Worst RST posters, acc. to Google
Joe Ramirez
posts on a scale of one to five stars. The system displays the average
rating and total number of ratings for each poster.
It turns out that RST has a lot of posters with the lowest possible
average rating, one star. The ratings are Usenet-wide and can't be
limited to a single group (as far as I know -- don't want to spend
more than five minutes on this), but most RST members seem to make
this their primary home, so I suppose the averages are still
meaningful. Here's the snapshot, as of today, of the worst
posters. :) All have one-star averages.
1. Whisper -- 4,281 ratings
2. TJT -- 2,733 ratings
3. allr1 -- 1,821 ratings
4. RuPEDski -- 994 ratings
5. Dr. GroundAxe -- 977 ratings
6. Raja -- 864 ratings
After that there seems to be a big drop-off to other one-star posters
who are not as active, such as WAY2GOOD and *skriptis, plus guys who
have recently changed e-mail addresses, such as Jaros and bob.
Joe Ramirez
robin
The thing is, I don't think the voting behind those ratings is, in
anyway, distributed fairly across the newgroups 'citizens'. I would
guess that most of those ratings are down to vendettas from a small
number of posters. Some posters seem to acquire single stars as soon
as they make any post.
I'm not a fan of such ratings, anyway. If you disagree with someones
post, then come out and say it; and give your reasons. Any fool can
click one star. Even worse is youtube, where comments are hidden if
they go below -6 votes.
Sao Paulo Swallow
Speaking of RST stats: TJT is just a few posts behind Whisper this
month, and Hazelwood is a distant third. But who is the "locker room"
number 1?
Joe Ramirez
Certainly the Google system is about as unscientific as you can get.
>
> I'm not a fan of such ratings, anyway. If you disagree with someones
> post, then come out and say it; and give your reasons. Any fool can
> click one star. Even worse is youtube, where comments are hidden if
> they go below -6 votes.
That's a bad approach. Users shouldn't be allowed to actually suppress
other users' comments.
Joe Ramirez
blueskates
*skriptis
"Joe Ramirez" <josephm...@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:4bb9ad32-5c2a-4445...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Why do you do that?
Joe Ramirez
> "Joe Ramirez" <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote in message
Why do I do what?
Joe Ramirez
Vari L. Cinicke
Look up and post readily available information that portrays **Whisperer
in a bad light?
--
Cheers,
vc
Calimero
> "Joe Ramirez" <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote in message
Joe has no life.
Sad.
Max
TJT
> On May 19, 1:01 pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 19 May, 16:37, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Google Groups has a rating system that allows anyone to rate newsgroup
>>> posts on a scale of one to five stars. The system displays the average
>>> rating and total number of ratings for each poster.
>>> It turns out that RST has a lot of posters with the lowest possible
>>> average rating, one star. The ratings are Usenet-wide and can't be
>>> limited to a single group (as far as I know -- don't want to spend
>>> more than five minutes on this), but most RST members seem to make
>>> this their primary home, so I suppose the averages are still
>>> meaningful. Here's the snapshot, as of today, of the worst
>>> posters. :) All have one-star averages.
>>> 1. Whisper -- 4,281 ratings
>>> 2. TJT -- 2,733 ratings
>>> 3. allr1 -- 1,821 ratings
>>> 4. RuPEDski -- 994 ratings
>>> 5. Dr. GroundAxe -- 977 ratings
>>> 6. Raja -- 864 ratings
I thought 1 star means you're a really really good poster, at least it
appears so if you look who are leading the list, especially top 2.
>> guess that most of those ratings are down to vendettas from a small
>> number of posters.
Some time back I lowered my geekyness to a level of actually using
Google groups occasionally...Was somewhat surprised by my rating. My
first thought was exactly that: Vendetta by very few posters. In fact my
instant reaction was that "wow that Dave is quite mad" ;)
But then again further looking at who do have low ratings, it's apparent
that many of those who have low ratings are Nadal fans...Most posters
here are federites and I have no doubt my straightforward comments have
pissed a few along the road.
Then again, using Google Groups instead of a decent newsreader and
bothering to actually rate posts tells a story. So yeah, perhaps these
ratings truly are reversed.
>
> Certainly the Google system is about as unscientific as you can get.
>
>> I'm not a fan of such ratings, anyway. If you disagree with someones
>> post, then come out and say it; and give your reasons. Any fool can
>> click one star. Even worse is youtube, where comments are hidden if
>> they go below -6 votes.
>
Mozilla Thunderbird is really good as a newsreader. I also use it as an
email client, it automatically deletes most of the junkmail I get.
TJT
Vamos myself! :)
robin
> Then again, using Google Groups instead of a decent newsreader and
That's just moronic. I never cease to be amused by wannabe tech geeks,
who think that choosing to use certain software will somehow confer to
them IT expertise. It doesn't. Any fool can install and use a
newsreader. People switched to Google groups because it is convenient.
For you, who sits in your bedroom all day, posting on usenet, using a
dedicated newsreader maybe the right choice. For the rest of us, for
whom usenet is not our life, google groups is just fine. No doubt you
look down on webmail users too. Of course, when it comes to actual IT
skills, like programming, you doubtless suck donkey balls.
*skriptis
Start a thread like that.
Joe Ramirez
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
> > On May 19, 1:01 pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 19 May, 16:37, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Google Groups has a rating system that allows anyone to rate newsgroup
> >>> posts on a scale of one to five stars. The system displays the average
> >>> rating and total number of ratings for each poster.
> >>> It turns out that RST has a lot of posters with the lowest possible
> >>> average rating, one star. The ratings are Usenet-wide and can't be
> >>> limited to a single group (as far as I know -- don't want to spend
> >>> more than five minutes on this), but most RST members seem to make
> >>> this their primary home, so I suppose the averages are still
> >>> meaningful. Here's the snapshot, as of today, of the worst
> >>> posters. :) All have one-star averages.
> >>> 1. Whisper -- 4,281 ratings
> >>> 2. TJT -- 2,733 ratings
> >>> 3. allr1 -- 1,821 ratings
> >>> 4. RuPEDski -- 994 ratings
> >>> 5. Dr. GroundAxe -- 977 ratings
> >>> 6. Raja -- 864 ratings
>
> I thought 1 star means you're a really really good poster, at least it
> appears so if you look who are leading the list, especially top 2.
You could get a job in the Bush Administration if it weren't on the
way out. :)
> >> guess that most of those ratings are down to vendettas from a small
> >> number of posters.
>
> Some time back I lowered my geekyness to a level of actually using
> Google groups occasionally...Was somewhat surprised by my rating. My
> first thought was exactly that: Vendetta by very few posters. In fact my
> instant reaction was that "wow that Dave is quite mad" ;)
>
> But then again further looking at who do have low ratings, it's apparent
> that many of those who have low ratings are Nadal fans...Most posters
> here are federites and I have no doubt my straightforward comments have
> pissed a few along the road.
I do think that some pro-Federer, or really anti-anti-Federer, bias
affects the ratings. Otherwise, you'd expect Hazelwood to be among the
one-star people. However, that's probably not the only factor. Other
factors apparent from the list are routinely putting up dumb,
illogical, or dishonest posts, and/or often being exceptionally
obnoxious or insulting.
Joe Ramirez
Joe Ramirez
RST frequently has discussions about posting statistics, also courtesy
of Google data. Whisper recently boasted about being RST's number one
poster, in fact. The ratings information is at least as interesting as
the info about posting volume, and is just as easy to get.
Joe Ramirez
arnab.z@gmail
Where did the imbecile claim that?
Joe Ramirez
Sao Paulo Swallow
>
> - Show quoted text -
He better beware: TJT is gaining on him fast.
Joe Ramirez
If I had a life, no doubt I'd be spending it posting lists in the
"Hottest world No. 1?" thread with you and Raja, Max. Bet that's
sweet. :)
Joe Ramirez
*skriptis
Joe Ramirez
The list is completely absurd and biased. All of those guys are
non-fedfuckers.
This is something everyone here would expect Hazel to post, not you.
TJT
Dave's not pro-Federer?
However, that's probably not the only factor. Other
> factors apparent from the list are routinely putting up dumb,
> illogical, or dishonest posts, and/or often being exceptionally
> obnoxious or insulting.
>
> Joe Ramirez
Now you're giving those ratings way too much respect. Is this why you
started this topic, you believe there's actually some truth in those
ratings?
Hopefully you're not including my sorry ass in that group. Wouldn't like
that at all.
Joe Ramirez
You're free to check the data yourself. As to whether the people
assigning the ratings are biased, that's another matter.
> All of those guys are non-fedfuckers.
First of all, defining the RST universe as composed of "fedfuckers"
and "non-fedfuckers" is ridiculous and is itself the worst sort of
bias in this newsgroup. That's a braindead Whisper rhetorical device
that you've swallowed whole, for reasons I cannot understand.
Second, do you honestly think that the *only* reason any of those guys
might get low ratings is that they are "non-fedfuckers"? Take allr1,
for example. Only "fedfuckers" could think his posts are completely
worthless?
Joe Ramirez
TJT
Well I'd like to say that it's always special thing to compete with
Whisper, and to actually beat him this month and last...but he's still
the best. I think he's the greatest of all time and I'm happy to be
second after him. At any other time I would've been first already with
the amount of posts I have.
TJT
So you actually started this thread to bash us Nadal fans. Well done,
would've expected more from you.
Now tell us why Hazelwood doesn't have one star, because of quality of
his posts or because he's so unbiased and kind and every way better
person than yours truly.
Joe Ramirez
I think people who vote must be responding to more than just what
*skriptis delightfully calls the "non-fedfucking" aspect of the many
different posts that get low ratings. Set aside that aspect, and leave
yourself out for the moment as well. What do you see that's left?
allr1 (musclemania), GroundAxe (hates everything), RuPEDski (hates
everyone), Raja (rock lists) -- what's your reaction? No, I don't
think Google ratings convey "truth." But I do think that they provide
interesting information about the way Usenet responds to certain types
of posts and posters, and that the reaction goes beyond a mere bias
against "non-fedfuckers."
Joe Ramirez
Joe Ramirez
No. In fact, I think you're the only actual "Nadal fan" who turned up
on the list. Those other guys certainly aren't. Hating Federer doesn't
make someone a Nadal fan.
Joe Ramirez
robin
>
> So you actually started this thread to bash us Nadal fans. Well done,
> would've expected more from you.
>
The reason you are thought of as an obnoxious jerk has *nothing* to do
with you being a Nadal fan. The fact that you continuously post bile
about Federer is, however. Does your simple mind comprehend the
difference?
> Now tell us why Hazelwood doesn't have one star, because of quality of
> his posts or because he's so unbiased and kind and every way better
> person than yours truly.
Hazel doesn't have one star because it is Hazel that does most of the
voting. I'd have thought that was obvious. In terms of behaving like
jerks, you are both as bad as each other.
robin
Raja is not generaly malicious, though. He doesn't act like a jerk. I
don't think he belongs with those other names.
Raja
> Google Groups has a rating system that allows anyone to rate newsgroup
> posts on a scale of one to five stars. The system displays the average
> rating and total number of ratings for each poster.
>
> It turns out that RST has a lot of posters with the lowest possible
> average rating, one star. The ratings are Usenet-wide and can't be
> limited to a single group (as far as I know -- don't want to spend
> more than five minutes on this), but most RST members seem to make
> this their primary home, so I suppose the averages are still
> meaningful. Here's the snapshot, as of today, of the worst
> posters. :) All have one-star averages.
>
> 1. Whisper -- 4,281 ratings
> 2. TJT -- 2,733 ratings
> 3. allr1 -- 1,821 ratings
> 4. RuPEDski -- 994 ratings
> 5. Dr. GroundAxe -- 977 ratings
> 6. Raja -- 864 ratings
>
> who are not as active, such as WAY2GOOD and *skriptis, plus guys who
> have recently changed e-mail addresses, such as Jaros and bob.
>
This rating is done by trolls who are trolling against opinionated
posters. I got most of my one stars from the Beatles/Yes groups. There
are some trolls over there who cant stand me and rate every post of
mine 1 star. I dont care about that anyway.
TJT
Yes, I'm too much anti-fed if that's what you're trying to say. However,
don't laugh, I do think Whisper is one of the best posters
here...somewhat witty(aside his illogical bias with certain things) and
I find his posts funny quite often. Also, not many have such a thick
skin as this guy...which is good...compared to instant fuck you you
idiot type of poster which are too plenty here.
Also he does have some original thoughts, which at least serve the
purpose for developing contradicting opinions.
And he knows something about tennis, he's a true tier1 analyst...
Besides, anybody who is a fan of Nadal's can't be that bad. :)
(yes, I believe he actually is a Nadal fan, and not only against
Federer-pro Sampras)
And, as proven here, he's the most talked about rst poster, may it be
good or bad depending on one's views.
Raja
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thats for recreation. But your hunting for stats on fellow posters is
quite nerdy. You are the resident RST nerd by miles, seriously. Its
good you have knowledge on several topics and debate on almost
everything, but sometimes you need to calm down and take a chill pill.
TJT
Well, thank you.
Raja
Thanks. I have my opinions and can be stubborn. But I dont act like a
jackass and go talking about other people's personal lives. Some of
the rst trolls seem to enjoy doing that.
Joe Ramirez
Yes, my point is just that there could be reasons for people to get
low ratings *other than* the fact that they are not "fedfuckers." It
bugs me when supposed anti-anti-Federer bias is used to explain away
any sort of objection to some of the junk that appears here. Raja
himself ascribes his low ratings to activity in the music groups.
Joe Ramirez
mimus
> Google Groups has a rating system that allows anyone to rate newsgroup
> posts on a scale of one to five stars. The system displays the average
> rating and total number of ratings for each poster.
>
> It turns out that RST has a lot of posters with the lowest possible
> average rating, one star. The ratings are Usenet-wide and can't be
> limited to a single group (as far as I know -- don't want to spend
> more than five minutes on this), but most RST members seem to make
> this their primary home, so I suppose the averages are still
> meaningful. Here's the snapshot, as of today, of the worst
> posters. :) All have one-star averages.
>
> 1. Whisper -- 4,281 ratings
> 2. TJT -- 2,733 ratings
> 3. allr1 -- 1,821 ratings
> 4. RuPEDski -- 994 ratings
> 5. Dr. GroundAxe -- 977 ratings
> 6. Raja -- 864 ratings
>
> After that there seems to be a big drop-off to other one-star posters
> who are not as active, such as WAY2GOOD and *skriptis, plus guys who
> have recently changed e-mail addresses, such as Jaros and bob.
Look up "volunteer bias" . . . .
Indeed, we're probably looking at least in part at the effects of the
ratings-equivalents of Wiki Wars (nothing is surprising on the Net).
(This does add a new meaning to the expression "Tier 1 analyst", though.)
--
Take a deep breath, take a walk, cool off, plot a bit, and serve again.
Vari L. Cinicke
Lots of people object to cross-posting and Raja is the biggest offender
among those who include rst on cross-posts.
--
Cheers,
vc
Gracchus
I don't know....fixation on an unattainable beauty like Sharapova is
kind of a nerdy activity too. ;)
Joe Ramirez
I guess so, but then again any sort of participation in a written
discussion forum is "nerdy" by the standards of the world at large.
And RST statistics of various types are a common topic of discussion
here. The provide more food for thought than yet another round of "Ha
Ha Ha's" (from either side) or comments about Mirka's weight or
Nadal's pants.
Joe Ramirez
stephenj
> Google Groups has a rating system that allows anyone to rate newsgroup
> 1. Whisper -- 4,281 ratings
> 2. TJT -- 2,733 ratings
> 3. allr1 -- 1,821 ratings
> 4. RuPEDski -- 994 ratings
> 5. Dr. GroundAxe -- 977 ratings
> 6. Raja -- 864 ratings
whisper is arguably the best poster on rst. raja is inarguably the
worst. funny list. :)
> After that there seems to be a big drop-off to other one-star posters
> who are not as active, such as WAY2GOOD and *skriptis, plus guys who
> have recently changed e-mail addresses, such as Jaros and bob.
Jaros? rofl!
--
Science is based on mathematics;
mathematics cannot discover all truths;
therefore science cannot discover all truths.
- John Barrow
Raja
>
> - Show quoted text -
Those are really low class racist trolls, some of the most obnoxious
kinds. RST is actually better.
Sao Paulo Swallow
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nerdier still are endless best-of lists.
Jim
> posts on a scale of one to five stars. The system displays the average
> rating and total number of ratings for each poster.
>
> It turns out that RST has a lot of posters with the lowest possible
> average rating, one star. The ratings are Usenet-wide and can't be
> limited to a single group (as far as I know -- don't want to spend
> more than five minutes on this), but most RST members seem to make
> this their primary home, so I suppose the averages are still
> meaningful. Here's the snapshot, as of today, of the worst
> posters. :) All have one-star averages.
>
> 1. Whisper -- 4,281 ratings
> 2. TJT -- 2,733 ratings
> 3. allr1 -- 1,821 ratings
> 4. RuPEDski -- 994 ratings
> 5. Dr. GroundAxe -- 977 ratings
> 6. Raja -- 864 ratings
>
> After that there seems to be a big drop-off to other one-star posters
> who are not as active, such as WAY2GOOD and *skriptis, plus guys who
> have recently changed e-mail addresses, such as Jaros and bob.
>
I think with the French Open coming up that Groundaxe can make up
points and pull into #4.....................
-D
*skriptis
-------------
Now you are insulting me. I never question the data, or accused you of
tampering it, just expressed my disbelief why would you post such a garbage
info.
> All of those guys are non-fedfuckers.
First of all, defining the RST universe as composed of "fedfuckers"
and "non-fedfuckers" is ridiculous and is itself the worst sort of
bias in this newsgroup. That's a braindead Whisper rhetorical device
that you've swallowed whole, for reasons I cannot understand.
---------------
No, that's just one division here. You can have many more, whites,
non-whites, etc... E.g. Raja was on that list, and even though he's an
idiot, he's still non-fedfucker.
You noticed the list didn't contain names like haze, vari, whekdr, arab?
Second, do you honestly think that the *only* reason any of those guys
might get low ratings is that they are "non-fedfuckers"? Take allr1,
for example. Only "fedfuckers" could think his posts are completely
worthless?
----
No, of course, and having Raja there among the worst posters gives some
cred. to that list, but it's not enough, as by some coincedence, all the
names there, including him, are non-fedfuckers.
Fedfucking brigade used Raja to promote thier agenda.
*skriptis
"TJT" <the...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aikYj.3479$_03...@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
I must agree, sadly.
.
> Now tell us why Hazelwood doesn't have one star, because of quality of his
> posts or because he's so unbiased and kind and every way better person
> than yours truly.
He's behind it, it's clear.
*skriptis
-------------
So you say the guys on the list hate Federer? Except TJT?
Including me?
How low.
Joe Ramirez
You're not on the list. Look again. You were just one of the guys
mentioned who didn't make it.
Joe Ramirez
Giovanna
> But who is the "locker room"
> number 1?
Dr.
al...@webtv.net
the...@yahoo.com (TJT)
Mozilla Thunderbird is really good as a newsreader. I also use it as an
email client, it automatically deletes most of the junkmail I get.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Webtv does a good job, newsreader-wise.
If it could handle Forums worth a damn,
I'd go there instead.
al...@webtv.net
josephm...@netzero.com (Joe Ramirez)
Google Groups has a rating system that allows anyone to rate newsgroup
posts on a scale of one to five stars. The system displays the average
rating and total number of ratings for each poster.
It turns out that RST has a lot of posters with the lowest possible
average rating, one star. The ratings are Usenet-wide and can't be
limited to a single group (as far as I know -- don't want to spend more
than five minutes on this), but most RST members seem to make this their
primary home, so I suppose the averages are still meaningful. Here's the
snapshot, as of today, of the worst posters. :)
All have one-star averages.
1. Whisper -- 4,281 ratings
2. TJT -- 2,733 ratings
3. allr1 -- 1,821 ratings
4. RuPEDski -- 994 ratings
5. Dr. GroundAxe -- 977 ratings
6. Raja -- 864 ratings
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'M A STAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(third Star from the one)
=====================================
josephm...@netzero.com (Joe Ramirez)
After that there seems to be a big drop-off to other one-star posters
who are not as active, such as WAY2GOOD and *skriptis, plus guys who
have recently changed e-mail addresses, such as Jaros and bob.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If I gave a S--t about Google's rating system,
I'd probably just do the same. (change addy)
But sorry Josey, this has been tried before
by the pied piper of Sophism, Andy. (along
with the tactic of going after when I posted)
Peer pressure bounces right off me. (I'm
Uber-Man)
Especially when those 'peers' are a bunch of hackers that get all anal
about records and the
like, but don't know jack about what really happens on a Tennis court.
Joe Ramirez
Why does it offend you? You've never seen a discussion of RST
statistics before? This stuff is publicly available from Google in
about 2 seconds. It's interesting, it's sort of amusing, and it's
certainly more substantive than tripe about "Federfag" or "Nadal's ass
picking" that seems to get by without an outraged protest from you.
It's funny that people can post insults, profanities, and outright
libels about players *and* other posters by the hundreds and
thousands, but what gets your upset are just some numbers from Google
possibly showing Usenet reaction to posts of that type.
> ---------------
> No, that's just one division here. You can have many more, whites,
> non-whites, etc... E.g. Raja was on that list, and even though he's an
> idiot, he's still non-fedfucker.
> You noticed the list didn't contain names like haze, vari, whekdr, arab?
>
> Second, do you honestly think that the *only* reason any of those guys
> might get low ratings is that they are "non-fedfuckers"? Take allr1,
> for example. Only "fedfuckers" could think his posts are completely
> worthless?
>
> ----
> No, of course, and having Raja there among the worst posters gives some
> cred. to that list, but it's not enough, as by some coincedence, all the
> names there, including him, are non-fedfuckers.
> Fedfucking brigade used Raja to promote thier agenda.
"Brigade"? "Agenda"? You live in a Manichean world.
Joe Ramirez
al...@webtv.net
If I had a life, no doubt I'd be spending it posting lists in the
"Hottest world No. 1?" thread with you and Raja, Max. Bet that's sweet.
:) "
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No, you get into the best band threads. :-)
stephenj
> Thanks. I have my opinions and can be stubborn. But I dont act like a
> jackass and go talking about other people's personal lives.
you are far worse, because you deluge the ng with insipid, irrelevant
rock lists the sole aim of which is to promote Yes.
laughably bad poster ...
--
the Roosevelt administration .. has used the war to justify
restrictions of Congressional power, and the assumption of
dictatorial procedures on the part of the President and his
appointees.
- Charles A. Lindbergh, 9/11/41
al...@webtv.net
josephm...@netzero.com (Joe Ramirez)
Second, do you honestly think that the *only* reason any of those guys
might get low ratings is that they are "non-fedfuckers"? Take allr1, for
example. Only "fedfuckers" could think his posts are completely
worthless?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No.
You'd need to include clueless idiots that don't know jack about how
Tennis rackets function, and those that have nothing better to do then
post Google Ratings Lists. :-)
GOAT threads, now THAT'S 'completely worthless'.
al...@webtv.net
Thats for recreation. But your hunting for stats on fellow posters is
quite nerdy. You are the resident RST nerd by miles, seriously. Its good
you have knowledge on several topics and debate on almost everything,
but sometimes you need to calm down and take a chill pill.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nerds tend to be anal.
al...@webtv.net
josephm...@netzero.com (Joe Ramirez)
I think people who vote must be responding to more than just what
*skriptis delightfully calls the "non-fedfucking" aspect of the many
different posts that get low ratings. Set aside that aspect, and leave
yourself out for the moment as well. What do you see that's left? allr1
(musclemania),
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My espousing that the ATP is full of wimps
that could rectify the situation by just adding some push-ups to their
routine makes me a
muscle-maniac?
It certainly couldn't have anything to do with
the ATP players having muscle-phobia, huh?
I guess muscles and sports aren't related,
to a moron like you.
TJT
Yes, especially considering that they're full of ceibs, nearly everybody
discussing in those lacking with historical perspective.
...and nobody ever changing their views anyways, no matter how good the
arguments are.
TJT
I just gave Joe 1 star from each of his post in this thread, it took
around one minute. This rating system is truly worthless. I, alone could
rate Joe couple stars lower in one hour or so...simply by clicking his
name at googlegroups and start clicking away. I'd think it would be
possible to rate 15 messages/minute...or make a bot do it. Or MSI
installer with couple user names at google groups. We're talking about
thousands of one star ratings.
Or I could do the same for myself, upping my rank to 5 stars.
That's how useless those ratings are. Referring to them is an insult to
human intelligence, Joe.
Ugh, I've spoken.
Sao Paulo Swallow
> > josephmrami...@netzero.com (Joe Ramirez)
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ceibs. I rarely see that term ... except from Whisper.
Joe Ramirez
>
> > GOAT threads, now THAT'S 'completely worthless'.
>
> Yes, especially considering that they're full of ceibs, nearly everybody
> discussing in those lacking with historical perspective.
Not necessarily a lack of historical perspective, just a refusal to
attempt to compare the incommensurable. For example, you like to weigh
Laver's pro achievements heavily, but most tennis experts find it hard
to measure them against the "standard" reference points of the modern
game, hence the emphasis on the open era. Personally, I am usually
clear about specifying that I'm talking about the open era only
whenever I get involved in a GOAT discussion. That doesn't mean
players from earlier eras weren't great too.
> ...and nobody ever changing their views anyways, no matter how good the
> arguments are.
I must disagree here, because the GOAT debate is one of the few areas
in which there *is* some movement of opinion over time. Granted, it's
due mostly to on-court occurrences rather than simple persuasion.
Still, views do change, and players move up the list.
Joe Ramirez
TJT
What you're trying to say is rather hard to Swallow.
Raja
>
> - Show quoted text -
Everybody is fixated with beauties. Some get even obssessed. I am not
that obssessed.
Raja
> > Thanks. I have my opinions and can be stubborn. But I dont act like a
> > jackass and go talking about other people's personal lives.
>
> you are far worse, because you deluge the ng with insipid, irrelevant
> rock lists the sole aim of which is to promote Yes.
promote Yes. Why do I need to. They are unamimously considered the
greatest progressive rock band ever.
Sao Paulo Swallow
>
> - Show quoted text -
Another bad pun. You're making my case for me.
Joe Ramirez
>
> > Google Groups has a rating system that allows anyone to rate newsgroup
> > posts on a scale of one to five stars. The system displays the average
> > rating and total number of ratings for each poster.
>
> > It turns out that RST has a lot of posters with the lowest possible
> > average rating, one star. The ratings are Usenet-wide and can't be
> > limited to a single group (as far as I know -- don't want to spend more
> > than five minutes on this), but most RST members seem to make this their
> > primary home, so I suppose the averages are still meaningful. Here's the
> > snapshot, as of today, of the worst posters. :)
> > All have one-star averages.
>
> > 1. Whisper -- 4,281 ratings
> > 2. TJT -- 2,733 ratings
> > 3. allr1 -- 1,821 ratings
> > 4. RuPEDski -- 994 ratings
> > 5. Dr. GroundAxe -- 977 ratings
> > 6. Raja -- 864 ratings
>
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > I'M A STAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > (third Star from the one)
>
> > =====================================
>
>
> > After that there seems to be a big drop-off to other one-star posters
> > who are not as active, such as WAY2GOOD and *skriptis, plus guys who
> > have recently changed e-mail addresses, such as Jaros and bob.
>
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> > If I gave a S--t about Google's rating system,
> > I'd probably just do the same. (change addy)
>
> > But sorry Josey, this has been tried before
> > by the pied piper of Sophism, Andy. (along
> > with the tactic of going after when I posted)
>
> > Peer pressure bounces right off me. (I'm
> > Uber-Man)
>
> > Especially when those 'peers' are a bunch of hackers that get all anal
> > about records and the
> > like, but don't know jack about what really happens on a Tennis court.
>
> I just gave Joe 1 star from each of his post in this thread, it took
> around one minute. This rating system is truly worthless. I, alone could
> rate Joe couple stars lower in one hour or so...simply by clicking his
> name at googlegroups and start clicking away. I'd think it would be
> possible to rate 15 messages/minute...or make a bot do it. Or MSI
> installer with couple user names at google groups. We're talking about
> thousands of one star ratings.
> Or I could do the same for myself, upping my rank to 5 stars.
First of all, no one is confusing Google ratings with a scientific
survey. But even for casual consideration, there's a difference
between what *could* happen and what actually *did* happen. If it were
plausible that one guy had spent who knows how long giving Whisper
each of his 4,000+ bad ratings -- if ballot stuffing to an absolutely
incredible degree did occur -- then yes, the ratings would be utterly
useless. But that's not plausible. I think there is a degree of
community consensus expressed in them even if it's partially corrupted
by bias and some attempted manipulation. It's not a black or white
issue.
>
> That's how useless those ratings are. Referring to them is an insult to
> human intelligence, Joe.
On the contrary, this thread has certainly made you think. In fact,
this thread is far above average for RST in terms of intelligent
discussion, even if some of it is angry. And speaking of "insults to
intelligence," I noticed you chiming in approvingly when GroundAxe
posted a picture of a pigeon with Federer's head on it. That's your
idea of the sort of useful, intelligent debate we should be having?
Joe Ramirez
TJT
In that case I'll have to swallow my words, Swallow.
Whisper
> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> On May 19, 1:01 pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 19 May, 16:37, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Google Groups has a rating system that allows anyone to rate newsgroup
>>>> posts on a scale of one to five stars. The system displays the average
>>>> rating and total number of ratings for each poster.
>>>> It turns out that RST has a lot of posters with the lowest possible
>>>> average rating, one star. The ratings are Usenet-wide and can't be
>>>> limited to a single group (as far as I know -- don't want to spend
>>>> more than five minutes on this), but most RST members seem to make
>>>> this their primary home, so I suppose the averages are still
>>>> meaningful. Here's the snapshot, as of today, of the worst
>>>> posters. :) All have one-star averages.
>>>> 1. Whisper -- 4,281 ratings
>>>> 2. TJT -- 2,733 ratings
>>>> 3. allr1 -- 1,821 ratings
>>>> 4. RuPEDski -- 994 ratings
>>>> 5. Dr. GroundAxe -- 977 ratings
>>>> 6. Raja -- 864 ratings
>
> appears so if you look who are leading the list, especially top 2.
>
>
>>> guess that most of those ratings are down to vendettas from a small
>>> number of posters.
>
> Some time back I lowered my geekyness to a level of actually using
> Google groups occasionally...Was somewhat surprised by my rating. My
> first thought was exactly that: Vendetta by very few posters. In fact my
> instant reaction was that "wow that Dave is quite mad" ;)
>
> But then again further looking at who do have low ratings, it's apparent
> that many of those who have low ratings are Nadal fans...Most posters
> here are federites and I have no doubt my straightforward comments have
> pissed a few along the road.
Exactly. This ng is infested with Fedfuckers. Think about it - the
guys casting votes think Fed is the clay god.
Whisper
> On May 19, 2:28 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>> "Joe Ramirez" <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote in message
>>
>> On May 19, 1:43 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Joe Ramirez" <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4bb9ad32-5c2a-4445...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> posts on a scale of one to five stars. The system displays the average
>>>> rating and total number of ratings for each poster.
>>>> It turns out that RST has a lot of posters with the lowest possible
>>>> average rating, one star. The ratings are Usenet-wide and can't be
>>>> limited to a single group (as far as I know -- don't want to spend
>>>> more than five minutes on this), but most RST members seem to make
>>>> this their primary home, so I suppose the averages are still
>>>> meaningful. Here's the snapshot, as of today, of the worst
>>>> posters. :) All have one-star averages.
>>>> 1. Whisper -- 4,281 ratings
>>>> 2. TJT -- 2,733 ratings
>>>> 3. allr1 -- 1,821 ratings
>>>> 4. RuPEDski -- 994 ratings
>>>> 5. Dr. GroundAxe -- 977 ratings
>>>> 6. Raja -- 864 ratings
>>>> who are not as active, such as WAY2GOOD and *skriptis, plus guys who
>>>> have recently changed e-mail addresses, such as Jaros and bob.
>> Start a thread like that.
>
> RST frequently has discussions about posting statistics, also courtesy
> of Google data. Whisper recently boasted about being RST's number one
> poster, in fact. The ratings information is at least as interesting as
> the info about posting volume, and is just as easy to get.
>
> Joe Ramirez
It's hardly a fair trial - I'm being judged by Fedfuckers for chrissakes.
Whisper
>>> Joe Ramirez
>> So you actually started this thread to bash us Nadal fans.
>
> No. In fact, I think you're the only actual "Nadal fan" who turned up
> on the list. Those other guys certainly aren't. Hating Federer doesn't
> make someone a Nadal fan.
>
>
Criticizing Fed in any way guarantees 1 star.
Whisper
>>>>> On May 19, 1:01 pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 19 May, 16:37, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> posts on a scale of one to five stars. The system displays the average
>>>>>>> rating and total number of ratings for each poster.
>>>>>>> It turns out that RST has a lot of posters with the lowest possible
>>>>>>> average rating, one star. The ratings are Usenet-wide and can't be
>>>>>>> limited to a single group (as far as I know -- don't want to spend
>>>>>>> more than five minutes on this), but most RST members seem to make
>>>>>>> this their primary home, so I suppose the averages are still
>>>>>>> meaningful. Here's the snapshot, as of today, of the worst
>>>>>>> posters. :) All have one-star averages.
>>>>>>> 1. Whisper -- 4,281 ratings
>>>>>>> 2. TJT -- 2,733 ratings
>>>>>>> 3. allr1 -- 1,821 ratings
>>>>>>> 4. RuPEDski -- 994 ratings
>>>>>>> 5. Dr. GroundAxe -- 977 ratings
>>>>>>> 6. Raja -- 864 ratings
>>>> appears so if you look who are leading the list, especially top 2.
>>> way out. :)
>>>>>> guess that most of those ratings are down to vendettas from a small
>>>>>> number of posters.
>>>> Some time back I lowered my geekyness to a level of actually using
>>>> Google groups occasionally...Was somewhat surprised by my rating. My
>>>> first thought was exactly that: Vendetta by very few posters. In fact my
>>>> instant reaction was that "wow that Dave is quite mad" ;)
>>>> But then again further looking at who do have low ratings, it's apparent
>>>> that many of those who have low ratings are Nadal fans...Most posters
>>>> here are federites and I have no doubt my straightforward comments have
>>>> pissed a few along the road.
>>> affects the ratings. Otherwise, you'd expect Hazelwood to be among the
>>> one-star people.
>> Dave's not pro-Federer?
>>
>> However, that's probably not the only factor. Other
>>
>>> factors apparent from the list are routinely putting up dumb,
>>> illogical, or dishonest posts, and/or often being exceptionally
>>> obnoxious or insulting.
>>> Joe Ramirez
>> Now you're giving those ratings way too much respect. Is this why you
>> started this topic, you believe there's actually some truth in those
>> ratings?
>
> I think people who vote must be responding to more than just what
> *skriptis delightfully calls the "non-fedfucking" aspect of the many
> different posts that get low ratings. Set aside that aspect, and leave
> yourself out for the moment as well. What do you see that's left?
> everyone), Raja (rock lists) -- what's your reaction? No, I don't
> think Google ratings convey "truth." But I do think that they provide
> interesting information about the way Usenet responds to certain types
> of posts and posters, and that the reaction goes beyond a mere bias
> against "non-fedfuckers."
>
> Joe Ramirez
It's obvious this ng is infested with biased fedfuckers, & every time
they see my face it's automatic 1 star without judging content
objectively. Completely worthless list.
Whisper
>
> Yes, my point is just that there could be reasons for people to get
> low ratings *other than* the fact that they are not "fedfuckers." It
> bugs me when supposed anti-anti-Federer bias is used to explain away
> any sort of objection to some of the junk that appears here. Raja
> himself ascribes his low ratings to activity in the music groups.
>
> Joe Ramirez
Hazel casts most of the votes - what's there to analyze?
Gracchus
Is that a passage from the New Testament?
Whisper
> Ceibs. I rarely see that term ... except from Whisper.
You see it all the time - it's the terminology you don't see.
RuPEDski
"*skriptis" <skri...@post.t-com.hr> wrote in message
news:g0si54$7hs$1...@ss408.t-com.hr...
>
> "Joe Ramirez" <josephm...@netzero.com> wrote in message
> news:b381fbc6-3a8e-4eab...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> non-fedfuckers.
> This is something everyone here would expect Hazel to post, not you.
LOL! Don't bother arguing with troll Joe. If his logic is so poor (and
apparently it is: ie. "you can't say it's impossible that some people
weren't rated down due to non-fed worshiping reasons!") that he actually
puts any faith in these rankings or assigns them any meaning whatsoever,
then he's a simpleton beyond all hope. I WISH they had meaning. Being
unpopular on an internet forum usually means you're more intelligent and not
afraid to say the truth regardless of whether it's popular or not. I fulfill
both requirements but I doubt these ratings are reflective of that.
Joe Ramirez
I've already stated in this thread that I agree that some anti-anti-
Federer bias appears evident. (You, on the other hand, don't seem able
to recognize that the use of the term "fedfucker" indicates a very
strong bias on the part of anyone who uses it.) Exactly how much
impact it has, no one can say. If you want to chalk up *all* your low
ratings to the malicious actions of "fedfuckers," please comfort
yourself. But I think that's probably a delusion.
Maybe if you'd actually eaten crow about the bad Roddick prediction,
as you promised you would, you'd have gotten a lot of five-star
ratings. :)
Joe Ramirez
RuPEDski
*******************************
I'm sure it is to you. You were also the kid who when debating would get
angry and hurt and lash out at the smarter kids "nobody likes you!!!". Too
bad you haven't progressed much and still think that's a valid, and
"intelligent" line of discussion.
zepf...@yahoo.com
> "Joe Ramirez" <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey I see you already got 8 one star for this one post. Keep going.
TJT
Of course that is plausible. Amount is not incredible at all. Someone
could have 100 times 3 stars...then someone could pad their record by
voting 301 times for 1(star) or 5(stars) to get either one they wanted
as an average rating. From 3 to 1 or 5, easy.
I wouldn't like to mention certain person again, but either he's voting
himself, or the general public here really is incredibly dumb (or
perhaps have wicked sense of humour...but then again Whisper getting 1
disproves that).
I think there is a degree of
> community consensus expressed in them even if it's partially corrupted
> by bias and some attempted manipulation. It's not a black or white
> issue.
There sure is a lot of bias, it's reflected to "rankings" by majority
here being federites.
If there is this very plausible chance of vote padding and bias, you
really should not make comments such as you made of the quality of
posts/more personal comments of those who have one star. That makes you
just look revengeful or whatever your motives were for the ill
characterization.
>
>> That's how useless those ratings are. Referring to them is an insult to
>> human intelligence, Joe.
>
> On the contrary, this thread has certainly made you think. In fact,
> this thread is far above average for RST in terms of intelligent
> discussion, even if some of it is angry. And speaking of "insults to
> intelligence," I noticed you chiming in approvingly when GroundAxe
> posted a picture of a pigeon with Federer's head on it. That's your
> idea of the sort of useful, intelligent debate we should be having?
>
> Joe Ramirez
>
What makes you think that I'd consider a humorous picture as an
intelligent debate.
Ummmm...picture tells more than thousand words?
RuPEDski
<zepf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2744a0d3-e0f3-4fca...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
ROFL!!!! In the 1st few minutes? Thanks for proving my point! Priceless and
perfect!!!
robin
> <zepflo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
There you go Rupedski - 5 stars for you!
This thread is an abortion, to be honest.
TJT
Best comment of the thread. Whispy strikes again! :)
TJT
I posted this reply like 5 minutes ago and have 9 votes averaging one
star. People do read my posts, wow!
TJT
Now it's eleven votes. I need few more votes people, keep those fingers
clicking now...
robin
5 stars for you too !
TJT
I lead by 12, from a one-liner...I'm less mainstream than you.
TJT
But eternal glory for bravery
TJT
And not only that...they use Google Groups!
Iceberg
Yes, the voting down of Whisper etc isn't just from Fedfans, the Sampras
Detractors are obviously out in force too, mind you, can you even get one
without the other?
robin
> "Joe Ramirez" <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote in message
Yes, if you are a fan of Federer it means that you must hate Sampras.
The idea of someone being a fan of both Federer *and* Sampras is just
an impossibility. Either that, or you are the biggest dumbfuck in the
whole newsgroup. I wonder which is more likely?
TJT
22 VOTES
Thank you guys!
DavidW
> Google Groups has a rating system that allows anyone to rate newsgroup
> posts on a scale of one to five stars. The system displays the average
> rating and total number of ratings for each poster.
>
> It turns out that RST has a lot of posters with the lowest possible
> average rating, one star. The ratings are Usenet-wide and can't be
> limited to a single group (as far as I know -- don't want to spend
> more than five minutes on this), but most RST members seem to make
> this their primary home, so I suppose the averages are still
> meaningful. Here's the snapshot, as of today, of the worst
> posters. :) All have one-star averages.
>
> 1. Whisper -- 4,281 ratings
> 2. TJT -- 2,733 ratings
> 3. allr1 -- 1,821 ratings
> 4. RuPEDski -- 994 ratings
> 5. Dr. GroundAxe -- 977 ratings
> 6. Raja -- 864 ratings
>
> who are not as active, such as WAY2GOOD and *skriptis, plus guys who
> have recently changed e-mail addresses, such as Jaros and bob.
I've just figured out the real, much more subtle, purpose of this thread.
pedr...@snip.net
Again, I call bullshit. Also Rochambeau.
Plenty of us have criticized Federer plenty. We just don't do it
reflexively and irrationally. Like, say, you.
Criticizing Federer does *not* mean subscribing to blinkered stupidity
like 7543.
Criticizing Federer does not mean swallowing statistical idiocies like
"Clown Era".
Criticizing Federer does not mean declaring his career over every time
he loses a match.
Criticizing Federer - *intelligently* - mostly seems to mean not being
you. And not being *like* you. TJT, for instance, is a perfectly
rational poster who goes entirely off the rails whenever he latches on
to one of your pet ideas. bobbiekins... poor, poor bobbie-pooh. He'd
be perfectly pleasant if you didn't exist. For that matter, the world,
and Usenet's little sliver of it, would as well.
Joe Ramirez
> This thread is an abortion, to be honest.
Interesting, since you've made several contributions to it before that
one. But controversy always brings criticism, so I'll bite: why?
Unreliable data? Undiplomatic implications? Rudeness? Those normally
aren't considered barriers in RST.
I don't see the benefit of a taboo on looking at information of this
type, imperfect though it is. In fact, it seems to me that we could
use more, not less, discussion of the patterns in the material that
appears in RST. We get huge numbers of posts here that consist of
little beyond profanities and/or insults, sometimes directed at
players, sometimes directed at other posters, and often both. We have
many pairs of people who interact with each other only through a
steady stream of abuse. Why is it acceptable to call someone a
fedfucker (or Sampras-fucker, or whatever) a thousand times but not to
ask whether 1,000 posts' worth of such accusations are of any value?
I think it would be helpful if people at least wondered whether they
might be generally regarded as low-grade posters if they waste 200
posts on "Federina is a wimp! LOL" or "Fed is gay" or "Nadal is a
cockaroach" or "HA HA HA" or "You're a virgin!" or just a litany of
blowhard boasts and insults. Do I think that will happen? Most likely
not. People will write what they write and rationalize any objections
as bias; too bad.
Joe Ramirez
Dave Hazelwood
>Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> On May 19, 2:08 pm, TJT <the...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Joe Ramirez wrote:
>>>> On May 19, 1:01 pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 19 May, 16:37, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Google Groups has a rating system that allows anyone to rate newsgroup
>>>>>> posts on a scale of one to five stars. The system displays the average
>>>>>> rating and total number of ratings for each poster.
>>>>>> It turns out that RST has a lot of posters with the lowest possible
>>>>>> average rating, one star. The ratings are Usenet-wide and can't be
>>>>>> limited to a single group (as far as I know -- don't want to spend
>>>>>> more than five minutes on this), but most RST members seem to make
>>>>>> this their primary home, so I suppose the averages are still
>>>>>> meaningful. Here's the snapshot, as of today, of the worst
>>>>>> posters. :) All have one-star averages.
>>>>>> 1. Whisper -- 4,281 ratings
>>>>>> 2. TJT -- 2,733 ratings
>>>>>> 3. allr1 -- 1,821 ratings
>>>>>> 4. RuPEDski -- 994 ratings
>>>>>> 5. Dr. GroundAxe -- 977 ratings
>>>>>> 6. Raja -- 864 ratings
>Hopefully you're not including my sorry ass in that group. Wouldn't like
>that at all.
why not ? you belong there. actually you belong even lower but whisper
is blocking the hole.
Dave Hazelwood
wrote:
>On May 19, 3:42 pm, stephenj <s...@cox.com> wrote:
>> > Thanks. I have my opinions and can be stubborn. But I dont act like a
>> > jackass and go talking about other people's personal lives.
>>
>> you are far worse, because you deluge the ng with insipid, irrelevant
>> rock lists the sole aim of which is to promote Yes.
>
>promote Yes. Why do I need to. They are unamimously considered the
>greatest progressive rock band ever.
>
>>
>> laughably bad poster ...
>>
>> --
>> the Roosevelt administration .. has used the war to justify
>> restrictions of Congressional power, and the assumption of
>> dictatorial procedures on the part of the President and his
>> appointees.
>>
>> - Charles A. Lindbergh, 9/11/41
yes ? i never heard of them. are they from australia too ?
Dave Hazelwood
wrote:
>Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> I think people who vote must be responding to more than just what
>> *skriptis delightfully calls the "non-fedfucking" aspect of the many
>> different posts that get low ratings. Set aside that aspect, and leave
>> yourself out for the moment as well. What do you see that's left?
>> allr1 (musclemania), GroundAxe (hates everything), RuPEDski (hates
>> everyone), Raja (rock lists) -- what's your reaction? No, I don't
>> think Google ratings convey "truth." But I do think that they provide
>> interesting information about the way Usenet responds to certain types
>> of posts and posters, and that the reaction goes beyond a mere bias
>> against "non-fedfuckers."
>>
>> Joe Ramirez
>
>
>It's obvious this ng is infested with biased fedfuckers, & every time
>they see my face it's automatic 1 star without judging content
>objectively. Completely worthless list.
content ?
ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Dave Hazelwood
Not me pal but i strongly suspect you are an aoler.
Dave Hazelwood
<blueska...@aol.com> wrote:
>On May 19, 1:07 pm, Sao Paulo Swallow <Sao_Paulo_Swal...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>> On May 19, 9:37 am, Joe Ramirez <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Google Groups has a rating system that allows anyone to rate newsgroup
>> > posts on a scale of one to five stars. The system displays the average
>> > rating and total number of ratings for each poster.
>>
>> > It turns out that RST has a lot of posters with the lowest possible
>> > average rating, one star. The ratings are Usenet-wide and can't be
>> > limited to a single group (as far as I know -- don't want to spend
>> > more than five minutes on this), but most RST members seem to make
>> > this their primary home, so I suppose the averages are still
>> > meaningful. Here's the snapshot, as of today, of the worst
>> > posters. :) All have one-star averages.
>>
>> > 1. Whisper -- 4,281 ratings
>> > 2. TJT -- 2,733 ratings
>> > 3. allr1 -- 1,821 ratings
>> > 4. RuPEDski -- 994 ratings
>> > 5. Dr. GroundAxe -- 977 ratings
>> > 6. Raja -- 864 ratings
>>
>> > After that there seems to be a big drop-off to other one-star posters
>> > who are not as active, such as WAY2GOOD and *skriptis, plus guys who
>> > have recently changed e-mail addresses, such as Jaros and bob.
>>
>> > Joe Ramirez
>>
>> Speaking of RST stats: TJT is just a few posts behind Whisper this
>> month, and Hazelwood is a distant third. But who is the "locker room"
>> number 1?
>
>That would be me.
can i be your fan fucker ? send me a pair of yout pt's !
Dave Hazelwood
<robins...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 19 May, 19:12, TJT <the...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> So you actually started this thread to bash us Nadal fans. Well done,
>> would've expected more from you.
>>
>
>The reason you are thought of as an obnoxious jerk has *nothing* to do
>with you being a Nadal fan. The fact that you continuously post bile
>about Federer is, however. Does your simple mind comprehend the
>difference?
>
>> Now tell us why Hazelwood doesn't have one star, because of quality of
>> his posts or because he's so unbiased and kind and every way better
>> person than yours truly.
>
>Hazel doesn't have one star because it is Hazel that does most of the
>voting. I'd have thought that was obvious. In terms of behaving like
>jerks, you are both as bad as each other.
>
Hardly. it's because of my superior intellect, captivating content and
way with women.
Dave Hazelwood
wrote:
>Joe Ramirez wrote:
>> On May 19, 2:28 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>> "Joe Ramirez" <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:79dd6a00-a76a-4286...@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> On May 19, 1:43 pm, "*skriptis" <skrip...@post.t-com.hr> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Joe Ramirez" <josephmrami...@netzero.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4bb9ad32-5c2a-4445...@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Google Groups has a rating system that allows anyone to rate newsgroup
>>>>> posts on a scale of one to five stars. The system displays the average
>>>>> rating and total number of ratings for each poster.
>>>>> It turns out that RST has a lot of posters with the lowest possible
>>>>> average rating, one star. The ratings are Usenet-wide and can't be
>>>>> limited to a single group (as far as I know -- don't want to spend
>>>>> more than five minutes on this), but most RST members seem to make
>>>>> this their primary home, so I suppose the averages are still
>>>>> meaningful. Here's the snapshot, as of today, of the worst
>>>>> posters. :) All have one-star averages.
>>>>> 1. Whisper -- 4,281 ratings
>>>>> 2. TJT -- 2,733 ratings
>>>>> 3. allr1 -- 1,821 ratings
>>>>> 4. RuPEDski -- 994 ratings
>>>>> 5. Dr. GroundAxe -- 977 ratings
>>>>> 6. Raja -- 864 ratings
>>>>> After that there seems to be a big drop-off to other one-star posters
>>>>> who are not as active, such as WAY2GOOD and *skriptis, plus guys who
>>>>> have recently changed e-mail addresses, such as Jaros and bob.
>>>> Why do you do that?
>>>> Why do I do what?
>>> Start a thread like that.
>>
>> RST frequently has discussions about posting statistics, also courtesy
>> of Google data. Whisper recently boasted about being RST's number one
>> poster, in fact. The ratings information is at least as interesting as
>> the info about posting volume, and is just as easy to get.
>>
>> Joe Ramirez
>
>
>It's hardly a fair trial - I'm being judged by Fedfuckers for chrissakes.
tell it to the judge.
robin
> On May 19, 6:42 pm, robin <robinson.n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This thread is an abortion, to be honest.
>
> Interesting, since you've made several contributions to it before that
> one. But controversy always brings criticism, so I'll bite: why?
> Unreliable data? Undiplomatic implications? Rudeness? Those normally
> aren't considered barriers in RST.
>
Undiplomatic implications and rudeness are not the issue. As far as
I'm concerned, unreliable data is. I just don't think that google
ratings are a good way of assessing the quality of posters. But, more
importantly, threads like these are exactly what the handful of jerks
that post here want. They get to look like the reasonable ones being
attacked. Then they can act even more like jerks.
> I don't see the benefit of a taboo on looking at information of this
> type, imperfect though it is. In fact, it seems to me that we could
> use more, not less, discussion of the patterns in the material that
> appears in RST. We get huge numbers of posts here that consist of
> little beyond profanities and/or insults, sometimes directed at
> players, sometimes directed at other posters, and often both. We have
> many pairs of people who interact with each other only through a
> steady stream of abuse. Why is it acceptable to call someone a
> fedfucker (or Sampras-fucker, or whatever) a thousand times but not to
> ask whether 1,000 posts' worth of such accusations are of any value?
You are always going to get jerks like RuPEDski in any newsgroup. In
any walk of life, for that matter. Some people get a kick out of being
unpleasant to others. Not much that can achieved through analysing it,
in my opinion. At least here.
I personally think it's more an issue of western, highly individualist
societies. Especially the anglo-saxon derived ones. If the individual,
pride and ego are all important; it's hardly surprising asshole
behaviour is so common; and many of us are guilty of it to greater or
lesser extents. But that's not really a discussion for rst.
>
> I think it would be helpful if people at least wondered whether they
> might be generally regarded as low-grade posters if they waste 200
> posts on "Federina is a wimp! LOL" or "Fed is gay" or "Nadal is a
> cockaroach" or "HA HA HA" or "You're a virgin!" or just a litany of
> blowhard boasts and insults. Do I think that will happen? Most likely
> not. People will write what they write and rationalize any objections
> as bias; too bad.
>
Most of the, for want of a better word, 'trolls' are either too thick
skinned (whisper, groundaxe) or too retarded (allr1) to consider such
things.
> Joe Ramirez