| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/21/2007 : 00:37:18
Top F.W.F.R.ers by Average Votes (username and password average)
The minimum is 8.00.
Near-Top F.W.F.R.ers by Total Votes (username and password total)
The minimum is 100. This table is for users with a total-votes position below the top 100. It was previously Top F.W.F.R.ers by Total Votes but once Benj created an equivalent list that became redundant.
Top F.W.F.R.ers by Top 100 Total (username and password 100)
The minimum is 1,000. This statistic can fall out of date.
Top F.W.F.R.ers by Top 1,000 Total (username and password 1,000)
The minimum is 5,000. This statistic can fall out of date.
Top F.W.F.R.ers by Highest Review (username and password highest)
The requirement is a review in the top 500.
Top F.W.F.R.ers by Reviews with Fifty-plus Votes (username and password 50+)
The minimum is 1.
Top F.W.F.R.ers by Number of Top Reviews (username and password #top)
The minimum is 100.
Top F.W.F.R.ers by Percentage of Top Reviews (username and password %top)
The minimum is 10 per cent. This statistic means the percentage of films a user has reviewed (rather than the percentage of the site's films) for which they have the top review. It is slightly inaccurate, as if the same user has joint top reviews for a film they are both/all counted but the film is only counted once.
Top F.W.F.R.ers by Votes for One Film (username and password votes1)
The minimum is 200.
Top F.W.F.R.ers by Reviews for One Film (username and password reviews1)
The minimum is 20.
Top F.W.F.R.ers by Post-Cap Reviews (username cap)
This statistic means reviews both submitted and approved since the cap, not those pending at the time of its introduction. The 'maximum' is based on Benj saying that the quota increased from twenty to thirty "a few weeks" before 13th February 2010, which I have treated as Monday 11th January. Other than a small error from that estimate, it's a mystery how anyone can be higher.
F.W.F.R.ers by Ratio of Reviews to Films (username and password ratio)
This table is just for interest: it is not really better to be near the top.
Top F.W.F.R.ers by Films Reviewed (username and password reviewed)
The minimum is 500.
Top F.W.F.R.ers by Films Added (username and password added)
The minimum is 100. This statistic is not wholly accurate, as the information was formerly not collected.
Top F.W.F.R.ers by Films Scored (username and password scored)
Users who bizarrely still score films that they have reviewed but not seen are excluded. This statistic is not wholly accurate, as scoring films was formerly required when submitting reviews.
Top F.W.F.R.ers by Accolades Completed (username and password completed)
The minimum is 10.
Top F.W.F.R.ers by Accolades Made (username and password made)
If you know of entries missing from any of the above, let me know and I shall add them. If you have the chance, please help me to keep the stats in order, as this is by far the most time-consuming aspect.
And finally, Whole Site Statistics. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| BiggerBoat |
Posted - 03/23/2010 : 00:33:24
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
It would seem strange to me to exclude people who would be included once they reached 1,000 reviews even if they never received another vote.
Okay, I see where you're coming from.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 03/23/2010 : 00:10:11
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
Still seems strange to be in the second one - I would have thought you should have to have 1000 reviews to even qualify.
Well, the point of it is to do a quality comparison without disadvantaging more selective people (as the total-votes list does) or less selective people (as the average-votes list does). The 1,000 reviews isn't a requirement like the 5,000 votes is. It would seem strange to me to exclude people who would be included once they reached 1,000 reviews even if they never received another vote. |
| BiggerBoat |
Posted - 03/22/2010 : 23:54:17
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by BiggerBoat
Please could you add me to the sub-100 total votes?
Nope, because you're in the top 100 by total votes (easily).  The wording seemed unambiguous to me when I made it, as it parallels all the 'Top F.W.F.R.ers by...' though with the list designed to no longer duplicate Benj's one, but I see that it is not really that obvious. It might be clearer once I have had time to order the entries. Otherwise I might try to reword it.
quote:
Also, should I be in the top 1000 total one? I don't have 1000 reviews!
Yup. You can think of it as 'Top F.W.F.R.ers by Top up-to-1,000 Total'; I just didn't want to be untidy. You (and others in your category), just have your 1,000th review defined as having 0 votes: your statistic will remain accurate until that changes, so much longer than most others in fact.
Ah. I thought the first one was those not in the top 100total reviews. Still seems strange to be in the second one - I would have thought you should have to have 1000 reviews to even qualify. It's your stat though I suppose. |
| BiggerBoat |
Posted - 03/22/2010 : 22:19:47
Please could you add me to the sub-100 total votes?
Also, should I be in the top 1000 total one? I don't have 1000 reviews!
Cheers
BB
|
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 03/15/2010 : 10:44:51
Cool!
Done, and thanks!
|
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 03/14/2010 : 12:14:56
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I think I created those list before either of your reviews qualified. I've added your stats to the site now. Please would you add them to the lists? (I'm logged into every version of the site, due to its extremely annoying quality of keeping one logged in and not letting one log out even if one hasn't clicked 'Remember me'.)
I see.
Well, I'd love to add myself but I haven't a clue how to do that, so I'll leave it as is until you can find time/connection to fix it.
|
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 03/13/2010 : 14:54:31
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Top F.W.F.R.ers by Highest Review (username and password highest)
The current requirement is a review in the top 500.
While I realize my Anne of a Thousand Days review has now dropped out of the top 500 (shame, that), I do have one Looking For Comedy In The Muslim World review still in there with 50 votes. However, I don't see myself on this list.
That should also put me in the list for quote:
Top F.W.F.R.ers by Reviews with Fifty-plus Votes (username and password 50+)
The current minimum is 1.
but I don't see my name there either - unless it means I have to have 51 votes and not just the 50 that this review has.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 03/13/2010 : 03:54:50
quote:
Originally posted by rockfsh
I'm honoured to be considered "significant" by Salopian 
 Why wouldn't you be?
I've added all of your stats to the site, and then to the lists in the cases where you're eligible. |
| rockfsh |
Posted - 03/12/2010 : 03:08:08
I'm honoured to be considered "significant" by Salopian |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 03/11/2010 : 03:16:31
I really have no idea why I never thought of it before, but I've now created an Excel spreadsheet that automates all the straightforward stats and at least provides templates for the others.
If you want any stat adding to any of these lists, please do therefore let me know as it will now only take a few seconds.
I've got stats generated (i.e. not necessarily on the site) for the following. Is there anyone significant missing?
#1 Stunna
[matt]
aahaa, muahaha
AardBall
Airbolt
airlai
Al Swearengen
Alan Smithee
Ali
Andrew
Animagess
Animal Mutha
Anne
Armageddon fart
arocketman
AuggieWren
AussieCanuck
BaftaBabe
Batty
Beanmimo
BedheadGal
beefarm
beluga
benj clews
bennyr81
Bernie
bife
BiggerBoat
blueduck
boydegg
brian
bubbahotep
c dot
calmer
Canklefetish
cathartic
Catuli
cerealandrubberbands
chazbo
Cheese_Ed
CheeseGimp
ChocolateLady
Chris C
clay
Conan the Westy
Conan's Daughter
Corduroy Pillow
cozzy
damalc
Dante
ddragongrl
Deluxe
demonic
detainee
dgbenner
dlanod
Downtown
duh
E.L.F
el guapo
elchico
Evil Giraffe
EvilAndy
Face
Falken
Fenni Fentu
FloatingCoffin
foodini
Fresno
Gentleman Ghost
GHcool
godspellgroupie
Greystone
highbury
hustleboy007
I'm Gandhi Dammit
jd
jinx
Joe Blevins
John Dietrich
Josh the cat
JP
Justin incredible
Ken
kevhaz
knockmesilly
knoops
Koli
kolo
Kruegerbait
LadyMeerkat
lamhasuas
Larry
lekolight
lemmycaution
Lindsey K
Little Old Lady from Dubuque
LPH
M0rkeleb
maintcoder
mampers
Mark B
Markandlain
MelissaS
MguyX
Mike Cheshire
Miss Alice
MisterBadIdea
Montacute
Montgomery
morgz
Mr Savoir Faire
mr_kit
mumbles
noncentz
Obie
Paddy C
Paul Bennison
Paul Clark
Please Kill Me Now
Poire
Pope George Ringo
pudking
Pumpkin
punz
Puzzgal
queenofcats
rabid kazook
radworld
ragingfluff
randall
RedKate
redPen
risingstar1919
Rock Golf
rockfsh
rod
Rovark
rri1
Salopian
Se�n
Shiv
shoon
sibisi73
silly
Skunk Puppet
Slippy Tin
Sludge
SmokestackJones
soda
SoS
spoon
squarehead
Stalean
Stone Junction
stroll
SwissArmyKnife
teddychan
The Artist Formerly Known As Will Sloan
The Person who Needs a Clue
The Prof
thefoxboy
TitanPa
Tori
tortoise
Turducken
turrell
veloc
Warzonkey
Weeble-head Boy
Wheelz
Whippersnapper
wildheartlivie
Yelnats
Yenser
Yukon
zulu |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 03/09/2010 : 21:58:41
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Top F.W.F.R.ers by Top 100 Total (username and password 100) -- the current minimum is 1,000.
Big surprise in this new one -- I had taken for granted that thefoxboy would be top, but noncentz is still just hanging in there.
This is the stat I've always most wanted to do, as it doesn't penalise people who choose to submit a high number of reviews (as the average does) or a low number (as the total does). I think it is the fairest reflection of reviewer quality, although of course it cannot compensate for time on the site or presence in the Fourum.
Now that time has moved on and typical review totals are higher, I have created Top F.W.F.R.ers by Top 1,000 Total as a companion. This one should be a bit less skewed by the reviews in the Top 500 and especially 100 getting so much more exposure than any others. |
| Chris C |
Posted - 11/18/2009 : 17:46:30
Salopian - I have 84 accolades complete, could you add me in?
Thanks |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 10/31/2009 : 02:01:52
I have since discovered at least two of them have been deleted. Thanks. |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 10/30/2009 : 15:00:27
quote:
Originally posted by Sa10pian
quote:
Originally posted by wildheartlivie
I was looking at the stats in the "Top FWFRers by" and wondered if I could be added to two where I'm not.
* I have a review with "Top F.W.F.R.ers by Highest Review" which is a review at #311 in the top 500.
* Top F.W.F.R.ers by Accolades Completed - I have 76, which used to be 83... hmm. Have to check on that.
Thanks.
Sure.
Thanks. And I have 78 accolades completed. I can't figure out what happened to the other five. Ah well. |
| w22dheartlivie |
Posted - 10/30/2009 : 13:48:39
I was looking at the stats in the "Top FWFRers by" and wondered if I could be added to two where I'm not.
* I have a review with "Top F.W.F.R.ers by Highest Review" which is a review at #311 in the top 500.
* Top F.W.F.R.ers by Accolades Completed - I have 76, which used to be 83... hmm. Have to check on that.
Thanks. |
