On Feb 22, 4:42�am, "Reginald P. Smithers III" "remove
wrote:
Chuck Gould wrote:
On Feb 21, 4:29?pm, "JimH" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

groups.com...

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.boats/about
Chuck.............what was your intention in starting this thread?

An obvious answer is "to stir the pot" as it is something you succeeded in
doing.

Is there another reason??

Several.

The site tracks the growth of rec.boats from the very beginning, from
back in the days when there were only a couple of hundred posts per
month up to current times when there are several thousand.

There is information about how many people (just over 100) typically
participate in the NG.

Activity is compared to other rec.boats sites, with rec.boats cruising
also being very active, rec.boats building being a bit less active,
and rec.boats marketplace somewhat of a sleepy hollow.

and so forth,

It's fascinating to note that the only portion of the information that
anybody found significant enough to comment about was to compare the
number of posts that people have made throughout the years.....and
with that information the very same people who are likely to climb
another poster's frame for any other reason are (no surprise) using
this item to make personal remarks about the people they dislike.

Most of the information there is not personality oriented. If you
failed to notice that, perhaps you might consider taking another look.

Everyone knows how you despise any stirring of the pot, JimH. Let me
assure you that such was not my intention.

Chuck, there is nothing about the top posters I found interesting or
surprising. *My guess is everyone could have guessed who were the top
posters, so I didn't think that was your purpose for posting the link.

* *The "interesting facts" I found was to go back to the early 90's and
read the topics of discussion and see what people were talking about a
short 15 years ago.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Precisely. How many people would have been unable to guess that the
most prolific poster in the archives was the most prolific poster?
More importantly--- who the heck would care?

But it's no surprise that the same people who focus on personalities
every day in the NG also chose to focus on the personalities on that
link.

It is *extremely* interesting to look at the previous years' posts,
and there is a
definite development pattern that these archives present. It's an
interesting study in how a group that has no moderation has developed
over a long period of time. I guess it's a question of what you look
for. Look for a reason to flame somebody and you'll find one, even if
you have to streeeeeeetch a long way to do so.

On Feb 22, 6:34?am, "JimH" wrote:

Visualize sign language.
=======================

And right back atcha!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hmmm. I wonder what sort of "sign language" you visualized?

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...
What are user ratings and how are they applied. I have 35 ratings with an
average of 3 out of 5 stars.

basskisser has 100 ratings with an average of 1 star.

Chuck has 1 rating with 5 out of 5 stars (vote for yourself, chuckie?)


"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.boats/about



Who's doing the ratings? I feel underappreciated with only two stars out of
five.

Don White wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...
What are user ratings and how are they applied. I have 35 ratings with an
average of 3 out of 5 stars.

basskisser has 100 ratings with an average of 1 star.

Chuck has 1 rating with 5 out of 5 stars (vote for yourself, chuckie?)


"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.boats/about


Who's doing the ratings? I feel underappreciated with only two stars out of
five.




Awwwwwww. Not to worry; it's as meaningless as the rest of the google
groups b.s.

:}

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
NOYB wrote:
What are user ratings and how are they applied. I have 35 ratings
with an average of 3 out of 5 stars.

basskisser has 100 ratings with an average of 1 star.

Chuck has 1 rating with 5 out of 5 stars (vote for yourself, chuckie?)


"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.boats/about



Damn, and with 19 votes, I have 5 out of 5 stars. I don't think I am
going to talk to you low life's anymore.

Somehow, I think this post will result in a change of my rating. grin

Is not having a rating a good thing?

Chuck Gould wrote:

Visualize sign language.

I'm visualizing your thumbs stuck in your ears and your are wiggling
your fingers at the computer screen with your tongue hanging out.

Close?

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
NOYB wrote:
What are user ratings and how are they applied. I have 35 ratings
with an average of 3 out of 5 stars.

basskisser has 100 ratings with an average of 1 star.

Chuck has 1 rating with 5 out of 5 stars (vote for yourself, chuckie?)


"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.boats/about



Damn, and with 19 votes, I have 5 out of 5 stars. I don't think I am
going to talk to you low life's anymore.

Somehow, I think this post will result in a change of my rating. grin

Is not having a rating a good thing?

Tom,
I really can't figure out who votes or who looks at the votes.