Google| Subject | Re: OT: Scoring the contest |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 03/04/2007 14:36 (03/04/2007 14:36) |
| Message-ID | <mr-960457.14363504032007@News.Individual.NET> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.sys.mac.advocacy |
| Follows | Wally |
| Followups | Snit (50m) Steve Carroll (1h & 23m) > Sandman |
In article <C210BA39.2C048%wally@wally.world.net>, Wally <wally@wally.world.net>wrote:
His data is incorrect (as usual) though.WallyRead my above comments, Wally. All of them. Now see if you can understand them... yeah... you can do it... I hope. See if you can figure out where I talked about Sandman and his website and how that shows his obsession.SnitWally
Clearly there has been a contest to see who is most obsessed with me... so I figured I would do the contestants a favor and rate them. I looked at the Google archive and found how many posts each of the following have posted to CSMA and how many of those posts they mentioned me. I looked only for "snit", so when then call me "snot" or "Michael" or otherwise try to be "clever" in their trolling it might not be counted... so be it.
Here were the scores (percentages rounded):
Adams: 1052/1080 = 97% Carroll: 3031/3050 = 99% Sandman: 4840/6580 = 74% Wally: 379/ 477 = 79%
Ok... it seems like Adams and Carroll are well ahead with Sandman and Wally trailing badly... but Sandman is the only one to have a website where he mentions me over 100 times (it changes, but currently at 144... GROSS!). <http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acsma.sandman.net+snit+OR+glasser>
Sorry, Wally... seems like the rest of your co-trolls in the competition are ripping you to pieces.
I thought for one moment that you were going to apologize for your poor math skills Snit! when I attended school....79% was higher than 74%..not for you?
So again you prove in the most unexpected way that what "seems" to you has nothing whatsoever to do with reality! Thank you! ;-)Snit
Adams... well, you are close but Steve has you beaten... and Steve and Sandman, well, you each are "winners" in your obsession - you just display it different ways.
Congrats to all of you... now seek help. Please.
But not an increase in his percentage! where did you itemize that!
The only verifiable statistic that you post shows...
"Ok... it seems like Adams and Carroll are well ahead with Sandman and Wally trailing badly"
Your unverified 'changeable' numbers are very likely made up by you and therefore not credible!
These are the times each person has mentioned some other in their *unquoted* text in the last 30 day period (which of course is the part of the post that's important when trying to determine if someone has been talking about someone.
"us" mentioning him
Nick Posts Total Percentage Sandman 21 / 294 = 7% Steve Carroll 378 / 484 = 78% Wally 86 / 100 = 86% Tim Adams 114 / 131 = 87%
Him mentioning either of us Sandman 235 / 1131 = 21% Steve Carroll 331 / 1131 = 29% Wally 94 / 1131 = 8% Tim Adams 101 / 1131 = 9% Sum 761 / 1131 = 67%
It may look better on his part if you look at the percentages, but even the one that has mentioned him the most doesn't come near at how often he has mention us.
Me, having him killfiled, come in at a whopping 7%.
This took me about five minutes to script. I bet Snit spent hours at google, further emphasizing how obsessed he is :)
The above data was extracted by queries like this:
"select count(id) as nr from csma where mytext like '%snit%' and date >date_sub(now(), interval 1 month) and name = 'Sandman'"
The result of the above query is "21". That's the amount of times I've mentioned him in the last month. I think that sounds like a lot, but he has - in the same timeframe - mentioned me no less than 235 times! And I have him killfiled so it's not like he's posting to me! :)
I will post support for the above, of course, but that post will be at least 2000 lines long, so I'm not doing it until it's requested.
-- Sandman[.net]
03/03/2007-
