Graphs of Weekly Post-Count Growth
Welcome back to "Fun with Graphs"!
Today we'll use an earlier data set and make different graphs from it.
The data set is the same as in post #61, namely weekly post counts. It's been a few weeks since that post was made, so there are a few additional weeks of data.
I used the same list of 36 Prolific Posters as before, and again broke them down into 3 groups of 12 members each.
The main change in these graphs is the filter applied to the basic data. Last time, "Weekly Total Posts" was too flat to show much, and "Posts per Week" was so jagged it was hard to read. For this graph, we show the cumulative growth in post counts from the start of the weekly samples to the most recent sample. In effect, each member gets their own "starting count", and the graph only shows growth from week to week. The first point on each graph is the member's weekly post count on the left-most date.
If a member makes a lot of posts for a week, then their line will slope up more steeply. If they make no posts for a week, then their line will be flat.
Since the members of each group have different post rates, you can't compare slopes between graphs. A steep line in one graph might not represent the same post rate in another graph. To get a sense of overall weekly growth, we need a single graph with all the Prolific Posters, which is shown last below.
Weekly Post Growth
View attachment 818497
View attachment 818498
View attachment 818499
Notice the Y axis numbers in Group 1 vs. Group 2. Due to the prodigious post rates of the top few members, the top of the Y range is several times larger in Group 1 than it is in Group 2.
The shape of each line in Group 1 is roughly the same, with a slope that varies little over time, suggesting that its members make roughly the same number of posts in a week. The orange line for @I7guy and the light green line for @Newtons Apple show a moderate change in slope near their ends, suggesting a change in their weekly post rates around that time.
The line shapes in Group 2 are more varied. In particular, @cmaier and @Dave245 both have significant upward slopes before the end of November, and are much flatter after that date. Group 3 shows an even more striking change, as the two members @redheeler and @D.T. both end with completely flat lines, indicating several weeks with no posts at all.
View attachment 818500
In this graph we can compare slopes among all members, giving a better sense of how prolific @Scepticalscribe is compared to everyone else. Even the steep lines from the graphs of Group 2 and Group 3 above disappear in a twisty maze of colored lines, all different.
Next time, maybe I should add a few users who haven't reached 5000 posts yet. For
Graphs of Weekly Post-Count Growth
Welcome back to "Fun with Graphs"!
Today we'll use an earlier data set and make different graphs from it.
The data set is the same as in post #61, namely weekly post counts. It's been a few weeks since that post was made, so there are a few additional weeks of data.
I used the same list of 36 Prolific Posters as before, and again broke them down into 3 groups of 12 members each.
The main change in these graphs is the filter applied to the basic data. Last time, "Weekly Total Posts" was too flat to show much, and "Posts per Week" was so jagged it was hard to read. For this graph, we show the cumulative growth in post counts from the start of the weekly samples to the most recent sample. In effect, each member gets their own "starting count", and the graph only shows growth from week to week. The first point on each graph is the member's weekly post count on the left-most date.
If a member makes a lot of posts for a week, then their line will slope up more steeply. If they make no posts for a week, then their line will be flat.
Since the members of each group have different post rates, you can't compare slopes between graphs. A steep line in one graph might not represent the same post rate in another graph. To get a sense of overall weekly growth, we need a single graph with all the Prolific Posters, which is shown last below.
Weekly Post Growth
View attachment 818497
View attachment 818498
View attachment 818499
Notice the Y axis numbers in Group 1 vs. Group 2. Due to the prodigious post rates of the top few members, the top of the Y range is several times larger in Group 1 than it is in Group 2.
The shape of each line in Group 1 is roughly the same, with a slope that varies little over time, suggesting that its members make roughly the same number of posts in a week. The orange line for @I7guy and the light green line for @Newtons Apple show a moderate change in slope near their ends, suggesting a change in their weekly post rates around that time.
The line shapes in Group 2 are more varied. In particular, @cmaier and @Dave245 both have significant upward slopes before the end of November, and are much flatter after that date. Group 3 shows an even more striking change, as the two members @redheeler and @D.T. both end with completely flat lines, indicating several weeks with no posts at all.
View attachment 818500
In this graph we can compare slopes among all members, giving a better sense of how prolific @Scepticalscribe is compared to everyone else. Even the steep lines from the graphs of Group 2 and Group 3 above disappear in a twisty maze of colored lines, all different.
Next time, maybe I should add a few users who haven't reached 5000 posts yet. Forcomedysciencecomedy.
Thanks for the idea. I'm pretty sure I have enough data to do that; I'll have to double-check.What would be interesting would be to map how long it takes on average to reach 5,000 posts, and to also track the outliers on arrival at this target (both the swift and those who take their time arriving at this number.)
Thanks for the idea. I'm pretty sure I have enough data to do that; I'll have to double-check.
In general, about 20-30 users reach 5000 posts in a 6-month period. There are almost 400 users in the current list, so that's a change of about 5-8% each period. There won't be much visible change in a graph or table, even if I only present it once a year, so if I do it I should probably extract only the new arrivals.
There are probably also at least 20-30 users who stop posting in a 6-month period. That is, they were posting in the prior period, but they've gone inactive in the current period. In the most recent period, there's a total of ~140 users with no posts at all. I don't have the data handy for the prior period, but I can put that together when I get a chance.
It would be interesting to see something like a rolling average monthly post rate over time. I'm sure there are plenty of peaks and valleys. I don't recall how much I posted at first, or how long it took to get to 5,000 posts, but there was a period of a lot of activity, then it dropped off sharply.From the time I joined the forum (in July 2008), I think it may have taken me several years to arrive at the figure of 5,000; perhaps as long as five or six years, although - as is clear - my post rate has increased exponentially ever since then, as I clearly now seem to make around that figure in a six month period.
It would be interesting to see something like a rolling average monthly post rate over time. I'm sure there are plenty of peaks and valleys. I don't recall how much I posted at first, or how long it took to get to 5,000 posts, but there was a period of a lot of activity, then it dropped off sharply.
I think the more areas of the forum you use, the more posts you amass. I guess it took me a while as I wasn’t active in many sub forums to start with.
This is true. Probably three man sub forums for me. But I pop around a few of the others.Some of us post quite a lot in a relatively few areas of the forum.
Some of us post quite a lot in relatively few areas of the forum.
None, other than a lot of criticism.So, what's the big prize for having the highest post count?![]()
Aw, shucks -- no big financial prize, no award from a prestigious academy of some sort, no standing ovation from one's peers?None, other than a lot of criticism.
I never checked this before, but here's what I found about my post distribution. Of my posts in 71 sub-forums:This is true. Probably three man sub forums for me. But I pop around a few of the others.
But when I joined I probably did a lot more reading than posting.
I never aimed for it. I just spent a lot of time answering questions. You help enough people, the posts add up.Aw, shucks -- no big financial prize, no award from a prestigious academy of some sort, no standing ovation from one's peers?
So what's the point, then, in aiming for this, if in fact anyone actually is? (If they are, one has to wonder about them, then, eh?)
Don't let GutWrench see this, but I can send you a scone.Aw, shucks -- no big financial prize, no award from a prestigious academy of some sort, no standing ovation from one's peers?
I'm impressed. That took waaay less time than I thought it would. And I didn't even use an @ mark.