After rewatching Moneyball...and thinking of the BY

[Adesmar123]

I want to put my reading time towards the better posters. What is an appropriate statistic to measure this? I think it might be the well established Like per Post ratio (L/P). Although I did not find reference to the L/P ratio in Sabermetrics, I think it can be a predictive measurement of BY reading pleasure.

Which BY poster has the highest L/P ratio?

Of course there is some distinction to be made on when those likes were earned. Someone who got a lot of likes in their earlier posts and has dropped in recent years may not be prolific as someone who has consistently received likes. So I am thinking of changing that ratio to L/P/100 with 100 being the last 100 posts.

My thought was that a L/P of 6.26 would be a good benchmark. I would be willing to read posts with an SD of 1.78 from the benchmark.

 

[meyers7]

I want to put my reading time towards the better posters. What is an appropriate statistic to measure this?

Whichever statistic makes me look good.

(it would have to be quite a metric though )

 

[RegisteredUconn]

I want to put my reading time towards the better posters. What is an appropriate statistic to measure this? I think it might be the well established Like per Post ratio (L/P). Although I did not find reference to the L/P ratio in Sabermetrics, I think it can be a predictive measurement of BY reading pleasure.

Which BY poster has the highest L/P ratio?

Of course there is some distinction to be made on when those likes were earned. Someone who got a lot of likes in their earlier posts and has dropped in recent years may not be prolific as someone who has consistently received likes. So I am thinking of changing that ratio to L/P/100 with 100 being the last 100 posts.

I like where this seems to be going: better use of scarce attention resources.

I'd condition your measurement based on the number of likes the thread receives. I would guess game threads, for example, generate fewer likes due to their quick hit and move on nature. Posters who participate heavily in game threads could suffer an undeservedly low L/P.

 

[alexrgct]

Who does it for the "likes"? DavidinNaples for sure- his posts are "likable". PinotBear- he's a silly ol' bear, after all, and that gets the likes. DoggyDaddy? Well, he's fairly aggressive with his optimistic posts that people want to read in any given context. He's also aggressive with LV posters who end up here, much to the relative delight of some BYers.

As for me, I was proud to exceed 3,000 likes recently, but my L/P ratio would be considered frightfully puny. Similarly, the worst such ratio belongs to IceBear. He has the most total likes of any poster on the BY, but the ratio suffers from his 50,000,000 posts.

 

[Adesmar123]

[quote="
As for me, I was proud to exceed 3,000 likes recently, but my L/P ration would be considered frightfully puny. Similarly, the worst such ratio belongs to IceBear. He has the most total likes of any poster on the BY, but the ratio suffers from his 50,000,000 posts.[/quote]

The L/P ( or L/P/100) ratio is only meant to be a scarce attention resources application measurement as Registered UConn pointed out. It does not measure quality and so has its limitations.

 

[semper]

How sad....some of us don't have time to be genius posters, but love the game and UCONN wbb, and like to be part of things, even though we get few "likes." Even the BY will be about the haves and have nots. Deep sigh.

 

[alexrgct]

How sad....some of us don't have time to be genius posters, but love the game and UCONN wbb, and like to be part of things, even though we get few "likes." Even the BY will be about the haves and have nots. Deep sigh.

Too sentimental...DISLIKE!!!

 

[RegisteredUconn]

How sad....some of us don't have time to be genius posters, but love the game and UCONN wbb, and like to be part of things, even though we get few "likes." Even the BY will be about the haves and have nots. Deep sigh.

Hope your "sad...sigh" is as tongue-in-cheek as the OP seems to be.

 

[intlzncster]

I want to put my reading time towards the better posters. What is an appropriate statistic to measure this? I think it might be the well established Like per Post ratio (L/P). Although I did not find reference to the L/P ratio in Sabermetrics, I think it can be a predictive measurement of BY reading pleasure.

The best method is to judge by the quality of the Avatar. Looks like you (and I) are on the ignore list.

Unless you consider those WITH avatars to be the self centered lot. Then we are both in the money.

Which method is better is up for debate.

 

[Icebear]

I'm a volume shooter.

 

[DobbsRover2]

Likes are way overrated and are simply a measure of how many subliminal messages (Press that Like button or I'll rip your lungs out) that you put in your comments and how many of those damned mrnic smileybuttns you use. I never use any of that stuff so I get no Likes. I do however get a lot of Ignores, which is the true sign of how worthwhile a poster you are since it takes other posters extra work to ignore you, a great sacrifice of precious resource time. Today I'm going to be coming out with a ton more messages about statistical trends and that should get my Ignore score up past those Summitt infiltrators who snuck their way to the top recently.

 

[Icebear]

Don't worry, Dobbs, I keep working hard to keep your likes up.

 

[semper]

Hope your "sad...sigh" is as tongue-in-cheek as the OP seems to be.

Yes, I was trying to be funny. Thanks for getting it! The sigh for the haves and have nots is real though...

 

[Kibitzer]

Posters who participate heavily in game threads could suffer an undeservedly low L/P.

Some posters who participate heavily in game threads (e.g.: "Another missed trey by Steph! What's she doing out there?!?") fully deserve their low L/P.

[This comment is not applicable to the ones who are able to watch the streaming game and graciously provide score updates to those of us who are in the dark, so to speak.]

 

[semper]

PS, Dobbs, I love the past perfect "snuck," as if it all they are worthy of getting from your conjugation stockpile!

 

[DobbsRover2]

PS, Dobbs, I love the past perfect "snuck," as if it all they are worthy of getting from your conjugation stockpile!

I was debating about snuck or slunk, but thought the second would be demeaning for those other decent creatures slunking around Tennessee that consider the Summitteers to be lower forms of vermin.