Over the past two and a half months I've been running an exhaustive study to categorize every rec given during the period. I kept my progress quiet because I wanted to release my findings on my own schedule.
Forum
Nice and simple really. Recs are split into the forum the post they are given to is in.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v694/XanthosNZ/Recsbyforum.gif
Debates, Spirituality and General followed by Site Ideas are well ahead of the rest.
Reason
This one is a little more subjective. I attempted to categorize each recced post and therefore determine why the rec was given.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v694/XanthosNZ/Recsbyreason.gif
Unknown
I don't know why these have been recced. Posts of this type are one word or meaningless or just plain space-wasters. Many of the recs in this category were given to a handful of posters however I didn't collect poster data. Included in this category are rec begging and rebuking rec beggars.
Site Idea/Russ
The post is by Russ (who gets recs for every post) or is a site idea, tourney suggestion or other related post (including arguments against a proposed site idea).
News/Debate Copy Paste
A copy paste which is a news story, bible quotation, scientific study or other assorted text. If categorized here the post doesn't contain insight by the poster at all.
Non-humorous Insult
"You suck.", "Your a retard." are both examples of this type of recced post.
Agreement with Argument
The recced post is an argument along the lines of Debates or Spirituality. It is (as far as I can tell) written by the poster (can contain quotes or supporting evidence). I believe these posts have been recced because the reccer agrees with the poster's viewpoint and wishes to make this known. I take this from the fact that in some cases people post to say they are reccing for agreement.
Funny Copy Paste
The recced post is a copy pasted joke.
Humor Link Only
The recced post is a link to a humour website or funny image or other 'humorous' material.
One Liner/Original Wit
The recced post is original or at least mildly adapted (as far as I can tell) and an attempt at humour. Some of these may also be considered somewhat insulting to previous posters but I believe are recced more for humour than the insult.
News Debate Link Only
The recced post is a link to a news story, scientific result or other assorted debate material. The post doesn't contain opinion by the poster.
Conclusion
Here I hoped to conclude what recs are for, what a total means and possibly make some damning statements about global warming. However, the results have trumped me. There is no overwhelming reason recs are given. There is no forum dominating in the rec receiving. It seems recs don't mean much at all. What a surprise.
Now I will field any questions on my findings from the floor.
NOTE: I promise that the graphs are what they are advertised as unlike STANGs.
Xan
Bla Bla Bla. What is your point? Alot to do about nothing it seems. I was going to quote you but it would take forever. Are you saying that recs should be done away with.? If so I agree. They are useless brown nosing. If not I haven't got a clue and I hope you never get another rec. I am proud of being #1 please don't change it. 🙄
Originally posted by cashthetrashHaha, we all know what category that fits into. 😕
Xan
Bla Bla Bla. What is your point? Alot to do about nothing it seems. I was going to quote you but it would take forever. Are you saying that recs should be done away with.? If so I agree. They are useless brown nosing. If not I haven't got a clue and I hope you never get another rec. I am proud of being #1 please don't change it. 🙄
The results seem to be roughly what would have been expected, I reckon.
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveWhich is? And would we be in the same catagory or different? I just don't see why such an extencive study on something that is compeditive yet useless. I prefer useless chess. It just seems alot of people go to alot of trouble for nothing important. But whatever.
Haha, we all know what category that fits into. 😕
The results seem to be roughly what would have been expected, I reckon.
Originally posted by cashthetrashMuch like spelling is useless?
Which is? And would we be in the same catagory or different? I just don't see why such an extencive study on something that is compeditive yet useless. I prefer useless chess. It just seems alot of people go to alot of trouble for nothing important. But whatever.
EDIT: To be honest I thought people (read: subscribers) would be more interested in this. Guess I wasted a whole bunch of time.
Originally posted by XanthosNZWhat about recs which are paid for in cash ? Or recs where goods and/or services were rendered for the rec ? If games have been thrown for recs what catagory would this good into ? Kneecaps have been broken for recs . What would that be labeled as ? I also have it on good authority that many female site members have been selling their bodies for recs , and further more that some male members have been getting recs for brokering those services . What catagory would these recs fall into ?
Over the past two and a half months I've been running an exhaustive study to categorize every rec given during the period. I kept my progress quiet because I wanted to release my findings on my own schedule.
[b]Forum
Nice and simple really. Recs are split into the forum the post they are given to is in.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v694/Xanth ...[text shortened]... .
NOTE: I promise that the graphs are what they are advertised as unlike STANGs.[/b]
Originally posted by XanthosNZYou are right my spelling is terrible. I need a spell checker. And you need a calculator to help you with all those cheesy rec's you are whoring for. Why don't you suggest it to the administrators so my spelling won't offend you. Maybe you will get a recommendation for it. I am an old dog who never learned to spell or type well and you can't teach an old dog new tricks. When you finally get out of school maybe you would volunteer to spell check for me. Cross all the t's and dot all the I's. Be sure and keep those grades up. Or else in your old age you might turn out to be like me. Haha😀😛
Much like spelling is useless?
EDIT: To be honest I thought people (read: subscribers) would be more interested in this. Guess I wasted a whole bunch of time.
Originally posted by Moldy CrowUseless.
What about recs which are paid for in cash ? Or recs where goods and/or services were rendered for the rec ? If games have been thrown for recs what catagory would this good into ? Kneecaps have been broken for recs . What would that be labeled as ? I also have it on good authority that many female site members have been selling their bodies for recs , an ...[text shortened]... have been getting recs for brokering those services . What catagory would these recs fall into ?
Also, I use Firefox and the spell checker that comes with Google Toolbar.
Originally posted by XanthosNZAh ha so you don't know how to spell either. Guess you are like me then. Ha ha. Yea it is lazy on my part. I will try and do better. No promises though. I use Opera, wish it had spell check. I hate or rather dislike firefox for other reasons. And by the way were you trying to say that if you are not a subscriber you are not a person? Or something like that? What did that mean? 😠😀
Useless.
Also, I use Firefox and the spell checker that comes with Google Toolbar.
Xanthos, thanks for your hard work. The lack of response is probably due to the fact that the results were totally devoid of anything noteworthy or interesting.
No research unit would ever give results out like this. Their research grants would be promptly terminated.
You should have continued your research until you'd found something sensational, scandallous or shocking. And if you couldn't find it, invent it, or at least allude to it.
We live in an age when research is not half as important as the selling of it.
Better luck next time.
Originally posted by XanthosNZBefore I read the other people's reactions, I just want to say that I find it absolutely appalling that orginal/wit scores so bloody low!
Over the past two and a half months I've been running an exhaustive study to categorize every rec given during the period. I kept my progress quiet because I wanted to release my findings on my own schedule.
[b]Forum
Nice and simple really. Recs are split into the forum the post they are given to is in.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v694/Xanth ...[text shortened]... .
NOTE: I promise that the graphs are what they are advertised as unlike STANGs.[/b]
It destroys my faith in humanity, it seriously does.
I remember copy and pasting an article about "English vs. American" written by John Cleese. I distinctly noted at the time that it was written by Cleese (I always refer to the original writer if it's not by me). It got more than 10 recs.
I went back, half way up the rec tally and reposted that it was an article by someone else.
So it would seem that showing people something funny is rec worthy (I can accept this. A rec can mean: "This is worth reading" and that the actual poster isn't actually the point).
But, I see people trying their best to write clever, witty, amusing and political articles and rants and personally, I find that far more rec worthy than simply copy and pasting things.
Yet, according to your statistics and a general gut feeling I have on the matter (which agrees with your stats) that it's not really appreciated.
That is, to me, tragic.
I know some people feel I'm a bit of a rec whore, but I genuinly am motivated when people respond positively to an article I've written, whether that's in recs, comments or whatever.
And if positive feedback (albeit a simple rec) can stimulate me (who really couldn't give a rat's arse about anything), then I'm sure that positive feedback will stimulate most other's as well.
And surely an enlightened community of intelligent beings (Spirituality forum posters excepted, naturally) should wish to stimulate orginality and creativity.
This is what depresses me about your findings.
"The path to happiness is not achieving your goal, it's enjoying trying to achieve it."
- Bertrand Russel -
He's probably right.
🙂