Over the last couple of days, I have used a modified version of ZZamboni's PerlMonksChat2.pm to timestamp and log every entry into the Chatterbox. Don't worry this isn't the Chatterbox archive, it won't be posted. Anywho, I used the log file to create a pie graph of who's is talking the most. I figured I'd post the results, but first I was curious if anyone had any wagers on who actually has the lead. If you want to reply with your wagers go ahead and I'll post the results at 2400 hrs eastern time.

For the record, I wagered on AgentM, I won't divulge if I was correct or not. You'll have to wait till 2400 hrs.

Macphist0

p.s. Thanks to jcwren for running the modified PerlMonksChat.pm code since I didn't have a static line.

Everyone has their demons....

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
RE: Chatterbox stats
by FouRPlaY (Monk) on Nov 10, 2000 at 00:19 UTC
    You know, technically, it's 0000 EST. The 24 hours clock goes from 0000 (12 midnight) to 2359 (11:59 pm).

    But I thrive on techincallities.... and not spelling.



    FouRPlaY
    Learning Perl or Going To Die Trying
[reply]
      Military genearally used 2400 instead of 0000. I come from a military family so that's what I learned. Both are correct though. :)


      Everyone has their demons....
[reply]
        Well then. If you come froma military family, I'd say you'd be corect.



        FouRPlaY
        Learning Perl or Going To Die Trying
[reply]
        From a mathematical stand point, 0000-2359 is easier, since you can calculate any time using mod 24.

        eg, if it's 1100 now, in 100 hours, it will be 
        [ 11 ] + [ 100 ] = [ 111 ]
        
             = [ 15 ]


        So, it'll be 1500.



        FouRPlaY
        Learning Perl or Going To Die Trying
[reply]
      Sorry about the repeat posts...Mozilla crapped out on me, and when I hit back it just caused more problems I apologize. THe link to the results is Here
[reply]
        It appears that your script does not distinguish

        and all is quiet...

        from

        and all is quiet...

        because I chat very little. :-)

[reply]
        If I'm reading the graph correctly I am the most talkative. Unless this place is fairly quiet when I'm not around I'm guessing that your script just happened to monitor things when I was being unusually verbose and the others comparatively quiet. Other possibilities include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) People around here lacked a monastery idiot to add some variety to these otherwise quiet halls. (2) Monks don't tell people to shut up even if the situation calls for it. In either case, I can't help but wonder exactly how coincidental it was that the /chatteroff and /chatteron features were added to the feature list shortly after I arrived...

        I realize that integrating this into jcwren's stats page may give some people undue incentive to make noise, but could we run this again? I'm curious to know how this averages out over a slightly longer / different period of time.

        Also, are your stats measured in number of times text is posted to the chatterbox, or in amount of text submitted?

        And no, I don't own 27 pairs of sweatpants.
[reply]
Chatterbox stats results
by Macphisto (Hermit) on Nov 10, 2000 at 23:05 UTC
    Check out the results at: Here

    Everyone has their demons....
[reply]
RE: Chatterbox stats
by AgentM (Curate) on Nov 10, 2000 at 04:30 UTC
[reply]

Back to Perl Monks Discussion