Bridge Statistics

From a recent scan of the local cache of the newsgroup:

Number of posts: 9144
Posts by the troll: 192
Replies to the troll: 122
Troll reply/post ratio: .63
Number of repliers: 51
Replies per replier: 2.39

Most eggregious troll-wrestlers (number of replies follow in parentheses)
Marc Brett ( 10 )
Tom Crispin ( 6 )
"Adam Lea" ( 6 )
Pete ( 5 )
"Clive George" ( 5 )
MJ Ray ( 5 )
Jon has moved ! ( 5 )
Helen Deborah Vecht ( 4 )
"Just zis Guy, you know?" ( 4 )
Nick ( 4 )

Were the above to abandon troll-wrestling the reply/post ratio would fall
to .35

Were all of the repliers who did so only once to have practiced restraint
the number of repliers would fall to 27

_ wrote:
From a recent scan of the local cache of the newsgroup:
...

Most eggregious troll-wrestlers (number of replies follow in parentheses)
...

Were the above to abandon troll-wrestling the reply/post ratio would fall
to .35

Were all of the repliers who did so only once to have practiced restraint
the number of repliers would fall to 27

Did you do the same analysis on your posts?

Ah, I thought not. I'd bet that your so-called "troll", the poster that
you seem to be so envious of, has a better response ratio, and a wider
reply base, than you get for your own sad, spiteful, and pointless
ejaculations.

--
Matt B

On 4 Sep, 16:30, Matt B wrote:
Ah, I thought not. I'd bet that your so-called "troll", the poster that
you seem to be so envious of, has a better response ratio, and a wider
reply base, than you get for your own sad, spiteful, and pointless
ejaculations.

I'm starting to get the feeling you don't like being called a troll.
Some suggestions if you want to lose that status:

1) Make your points concisely then leave it, don't argue everything to
death. Long running threads sliding over the same sort of ground are
typical of troll wrestling. 5 posts per thread, 10 max. should be
enough to make your point. If you haven't convinced people of your
case by then, you are probably not going to.

2) Don't jump to the conclusion that everything that _might_ be
evidence for your point of view _is_ evidence for your point of view.
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Anticipate the criticism, self
censor, review before you click the send button, choose to discard
sometimes.

3) Write about your cycling experiences. This is a cycling newsgroup,
if you don't do that, you're always likely to be an outsider, and much
more likely to be considered a troll. If you don't cycle, there must
be other more relevant newsgroups/forum for your views on motoring
taxation and safety.

Rob

On Sep 4, 4:30 pm, Matt B wrote:
_ wrote:
From a recent scan of the local cache of the newsgroup:
...
Most eggregious troll-wrestlers (number of replies follow in parentheses)
...

Were the above to abandon troll-wrestling the reply/post ratio would fall
to .35

Were all of the repliers who did so only once to have practiced restraint
the number of repliers would fall to 27

Did you do the same analysis on your posts?

Ah, I thought not. I'd bet that your so-called "troll", the poster that
you seem to be so envious of, has a better response ratio, and a wider
reply base

If you measure the quality of your postings by the number of replies
you get, as you imply you do above then you must be posting simply to
get replies. Thus you are a troll.

A poster who get few replies may do so simply because no-one feels the
need to add anything, or dispute what the poster has written.
e.g. Look at some of the ride reports.

There are several people whose posts I read, but rarely reply to. This
is because I don't feel the need to add anything to what they say.
IMHO this makes what they write good material.

Your posts, I only usually see if I see someone replying to them, and
in this case having to look the post with google.

than you get for your own sad, spiteful, and pointless
ejaculations.

I see you are arguing using valid points, rather than just reverting
to insulting someone.

wrote:
On 4 Sep, 16:30, Matt B wrote:
Ah, I thought not. I'd bet that your so-called "troll", the poster that
you seem to be so envious of, has a better response ratio, and a wider
reply base, than you get for your own sad, spiteful, and pointless
ejaculations.

I'm starting to get the feeling you don't like being called a troll.

You are very perceptive ;-)

Some suggestions if you want to lose that status:
...

I always feel the need to persevere with a point, especially when I'm
ganged up against, and especially when I'm convinced it is valid. I'll
try and restrain myself more in future :-)

I appreciate your post, and your advice - thanks.

--
Matt B