I am determined to maximise my daily AWAD experience whilst minimising the amount of my Post Edit: working day doing so. As we all know, the board can be slow and addictive and I'll bet most of us aren't the world's greatest typists. All of these add to the time we spend on line.

I've noted a recurring relationship between the 'View' and 'Reply' frequencies of each post in all of the forums that has helped me optimise my daily exposure.....

It seems that if the 'Replies' are more than 10% of the 'Views' then there's a good chance that the topic has wide appeal and has attracted replies not only from a good many people, but also a diversity of posters (not just one or two going back and forth - though this does happen). As a bit of a generalist, I find that these posts are the ones that I tend to be most interested in and contribute to.

On the other hand, where the number of replies is significantly less than 10%, the subject matter often requires specialist knowledge - in linguistics, literature, science etc (and cooking). It seems that many members avoid replying to these posts but are still happy to view what their learned colleagues have to say on the matter - perhaps being of a mindset that all information is good information.

Anyway, for those of us that shouldn't spend all their work time on the AWAD board, this may be a handy tip. Rather than ignore them completely, you could save the less-than-ten-percenters for a liesurely browse when you get home.

stales

Well, now, isn't that interesting. Good on yer, mate.

For me, it's a sad state of affairs to open up WAD and to find that only one or two new posts are there...

But when it opens to 8, 9, and 10 new posts, oh, happy day! I read everything; comprehension, however, is another matter...

Best regards,
WW

Good index, stales; thank you for posting your ideas. I don't have time to read everything, much less to post as much as I'd like, so I'm gonna try your method. I agree with you that the greater diversity of posters, the better, though by your index, as you said, we still run the risk of one or two posters monopolizing one (or many, as has been the case lately) thread.

As to your converse, yeah, under 10% is a pretty good index of specialization. Then we check the thread subject, and hope for the best.

Thanks again.

hmmm

three divided by seventeen, multiplied by one hundred over one equals [tapping on calculator in background]seventeen point six percent!! [/tapping on calculator in background]

hey, wow - it works!!

stales

I know some of y'all have chosen Collapsed Threads for your Default View since this minimizes load time for the initial view of the forum. However (engineering tradeoff) this also deprives you of what may be an important piece of information; who has been posting to a given thread. We all have developed preferences to whose posts we like to read; there may be some whose posts we consider a must read and others who we would not prefer to spend our time on. In Expanded Threads you can tell that a given thread is nothing but a discussion between your two favorite love to hate posters and you can give that thread a pass.

We all have developed preferences to whose posts we like to read;...[if] a given thread is nothing but a discussion between your two favorite love to hate posters...you can give that thread a pass

wouldn't it be terrific if the board had an 'ignore' function and a 'flag' function? we could individually specify those users whose posts we don't have the time/inclination/patience/stomach to read, and conversely we'd have the convenience of a flag indicating a thread which contains input from those we enjoy hearing from.

i'll thank you for noting my considerable restraint in not citing examples

I can spend all day on the board, so my system consists of looking at every new post. Any other system is bound to miss many of the best posts.

Expanded Threads doesn't give you an explicit count of replies; you have to count them up your own self.

I can spend all day on the board


Sigh, must be nice.

Ah, well; ya pays yer nickel and ya takes yer cherce.

WW, wwh; coincidence? I dont think so.

if the 'Replies' are more than 10% of the 'Views' then there's a good chance that the topic has wide appeal and has attracted replies not only from a good many people, but also a diversity of posters (not just one or two going back and forth - though this does happen). As a bit of a generalist, I find that these posts are the ones that I tend to be most interested in and contribute to.

if a sizable proportion of regulars were to use this as a guideline it could seriously skew the outcome.
-joe heisenberg

if the 'Replies' are more than 10% of the 'Views' then there's a good chance that the topic has wide appeal and has attracted replies not only from a good many people, but also a diversity of posters (not just one or two going back and forth - though this does happen). As a bit of a generalist, I find that these posts are the ones that I tend to be most interested in and contribute to.

So, you may or you may not get the outcome you want if you apply your rather ingenious methodology. And you may or may not get the outcome you want if you don't bother.

Well, that's let the cat out of the bag!

-Jim Schrodinger ...

Faldage, WW, wwh; coincidence? I dont think so....

Oceans apart...

Beach regards,
WordWave

stales, I've been using a related rule of thumb.
Your rule (if under 1-in-10, cnosider passing it up) is designed to weed out.
I've been figuring that if the at least 1/7th of the views generate a reply, the thread is likely to be of high interest; that is, particularly worth a read.