Member Contribution Analysis: A Case Study

[DaveC426913]

In the 'Evidence that God is real' thread, James R separated out what he considers off-topic posts from on-topic posts.

I find that intriguing. It lends itself to a little bit of analysis, in my opinion. We have a hot topic, with a large dataset of over 1000 posts, but limited to a very manageable number of contributors (33).

Frankly, this did not break out how I thought it would, and because of that, I've chosen to post it for all. I don't think it disparages anyone in particular, but is fascinating nonetheless.

Now, take this with a grain of salt: the distinction between on-topic and off-topic was JamesR's alone, so this chart is necessarily a reflection of that.

All this data is publicly available here:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/evidence-that-god-is-real.161157/
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/off-topic-posts-from-the-evidence-that-god-is-real-thread.161216/
(data only covers posts up to the time of separation at 7:48PM, Thurs Oct 26)
Please forgive any name misspellings.

I will leave it in the hands of the mods as to whether this thread remains open.

 

[DaveC426913]

In my estimation, the highest quality contributor to this thread is ... QuantumQuack. He posted 37 times (almost exactly average) but 100% of his posts were on-topic.

(With the exception of one meta-post, while wearing a moderator hat, JamesR would have 61 posts, with 100% on-topicality, but I've presumed upon him to recuse himself from qualifying in his own thread.)

 

[DaveC426913]

Something to note: this is not a very fair analysis, counting only number of posts. Many on-topic posts are pages long. That would skew the results differently. A better (but practically impossible) analysis would use word-count, or at least line count.

 

[James R]

I'd like to say that this thread is entirely DaveC's baby. I'm merely another poster here.

I expect the inevitable complaint that this is totally biased because I was the person who split off posts to the "off-topic" thread, which is fair enough.

I also expect the complaint that my judgment about what was and wasn't on-topic for the thread is faulty.

Take one example: I moved quite a few of Jan Ardena's posts to the off-topic thread because they consisted of little more than repetitive exortations to (and I'm paraphrasing here) "Google William Lane Craig. You'll find my evidence in the search result, somewhere." Jan would no doubt argue that this repetitive nonsense is, in fact, on topic.

Some posts that were moved were also fallout from Jan's antics. For example, if Jan wrote "But I did provide evidence. Go google William Lane Craig" and somebody else replied "Telling us to search google isn't providing evidence", and that went back and forth 10 or 20 times, then the posts from both parties mostly ended up in the off-topic thread, which might give an unfair impression that the people urging Jan to provide the evidence he claimed to have were posting off-topic. In other words, these kinds of posts, while arguably not off-topic, were moved because they created useless, repetitive clutter in the thread, not advancing the discussion.

I did leave enough examples of Jan's evasiveness in the thread to leave a record demonstrating his lack of good faith there.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes. I take full b̶l̶a̶m̶e̶ credit for the data-wrangling and analysis. And I concur that the litmus test of on/off topicality is somewhat arbitrary.

I could have plotted this out differently (there are lots of options). Instead of percent on-topic as the X axis, I could have just has number on-topic. Then both axes would be open-ended.

 

[DaveC426913]

Same data, different visualization.

Shows On-topic posts as a function of Total posts.
Axes are logarithmic (less weight on absolute count).

Not all points are identified.
Opponents of thread thesis (loosely, theist* camp) are in orange.
Proponents of thread thesis (loosely, atheist* camp) are in blue.
* only as far as I could identify. Raise your hand if I misidentified you.
Also, yes, these are binary, confining labels.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Well, in my estimation I should have got 100% on the awesomesauce --would have voted for me all the way!

In contrast, I'm a lot more intrigued on making a personal mechanical pencil and a pen with a 3D printer. I think my first post in the thread was a Brickleberry video...

OK... um...

 

[James R]

Same data, different visualization.

Shows On-topic posts as a function of Total posts.
Axes are logarithmic (less weight on absolute count).

Not all points are identified.
Opponents of thread thesis (loosely, theist* camp) are in orange.
Proponents of thread thesis (loosely, atheist* camp) are in blue.
* only as far as I could identify. Raise your hand if I misidentified you.
Also, yes, these are binary, confining labels.


View attachment 2212

I think this is a much clearer way to present the data. I should probably try to work out why that is.

I suppose it's that you can immediately see where posters fall relative to the 50%, 75% and 100% lines.

I suppose you tried it with a linear scale, too? Does that separate the data points too much, or make those 50%, 75%, 100% lines too close together?

Out of interest, what software did you use to make the plot?

 

[DaveC426913]

I think this is a much clearer way to present the data. I should probably try to work out why that is.

I think so too.

Hm. Except it's not right.
Musika's score is 70.2%, yet my graph, above, shows him above the 75% line.
I suspect that the 75% and 50% lines should not be straight. They should gently flatten out.
Unfortunately, for reasons that will become apparent as you continue to read, that is easier said than done.

I suppose you tried it with a linear scale, too? Does that separate the data points too much, or make those 50%, 75%, 100% lines too close together?

Using a linear graph just squishes it all into the lower left corner.




I haven't yet figured out a way of spreading the data points out so you can see them. Logarithmic does that the best.

Out of interest, what software did you use to make the plot?

That would be Google Spreadsheet and Photoshop.

Google Spreadsheet does all the data plotting and stuff; I have to apply the 100%, 75% and 50% lines - as well as member labels - in PS.

 

[DaveC426913]

Hmph. I tried to sign up to MatLab to see if it could render the graphs with percent curves. Couldn't get past the license screen. It simply says I do not have a license.

Also: I wonder if this thread isn't getting much traffic because of the boring title. Maybe I should change it to something less ... dry.

 

[DaveC426913]

So:
Lots of off-topic posting? Check.
Still no evidence forthcoming? Check.

The only thing that is increasing is the data about member contribution.

 

[Musika]

So:
Lots of off-topic posting? Check.
Still no evidence forthcoming? Check.

The only thing that is increasing is the data about member contribution.

Your stats are bogus, and off-topic.

 

[DaveC426913]

Your stats are bogus, and off-topic.

They are demonstrably accurate. (And they are not in this thread, so they're not off-topic.) but thanks for taking a peek.

What is on-topic here is the count of evidence to-date, which is still zero, to several decimal places.

 

[Musika]

They are demonstrably accurate. (And they are not in this thread, so they're not off-topic.) but thanks for taking a peek.

The only thing it demonstrates is how one can cook numbers in accordance to values. Its a good exercise in getting the horse before the cart.

What is on-topic here is the count of evidence to-date, which is still zero, to several decimal places.

A tally that is also on par with the Andaman Islander's assessment of their sovereignty to the Indian political system.

 

[DaveC426913]

The only thing it demonstrates is how one can cook numbers in accordance to values.

This is off-topic. If you have comments about the data or the rendering, please post in the appropriate thread.

This thread is about evidence for the existence of God.

Got any?

 

[Musika]

This is off-topic. If you have comments about the data or the rendering, please post in the appropriate thread.

This thread is about evidence for the existence of God.

Got any?

You introduced it to this thread. You seemed to think one could draw some conclusions from it. I am telling you it is a forgone conclusion, since, doing aside with the dominant ratio of atheist postets, its just JamesR arbitrary decision what does and doesn't constitute on-topic discussion.
As for evidence, already discussed that at length with JamesR (Andaman islanders et al)

 

[DaveC426913]

You introduced it to this thread.

My post was tallying the evidence count so far, in this thread, which is zero.

I did point out that there is some good data about this thread - it's in a different thread, for any who are interested. Comments on it are, appropriately, there. Please stay on topic here.

I am telling you it is a forgone conclusion.

As is your nature. You're no stranger to drawing conclusions without looking at the evidence.

Meanwhile, got any evidence?

 

[Musika]

My post was tallying the evidence count so far, in this thread, which is zero.

Which is also happens to be the equivalent on ideas on Indian sovereignty over the Andamans .... according to who you ask, of course.

I did point out that there is some good data about this thread - it's in a different thread, for any who are interested. Comments on it are, appropriately, there. Please stay on topic here.

You brought it up here in an attempt to bring leverage to your position. It is simply a misleading gesture on your behalf.

As is your nature. You're no stranger to drawing conclusions without looking at the evidence.

As is your nature, you start with your conclusion first, and then devise ways to tweak what your looking at to make it sound correct.

Meanwhile, got any evidence?

Already dealt with, but, once again, you are choosing not to respond to it.

 

[DaveC426913]

As is your nature, you start with your conclusion first, and then devise ways to tweak what your looking at to make it sound correct.

Actually, if you look at the data, you will see it in no way supports any opinion I might have. That's one of the reasons I posted it.

Frankly, you did rather well staying on topic. As did Jan. And Quantum Quack.

If I had been intending to further an agenda of my own, it would have been entirely counter-productive to post it. I would have done better to keep it to myself.

But again, the chart clearly states that the only judgement made at all, was James R's, and that that is really what the chart displays.


Reported, to request off-topic posts be moved out-of-thread.

 

[Musika]

So:
Lots of off-topic posting? Check.
Still no evidence forthcoming? Check.

The only thing that is increasing is the data about member contribution.

Yes.
No data called in support an agenda opinion here.