last" doesn't.
|
dpc
|
|
response 72 of 299:
|
Mar 30 23:52 UTC 2005 |
Wow - thanks for these new tools, John!
|
scholar
|
|
response 73 of 299:
|
Mar 31 00:29 UTC 2005 |
thanks, john!
|
keesan
|
|
response 74 of 299:
|
Mar 31 01:29 UTC 2005 |
Did you take into account the multiple personalities?
|