Re^3: The significance of 2010-03-16?

Please don't spend any more energy on this.

For me what you've discovered is interesting and unexpected.

But I never read your postings because of your rank.

I read them because of the opinion I formed by reading previous posts.

And I totally agree that the XP-system could be better.

But it won't change unless you take the time to hack the PM-code - and I assume you have something better to do.

Comment on Re^3: The significance of 2010-03-16?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: The significance of 2010-03-16? by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on May 21, 2016 at 03:47 UTC
But it won't change ... Please re-read this thread and come back and point out where I asked for change; or suggested change should occur. No '?'; because that is rhetorical. Ie. I didn't. I saw something that surprised me; I asked my question; I got my answer. Everything from then onward is my correcting those who simply don't read what is written, preferring to "respond" to something that they simply plucked from thin air. I've never given any import to the meaningless number. Historically other people would message me to tell me when I had past some arbitrary power of 10 boundary. What I have given some import to over the past 13 years and 22,000 posts; is the response they got -- individually -- in terms of my peers taking the time to cast their votes. This thread started simply because after all these years I became suddenly and sharply aware that the meaningless ranking that I've ignored all this time, is even more meaningless, arbitrary and capricious that I had previously thought. No big deal. For me at least; it changes nothing. But, if it is so meaningless & unimportant: Why does the site bother to calculate it? And why with such an elaborate formulation? And why are people expending efforts to recalculate it; correct for historical effects; and derive fairer, more meaningful statistics from it? And why do so many people feel the need to pipe up just to say that they don't care about it? Meaningless it is; but boy, for something so meaningless does it ever stir a flurry of comment and high powered vitriol if anyone should question it; or even be misinterpreted to question it. Even when that question is simply: How does it work? This thread could have consisted of three posts: I noticed... Yes. That because link to appropriate documentation Okay. That sucks, but whatever. That is continues is not down to me... With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday' Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error. "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I knew I was on the right track :) In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^4: The significance of 2010-03-16?
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on May 21, 2016 at 03:47 UTC

But it won't change ...

Please re-read this thread and come back and point out where I asked for change; or suggested change should occur.

No '?'; because that is rhetorical. Ie. I didn't.

I saw something that surprised me; I asked my question; I got my answer. Everything from then onward is my correcting those who simply don't read what is written, preferring to "respond" to something that they simply plucked from thin air.

I've never given any import to the meaningless number. Historically other people would message me to tell me when I had past some arbitrary power of 10 boundary.

What I have given some import to over the past 13 years and 22,000 posts; is the response they got -- individually -- in terms of my peers taking the time to cast their votes. This thread started simply because after all these years I became suddenly and sharply aware that the meaningless ranking that I've ignored all this time, is even more meaningless, arbitrary and capricious that I had previously thought. No big deal. For me at least; it changes nothing.

But, if it is so meaningless & unimportant:

Why does the site bother to calculate it?
And why with such an elaborate formulation?
And why are people expending efforts to recalculate it; correct for historical effects; and derive fairer, more meaningful statistics from it?
And why do so many people feel the need to pipe up just to say that they don't care about it?

Meaningless it is; but boy, for something so meaningless does it ever stir a flurry of comment and high powered vitriol if anyone should question it; or even be misinterpreted to question it. Even when that question is simply: How does it work?

This thread could have consisted of three posts:

I noticed...
Yes. That because link to appropriate documentation
Okay. That sucks, but whatever.

That is continues is not down to me...

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'

Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.

"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I knew I was on the right track :)

In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

[reply]