Topic: TTEH is going to add a shitposting statistic but needs help on how to calculate it
The Board™ started this discussion 7 years ago #86,005
Thank you
Harriet Tubgirl joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 2 minutes later[^] [v] #985,190
Fart fuck hell
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 41 seconds later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #985,192
Everything bert posts is a shitpost.
tteh !MemesToDNA joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 7 minutes later, 10 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #985,195
@previous (C)
See, this was something I considered for certain posters -- merely grab their total post count and add it to the statistic. But some posters pepper their shitposting sprees with high-quality posts! I could build a list of known shitpost phrases but that isn't reliable, either. This is a serious matter.
See, this was something I considered for certain posters -- merely grab their total post count and add it to the statistic. But some posters pepper their shitposting sprees with high-quality posts! I could build a list of known shitpost phrases but that isn't reliable, either. This is a serious matter.
(Edited 46 seconds later.)
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 7 minutes later, 17 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #985,196
Secret upvotes and downvotes could be used to create data
(Edited 45 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 7 years ago, 48 seconds later, 18 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #985,197
@985,195 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
Yes, it does sound like a rather daunting task. If I come up with any ideas, I'll be sure to let you know.
Yes, it does sound like a rather daunting task. If I come up with any ideas, I'll be sure to let you know.
The Board™ (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #985,198
Ideas:
Number of references to Matt or Syntax
Posts that are just pictures, no words
Posts that are all lower case
Use of British English
Number of references to Matt or Syntax
Posts that are just pictures, no words
Posts that are all lower case
Use of British English
Anonymous E replied with this 7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #985,202
Meta !Sober//iZs joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 11 minutes later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #985,203
You guys are going about this completely wrong. Just figure out what percentage of each users posts are shitposts, then assign their UID a shitpost score.
For example, say we determine 15% of my posts are shitposts. My amount of shitposts is then easy to calculate: (number of Meta's posts)*0.15 = (number of shitposts)
For example, say we determine 15% of my posts are shitposts. My amount of shitposts is then easy to calculate: (number of Meta's posts)*0.15 = (number of shitposts)
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #985,205
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 7 years ago, 44 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #985,209
@985,203 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
Yep, this was another thought. Take 100 random posts from a user in a given period, assess if they're shitposts or not, then extrapolate. It'll require a fair bit of manual work though, and then we'll presumably need to review each user in the future too. Could become quite an effort, no?
Yep, this was another thought. Take 100 random posts from a user in a given period, assess if they're shitposts or not, then extrapolate. It'll require a fair bit of manual work though, and then we'll presumably need to review each user in the future too. Could become quite an effort, no?
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #985,210
@previous (tteh !MemesToDNA)
> we'll presumably need to review each user in the future too
I object unless it's of the data construct type.
> we'll presumably need to review each user in the future too
I object unless it's of the data construct type.
The Board™ (OP) replied with this 7 years ago, 15 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #985,212
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 25 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #985,215
@985,198 (The Board™)
Using emojis
Posting walls of text
Quoting walls of text
Quote chains
Excessive markup syntax
Using emojis
Posting walls of text
Quoting walls of text
Quote chains
Excessive markup syntax
Anonymous E replied with this 7 years ago, 39 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #985,235
@985,209 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
Give trusted uids ability to tag post as good or shit and display as a ratio
Give trusted uids ability to tag post as good or shit and display as a ratio
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #985,239
Anonymous E replied with this 7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #985,241
Sheila LaBoof joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 5 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #985,243
@985,198 (The Board™)
OP posts that are simply a link and no fuckin desription
political nonsense that seems sourced from some political shit factory rather than an original idea
OP posts that are simply a link and no fuckin desription
political nonsense that seems sourced from some political shit factory rather than an original idea
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 7 years ago, 4 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #985,245
@previous (Sheila LaBoof)> political nonsense that seems sourced from some political shit factory rather than an original idea
A few posters spring to mind!
tteh !MemesToDNA double-posted this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #985,246
@985,235 (E)
That might be a good idea, depends how often it would be abused. People might tag anything they dislike or find offensive as shitpost-y, especially if it's political.
Fuck, this is harder than it seemed at first. We should have a What is a Jew? sort of discussion: What is a shitposter?.
That might be a good idea, depends how often it would be abused. People might tag anything they dislike or find offensive as shitpost-y, especially if it's political.
Fuck, this is harder than it seemed at first. We should have a What is a Jew? sort of discussion: What is a shitposter?.
(Edited 20 seconds later.)
Sheila LaBoof replied with this 7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #985,248
I don't see it here, but at some boards, a reply can be simply a quoate fallowed by
This.
fuck off, this-prick
This.
fuck off, this-prick
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 7 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #985,267
@985,209 (tteh !MemesToDNA)
> Take 100 random posts from a user in a given period, assess if they're shitposts or not, then extrapolate. It'll require a fair bit of manual work though, and then we'll presumably need to review each user in the future too. Could become quite an effort, no?
Nah, just do it subjectively. Just list every regular poster here (ie all 8 of them) and just assign a percentage you feel is about right. You've been here for like 10 years now. You know who the shitposters are, and which ones shitpost more than others. Just do it by gut feel.
If you try to do this "scientifically" you're going to just get bogged down in trying to philosophically work out what a shitpost is and you'll be training a neural network on a repurposed Bitcoin mining rig to use Markov chains and computational linguistics and all this autistic retard shit and you'll never get anywhere.
> Take 100 random posts from a user in a given period, assess if they're shitposts or not, then extrapolate. It'll require a fair bit of manual work though, and then we'll presumably need to review each user in the future too. Could become quite an effort, no?
Nah, just do it subjectively. Just list every regular poster here (ie all 8 of them) and just assign a percentage you feel is about right. You've been here for like 10 years now. You know who the shitposters are, and which ones shitpost more than others. Just do it by gut feel.
If you try to do this "scientifically" you're going to just get bogged down in trying to philosophically work out what a shitpost is and you'll be training a neural network on a repurposed Bitcoin mining rig to use Markov chains and computational linguistics and all this autistic retard shit and you'll never get anywhere.
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 7 years ago, 27 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #985,274
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
That statistic becomes "Posters TTEH Does Not Like" instead of anything approaching objectivity. I prefer your blockchain-based neural network computational linguistic approach tbh.
That statistic becomes "Posters TTEH Does Not Like" instead of anything approaching objectivity. I prefer your blockchain-based neural network computational linguistic approach tbh.
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 7 years ago, 13 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #985,291
@previous (tteh !MemesToDNA)
> That statistic becomes "Posters TTEH Does Not Like" instead of anything approaching objectivity. I prefer your blockchain-based neural network computational linguistic approach tbh.
That's even worse, though. Because you'll subconsciously end up making the neural blockchain Markov definition of "shitpost" be "posts TTEH does not like" and then you'll spend all this time and effort fooling yourself into thinking you're doing it objectively and scientifically when you're just taking a really convoluted path to the same destination as sitting down with paper and pen and saying "Okay, Owen is 99% shitposts, Svet is 90%, Becky is 50%, etc, etc". There are posts (and posters) you don't like. Just embrace it!
> That statistic becomes "Posters TTEH Does Not Like" instead of anything approaching objectivity. I prefer your blockchain-based neural network computational linguistic approach tbh.
That's even worse, though. Because you'll subconsciously end up making the neural blockchain Markov definition of "shitpost" be "posts TTEH does not like" and then you'll spend all this time and effort fooling yourself into thinking you're doing it objectively and scientifically when you're just taking a really convoluted path to the same destination as sitting down with paper and pen and saying "Okay, Owen is 99% shitposts, Svet is 90%, Becky is 50%, etc, etc". There are posts (and posters) you don't like. Just embrace it!
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 7 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #985,292
@previous (Meta !Sober//iZs)
No, I have to believe there is objectivity! The question What is a shitpost? can be answered without inserting my own subjective opinions. I will confer with the greatest scientific minds that will respond to my PMs on reddit and get back to you all.
No, I have to believe there is objectivity! The question What is a shitpost? can be answered without inserting my own subjective opinions. I will confer with the greatest scientific minds that will respond to my PMs on reddit and get back to you all.
Meta !Sober//iZs replied with this 7 years ago, 10 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #985,294
@previous (tteh !MemesToDNA)
And, by sheer coincidence, the scientific definition you adopt will be a 1:1 match to what you don't like. You'll get many expert opinions, and find reasons to discard the ones that don't match until you're left with one that "just coincidentally happens" to match what you don't like. It'll feel good. You'll be vindicated. Your instincts were right all along! The experts (well at least the one that agrees with what you already thought) agree!
Man isn't a rational creature. Man is an animal with just a bit more IQ than most. The problem is, the bit of rationality we do have tends to fool us into thinking we are 100% rational when it's more like 1% rational. So we use this 1% to rationalize the other 99% of stuff we do that is really just animal instinct.
And, by sheer coincidence, the scientific definition you adopt will be a 1:1 match to what you don't like. You'll get many expert opinions, and find reasons to discard the ones that don't match until you're left with one that "just coincidentally happens" to match what you don't like. It'll feel good. You'll be vindicated. Your instincts were right all along! The experts (well at least the one that agrees with what you already thought) agree!
Man isn't a rational creature. Man is an animal with just a bit more IQ than most. The problem is, the bit of rationality we do have tends to fool us into thinking we are 100% rational when it's more like 1% rational. So we use this 1% to rationalize the other 99% of stuff we do that is really just animal instinct.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 7 years ago, 12 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #985,295
tteh !MemesToDNA replied with this 7 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #985,296
@985,294 (Meta !Sober//iZs)
I suppose, to what extent can we ever define a "shitpost" objectively? The very word describes our subjective experience of a post. I shall consult philosophers and scienticians alike, and have a simple RNG program choose a random selection of the responses, which I shall then consider.
I will scientifically define a shitpost. It WILL be done, Meta. Somehow.
I suppose, to what extent can we ever define a "shitpost" objectively? The very word describes our subjective experience of a post. I shall consult philosophers and scienticians alike, and have a simple RNG program choose a random selection of the responses, which I shall then consider.
I will scientifically define a shitpost. It WILL be done, Meta. Somehow.
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
Anonymous L replied with this 7 years ago, 6 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #985,298
