Oh and remind them that we don't have to pay them every month for VIP if they're going to ignore us. They need to actually listen to their customers... providers and clients alike.
Just wondering about this. I won't post the link because I'm pretty sure EVERYONE knows the thread in the S&P forum started by GaG. Currently at 56 likes which seems really good for a text post.
Anyone know of another thread, non picture -- that's a different class of posting, that has close to 56 or more?
and "maybe" even make that new poll that I suggested?
How about it Admin?
I really hope that they reply and I also sent them a PM with my own revised system suggestion as well as letting them know that they should look at your post. I suggest everyone send PMs to TERSupport if they really want to see a change.
Oh and remind them that we don't have to pay them every month for VIP if they're going to ignore us. They need to actually listen to their customers... providers and clients alike.
-- Modified on 3/18/2017 6:54:18 PM
His rates are lower than most of the providers here, so when the ladies go see him it's not a complete wash money-wise, they still get paid a little bit, whatever the difference is between his rate and their rates. This makes him VERY popular with our ladies.
I assume this was really meant for GaG and his revolutionaries 
rather than my post. I'm just asking if the number of likes for a non-picture post rates any award in the Likes Count race.
I also think you numbers might be a bit off -- but not sure about that. I always took the Users Online count to be the number of TER accounts actually logged on to the system and not the total membership. I've never paid enough attention to see if it ever goes down though so....
In any case minorities always have to make noise otherwise they are never heard. That doesn't change the value of their message -- lets not rate the message by the messenger.
The users online figure is exactly what you're suggesting, meaning the vocal minority is even more excruciatingly minor than 0.12% if you want to include the total membership. I'd be FAR more interested in how many of those likes are from disgruntled providers who are just pissed they can't cheat the system for 10s any more.
The users online figure is exactly what you're suggesting, meaning the vocal minority is even more excruciatingly minor than 0.12% if you want to include the total membership. I'd be FAR more interested in how many of those likes are from disgruntled providers who are just pissed they can't cheat the system for 10s any more.
...very few of the online users read the discussion boards. What you have to do is use READS, not online users. GaG's post has 70 likes out of 445 reads. That's about 15% likes for his post. Sounds like a high percentage to me.
If you go down to the shore and scoop up a glass of sea water and there are no whales in your glass, does that mean there are none in the ocean, or does it mean you have a sample size that is too small to draw any real conclusion from? 445 users of the total membership may as well be zero. You're also overlooking that 445 reads does not equate to 445 different readers.
You're response is a red herring on this one.
re-reads by people counting the number of likes it got.
I have to admit, I've probably re-clicked on the post ten times checking to see how many likes it's gotten. lol
The main point to take away from this is that obviously people care about this issue. I only made a "suggestion" about a possible alternative to the new system, the least TER could do is create a poll and ask the members what they think about all of this. After all the happier the members are about the review system the more likely they are to keep paying for VIP, and isn't that in turn good for TER?
probably by you ...lol
LIKE!
For example, I just opened your post to which I'm replying three times, then a fourth time to reply to it. But the "read" count remained at 43 during that entire time.
My assumption has been that when a given user opens a post it increases the "read" count by one, but if said user opens the same post again it does not increase the "read" count.
Can someone confirm if this is correct?
Every time you open a post, you increase it's "read" count by one.
You must be sober this morning, try it again after a couple of drinks and get back to me.
I'll give you an example, the pinned thread on the newbie board has well over two hundred thousand reads, do you REALLY think over two hundred thousand disparate members actually clicked on that post?
I know this is a rhetorical question, but don't you EVER get tired of being wrong?
...are the ones who actually click on the post and READ the post. The 50,000 horndogs searching for providers are totally irrelevant. The only ratio that counts is likes to reads.
...Did you even read my post? Likes to reads is irrelevant when the number of reads you have to begin with is not even a fucking drop in the ocean compared to the number of total members. Do you not understand the concept of sample sizes? By your logic if you flip a coin 3 times and get heads 3 times, it'll be heads every time you flip it for eternity.
with a two-headed trick quarter. Now if I can only figure out how to get head for eternity.
probably butchered the spelling but, you know, I don't care
My God, you are even dumber over here than you are on the P&R board.
By using your little choo choo train of logic, NO post on any discussion board has even the slightest relevance because none of them ever are likely achieve more than about a one percent "read factor" So by your "logic" if a post gets a thousand reads and every single one of them is in total agreement, it's still a statistical irrelevancy as it only accounts for two percent of the users online.
I guess by that line of reasoning EVERY major national poll also has no relevance because they only sample a few thousand people out of the 300 and something MILLION people that live in this country. I guess we should get rid of the Nielson rating too while we are at it for the very same reason. Are you starting to notice a trend here? Or are you really as stupid as your posts indicate.
Really, you're going to use national polls in your argument? They were definitely accurate for this election, weren't they? Maybe engage your brain before you begin typing.
And yes, you're right, no discussion board has the slightest relevance. You're in a fucking echo chamber, and a minuscule one at that. Of course you're only going to get people responding who agree with you, anyone who even tries to debate anything with you gets a tirade of abuse until they can't be fucked dealing with your horrendously incorrect bullshit any more. Like now.
You just got me off the hook as the guy who "beats a dead horse." Check in with Jack and let him know before you leave.
and the guy who disagreed with you first is on the exact opposite side of the political spectrum as me and over the years has been among my harshest critics, but even he recognized the bullshit you were spewing and was a thousand times more intellectually honest than you have even been.
On the S&P board I doubt most people are agreeing so much about my actual suggestion about tweaking the rating system, but were mainly agreeing that TER Admin should let the membership be heard and have a voice in how the review system is going to work going forward.
You don't even seem to have an opinion about the topic at hand, you seem to only have a personal dislike for me which has no relevance to the actual topic at hand. If discussion boards have no relevance, then why are you offering up such a ridiculous line of bullshit on a topic you don't even seem to care about? Which leads me to ask you this question, if you don't care about the review system, and you don't care about the discussion board, what the fuck are you doing here in the first place and for fuck's sake, why do you pay for VIP?
I don't have a personal dislike for you, I have a personal dislike for the way you conduct yourself. It's the same pattern, and it's not just to me - say something inflammatory, get a response, then act cool as though the other person is at fault. It's the most fucking basic shit in the world. You didn't need to come here and throw insults at me if you disagreed, you could have just disagreed and we could have had a reasonable debate. But you don't do that. Ever.
My opinion on the topic at hand was quite obvious - 67 likes from 450 reads is hardly noteworthy, no matter how much you close your eyes real tight and wish super hard that it is.
To answer your question that frankly doesn't deserve answering, it's really very simple; it's none of your business.
Given that the subject at hand was really did GaG set any records for a nonpicture post on TER -- something we still don't know but perhaps TER is waiting for the count to stabilize. The related topic was about the S&P suggestion that TER run a poll to see what the membership thought.
You're the only person interested in the likes to reads or likes to membership and whether either means a damn thing. I think the rest of us in the subthread are here just to annoy you.
I will first stipulate that national polls showed some serious flaws during the last election (though they did accurately project the popular vote). But at least the polls are conducted using a sample of people who are chosen to reflect broader trends in the country at large. That can't be said for the very random sample of people reading, "liking" or responding to your thread here.
Except it's been shown the selection is not unbiased but in fact skewed in a specific direction. So while a correctly conducted poll would result in an unbiased, random selection we cannot say the national polls do that.
We don't have the information to make any statement about randomness or presence of any selection bias in the readers versus the general membership and "its" preferences on the question of the rating system.
you do realize that, lets be conservative here, 200 observations is considered a perfectly fine sample size. Now, if you want to try arguing that there's some inherent bias in the self-selection in the sample (by clicking on the post -- and one assumes reading it) have a go but I'm not sure what you'd base that argument on other than you need it for your case.
The post by GaG has merit and brings up a good point!
Step xoxo
"It's like pissing in your blue serge suit. It gives you a nice warm feeling for a minute, and nobody knows you did it."
IOW, good luck on EVER getting a response from TER on polling members on this subject. I would actually be happy to be proven wrong on this but I suspect that, having spent a lot of time and thought on the new scoring system they have ZERO intention of changing it or soliciting our input.
So, to quote The Bard, this is all "sound and fury, signifying nothing."
I don't think they'll read a the discussion boards but I do honestly believe that if every single person who doesn't like the system cancels their VIP and tells them why they will make a change quicker than you think.
But the cynic in me doubts I will be.
-- Modified on 3/19/2017 1:28:35 AM