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.

and "maybe" even make that new poll that I suggested?  

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.

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.

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.

re-reads by people counting the number of likes it got.

-- Modified on 3/18/2017 6:54:18 PM

probably by you ...lol
LIKE!

...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.  

My God, you are even dumber over here than you are on the P&R board.

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.

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.

The post by GaG has merit and brings up a good point!

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.

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.

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?

"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

Every time you open a post, you increase it's "read" count by one.

You're response is a red herring on this one.

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.

probably butchered the spelling but, you know, I don't care

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.

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.