Dakota's Last Stand
Created on: December 4th, 2007
None ( ._.)
Sponsorships:
| user | amount | user | amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| No one has sponsored this site ( ._.) | |||
| Sponsor this site! | Total: $0.00 | Active: $0.00 | |
Vote metrics:
| rating | total votes | favorites | comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| (4.37) | 728 | 78 | 121 |
View metrics:
| today | yesterday | this week | this month | all time |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 30,170 |
Inbound links:
| views | url |
|---|---|
| 48 | https://www.bing.com |
| 7 | http://www.google.com.hk |
| 4 | http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/ |
| 3 | https://7ooo.ru/ |
| 3 | http://216.18.188.175:80 |
If 5 people vote 5, then the site is in the U&C with a 5.00 rating. It doesn't take a featured user to get 5 5s, and regardless of who made the site it will slowly progress downward to its final score due to the law of large numbers (and once it hits 4 it will fall off the U&C and remain largely unchanged because nobody will see it anymore). If you believe what helidanx believes, every time he sees a featured user site that doesn't fit his pattern he will forget it and remember those that fit his beliefs.
Nice! I like it how Korf41 thinks that I don't give a #@$@ about sites from featured users. I never even said anything remotely close to that. I merely stated that featured-user sites get a preference when starting off whereas normal-user sites will have a higher percentage of lower-voting people. Most users don't think that much when they vote for a site so USUALLY it comes down to 5's or 1's. Speculation?! No my friend...Look at the comments on this site and tell me how many 4's/3's/2's you see XD
Therefore when people are looking at a good site by an average user there will be a higher ratio of 1's to 5's than a site made by a preferred user. This will create a very steep slope that the site will have to climb before coming out of obscurity after the newly created, if it does come out at all. I'm not saying that it happens to every site...just that preferred-users have the perk of not having to go through that with their sites.
Wow, a highly rated site has lots of high ratings. Wow, a comment section has lots of high ratings. That means that featured users' sites get high ratings. Wait, this site has a high rating, so it obviously should have commenters giving high ratings and most comments come from high ratings across the board. "Therefore when people are looking at a good site by an average user there will be a higher ratio of 1's to 5's than a site made by a preferred user." This is the definition of unsupported speculation.
Just because one site by a featured user was rated highly doesn't mean that all sites by featured users follow the same pattern, nor does it mean that sites by non-featured users are voted worse than others. Now, when a person makes a sh*tty site and then gets all their friends to upvote it to raise it from low to a 4.00 where it then gets voted back down off the U&C then it will follow that pattern, but otherwise I see no reason to think that a good site by a non-featured user would follow this pattern.
Now, getting away from the speculation, here are some FEATURED sites by fearcondom that follow the exact pattern you describe of non-featured users. http://api.ytmnd.com/examples/timeline.html?id=827172 http://api.ytmnd.com/examples/timeline.html?id=826338 http://api.ytmnd.com/examples/timeline.html?id=823782 ... speculation is dumb.
Remeber in high school , when you would vote for your class president? (Of course you do.) Ever notice how the guy with the most friends was the one who usally won. Being a featured user definatly helps your overall YTMND SCORE.
There are however exceptions to this rule; Featured users are for the most part featured users because they have mad YTMND skills. That is why a lot of featured users have high scores... you get what i am saying? T
Hey korf...what bs are you yapping about? I don't even care what you are saying because all you are doing is stating the obvious. You haven't refuted any of my points yet. You can not "Disprove" that an average-user has the same initial ratings as a high-ranked user because you aren't backing any of your points up. You're merely stating that I am not backing any of my points. Unfortunately, I can not give you a nice graph of votes vs time, however,
I have personally seen that many excellent sites from average users have started with a low score. Also as for the comments being highly ranked I did not say "Look at the friggin' high ranked comments!" I said look at the friggin' RATIO of 5's to 1's since there are not many votes in between. This would naturally lead a site by an average user to have a lower ranking because there WOULD BE MORE 1'S. A higher ranked user on the other hand would have less 1's because people would be nicer to them...
Also, this isn't speculation. It's called deduction and what you are doing is called being a sore-ass...I don't know for whatever reason...heck just look at yer own 5's to 1's ratio. Also to make it clear to you, and I'll capitalize this: I SAID INITIAL VOTES SUCK FOR AN AVERAGE USER NOT TOTAL VOTES.
Yes, deduction from a set of unquantified unsystematic observations. Oh, wait, that's called speculation. And you somehow deduced that featured users' sites start at 5 and trickle down, while non-featured users' sites start low and trickle up. Well, sorry to say, but both phenomenons happen to both types of users for the same reasons, and your speculation to the contrary is spurious and unsubstantiated. You're a true American.
As I said before I do not have physical proof but from my point of view that's what I could deduce. If you like commenting like a smart-ass at least have the brains to substantiate YOUR claims instead of attacking mine. All I see is you calling my deductions speculations. Bitch, please. Go teach yourself about fallacies and UNDERSTAND what the other side of the argument is saying before writing BS. If your next comment is more spurious idiocy then I think this debate is over.
Bold
Italic
Underline
Code
User Link
Site Link