Google| Subject | Re: OT: Scoring the contest |
| From | Snit |
| Date | 2007-03-05 04:08 (2007-03-04 20:08) |
| Message-ID | <C210D7BC.7A167%SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.sys.mac.advocacy |
| Follows | Wally |
| Followups | Wally (8h & 46m) > Snit |
"Wally" <wally@wally.world.net>stated in post C211ADA7.2C0F7%wally@wally.world.net on 3/4/07 7:22 PM:
WallyIncorrect: my data is directly from Google... for Sandman to claim my data is incorrect would mean that I am somehow controlling Google!
On 4/3/07 11:27 PM, in article C210254E.7A040%SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID, "Snit" <SNIT@CABLEONE.NET.lNVALID>wrote:SnitWally
"Sandman" <mr@sandman.net>stated in post mr-960457.14363504032007@News.Individual.NET on 3/4/07 6:36 AM:SandmanSnit
In article <C210BA39.2C048%wally@wally.world.net>, Wally <wally@wally.world.net>wrote:Wally
Clearly there has been a contest to see who is most obsessed with me... soat 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.I figured I would do the contestants a favor and rate them. I looked
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>
...SandmanSnit
His data is incorrect (as usual) though.
Again: it comes from Google. Now try to show where Google is wrong. Good luck!
So once again you are seen formulating a question around an answer that you have already decided that you need to receive? Sad to be you Snit!
Sandman played a silly game where he decided he would prefer to not look at how often his posts contain references to me and instead wanted to look at posts only where he specifically mentions my name... which he avoids doing to keep *that* stat down.
You can argue, if you like, that you think his stat or mine is the more relevant one... but to claim my stat is not incorrect means that, somehow, Sandman thinks I altered the Google record.
I have called him on his game... and yet you will defend him. This is what you do, Wally... you are simply not capable of being honest. I understand that and shall not pretend that there is any chance of you actually admitting to the facts.
My data is as correct as the Google record.WallySandmanSnit
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.
Google does not split quoted from unquoted... so you are now looking at different stats than I am... in other words you are not saying my data is wrong,
Given the stated purpose of your data what part of .... "His data is incorrect" don't you understand?
His data does a less accurate job... but neither is a perfect way of looking at things.SnitWally
you are saying you would prefer to look at other data
Correct!...accurate data! you stated the objective of the data Snit...to define who is obsessed with who! As such your data does not achieve that objective...therefore it is wrong!
Sandman's data does a far better job in achieving *your* objective...get over it, and learn the lesson that Sandman gives you wrt data collection!Aha! Now you are, perhaps, trying to make a point you could, if you were not a lying troll, support - that you think his data is the better indicator. Your belief, if that is truly how you feel, is impossible to determine based on the fact that you are repeatedly lying in the very post you state such a thing. Do you *really* believe that or is it another of your lies... how is one to know?
Ah, and here comes your straw man... I was wondering when you would spew one.SnitWally
- data that allows you to more easily avoid saying my name and making it look like you are less obsessed. No dice, you silly troll.
The fact that you cannot see the worth in differentiating between quoted and unquoted is a good indicator of who is being silly here!
Er? I do not control Sandman's site... when Sandman has my name listed on over 100 pages on his site, well, it is clear he is obsessive.SnitWally
And, of course, it does not alter the fact that your obsession is shown via your site...
That you are obsessed with? What are the latest numbers there Snit? LOL!
-- ? Nuclear arms are arms ??OS X's Command+Scroll wheel function does not exist in default XP ??Technical competence and intelligence are not the same thing
2007-03-03-
