The LIST

[Ray.R]

It looks as though I take far too many breaks!!

I will let Ben catch up..

😉

[chilly_charly]

One more List update.
Two new members : Aurelia and DaveC, and the List is now 481 members long. Among them 229 have been active last month and 128 have more than 200 replies !

The most interesting fact this week is the new competition between Dennis, Ben and Altenbach ! They are not running in the same category, but they are apparently fighting to be the next to cross the "n"K limit. With n respectively equal to 5, 3 and 2 ! 😉

---

Two weeks ago, I have presented a statistical attempt to classify the List members, along 3 axis automatically generated as a linear combination of all the measured parameters. I'm still working on this idea, but unfortunately, the more I dig into the NI data base, the more errors I detect !
We already knew about the Entropy and SponGe effects, but there is worse : the reply and thread numbers can also be wrong.
For instance, I was surprized to find JorisV, an NI employee, classified close to the "consumers" (those who come to the forum to ask for help). With 107 replies and 17 started threads, the classification was correct. However, I was still surprized by the unusual high number of started threads. Reading the corresponding posts, I found only 81 replies and no thread !
No way we could design an automatic classification method with such errors...

Molly, could you comment and propose an explanation ? Any chance to have these errors corrected sometimes ?

[altenbach]

---

@chilly charly wrote:
The most interesting fact this week is the new competition between Dennis, Ben and Altenbach ! They are not running in the same category, but they are apparently fighting to be the next to cross the "n"K limit. With n respectively equal to 5, 3 and 2 ! 😉

---

I don't understand what you mean here. True, I'm approaching 2048 in a couple of months, but neither Dennis or Ben are even near any nice integer power of two. 😄

---

@chilly charly wrote:
...Reading the corresponding posts, I found only 81 replies and no thread ! No way we could design an automatic classification method with such errors...
Molly, could you comment and propose an explanation ? Any chance to have these errors corrected sometimes ?

---

Let me go out on a limb here and propose that these number are actually correct and that there are no errors.

It wouldn't surprise me if there are NI internal boards that are not accessible to the public, e.g. for list management or internal discussions. Any started thread there would necessarily be by a NI representative and add to their count. (Remember, the old board (pre lithium) actually had a disclaimer that the counts may include posts in places where one might not have access). This is not a conspiracy theory, just a logical assumption how things work most efficiently behind the scenes. I am a longtime moderator on a very popular board (Not LabVIEW related at all) and I can tell you that we have at least a handful of management related forums hidden from the public. This is where moderators discuss e.g. policy issues, feature changes, problem users, and so on.

A successful forum requires a lot of work, coordination, and management beneath the surface. Molly and crew do a great job and I'm sure they're using more than just a few empty cans and lengths of string to keep up with each other. 🙂

In any case, an automatic classification into question & reply will always be quite fuzzy. You often see users start a thread and then immediately post two "replies" with additional attachments or extra clarifications. Your system would classify them as answers, which they're clearly not. Then you have users who add to a two year old thread with a new question. Same problem.

[Ben]

I acknowledge my math weakness but...

isn't 256 X 11 = 2816 ?

Re: you special analysis.

I tried running your code again using #23 and one of your french sub-VI's threw everyone away!

#22 still worked.

I developed a sub-VI to do some illegal math. Just noted the sign of the number, before taking its absolute value. The absolute value was then used used to get the log base 10 and the results was then "adjusted" to have the same sign as the original value.

The results were then plotted on non-log scale.

This broke us all down into 4 sets.

I also toyed with normalizing each axis to the make value for each axis and then took the reciprical.

Again four distict groups resulted.

Ben

Message Edited by Ben on 06-20-2005 07:34 AM

[Ben]

... and it is not a race. It is a parade.

Ben

[tst]

I think it's time to start a new LIST thread (don't forget to link to this one).

I would also like to mention that I understood nothing from those 3D graphs. I just saw some dots in different places.

Keep parading.

[Ray.R]

Why start a new thread?

this one is fine..
😄

[Ben]

I thought this thread was going to be the LAST list thread.

To be replaced the the official list.

Molly?

Ben

PS "I just saw some dots in different places." Try getting up slower.

Message Edited by Ben on 06-20-2005 08:50 AM

[Molly K]

I would love to be able to tell you all that the List would be replaced tomorrow, but unfortunately I still don't have a timeline for this. We recognize that it's a huge priority, but we have been struggling to get enough bandwidth to work on all the bugs and features at once.

CC - altenbach was correct that we have a number of private boards that we use for various purposes which can increase the message counts that you see without actually increasing the number of messages you can see.

Have a great day!

[chilly_charly]

Sorry folks, but this is the LAST issue of the LIST.
No mistake here, I really mean the last, not the latest.

However, it has been a great fun to be here with you, and I cannot resist to the pleasure to open a new thread : the LIST 2 !
See you there !

Message Edited by chilly charly on 06-27-2005 07:09 AM