Author Topic: This site would be NOTHING without Jackstar  (Read 31539 times)

Re: This site would be NOTHING without K_Dubb
« Reply #75 on: January 27, 2022, 06:21:59 PM »
I retract my OP (the thread title).

No, I don't want jack to "GO AWAY," but I've had enough of the YouTube clips.

This ain't RubiniGab. We don't do filler.

We create content.



So looking at the numbers found here on the Forum Statistics Center, ole Dubya was/is responsible for approximately 10% of the content.  Much of that content was verbose prose and/or poetry without "filler" (vidyas, links to articles or cat-pictures), one could say that he generated quite a bit of "original content."

When contrasted to, say, JaxTard's contribution to the "original content" on the site (spread across his multiple sock-puppets)*. I imagine if a dispassionate observer were to do a qualitative comparison they would find that the Dubya posts are more readable, cohesive and understandable.

I have not run this type of comparison in a controlled scientifically rigorous study, but I have informally been tracking the data (19.5).

I would estimate that of the surviving 1,713 K_Dubb posts no more than 58.5±0.5 of them would have belonged in the scientifically defined (& delicious) SPAM category.

In Memoriam

K_Dubb

Furthermore, if one were to take the scientifically defined (& delicious) SPAM metric and apply it to ALL posts by ALL members we would find that the ackshuall "original content" on this site represents 30-40% of the total aggregate entries.  Taking that qualitative adjusted figure, and adding in the estimated qualitative adjusted Dubya post count number (excluding SPAM posts), we arrive at a not inconsiderable 26.83%(±5.5%) of Azzgab "original content" posts are attributable to Dubya.

If we can Trust The Science as delineated above, this "This site would be NOTHING without <insert gibbering Meth-addict name here>" theory is soundly exploded.

And another thing, if we exclude all posts made by members while wearing shirts (shirtlessness being the key metric that The Science states is needed for "things to be taken SiriusLee") these numbers put the derived Dubya contribution numbers at an even higher multiple of 19.5%.

I have said two mucks.

pate/?K_Dubb?POW/MIA? 2024
"WHO shat in the interregnum?" & "?WHO farted in the elevator?"







*As of the time of this post across the Jackstar, Jackstar JSAC-KUCZI RAVE# & jafd sock-puppet accounts that number is 2162 "posts", which works out to a raw weighted average 14% of total posts on the board. Were one to throw out the ~95% of that 2162 that are pure unreadable garbage we arrive at approximately 110 quality "original content" posts (again this is aggREgate for all MethStar accounts).

Re: This site would be NOTHING without [insert name here]
« Reply #76 on: January 27, 2022, 06:27:03 PM »
I no, p8.

I f'k'n miss ole W sooo mush.

Ts krazy.

Re: This site would be NOTHING without YOU
« Reply #77 on: January 27, 2022, 06:32:00 PM »
*As of the time of this post across the Jackstar, Jackstar JSAC-KUCZI RAVE# & jafd that number is 2162 which works out to a raw weighted 14% of total posts on the board. Were one to throw out the ~95% of that 2162 that are pure unreadable garbage we arrive at approximately 110 quality "original content" posts (again this is aggREgate for all MethStar accounts).

Jack-keys poasts iz gar-bidge, u sez¿

Re: This site would be NOTHING without YOU
« Reply #78 on: January 27, 2022, 06:37:58 PM »
Jack-keys poasts iz gar-bidge, u sez¿

That is an un-objective personal taste, I would be quite content to print out @JaxTard's posts in hard copy (bio-degradable rice paper), shred them and feed them to swine.



There is no accounting for taste;  I try really hard not to Judge, but sometimes I go ahead and do it anyway.

HAH!


Re: This site would be NOTHING without YOU
« Reply #79 on: January 27, 2022, 06:43:30 PM »
That is an un-objective personal taste, I would be quite content to print out @JaxTard's posts in hard copy (bio-degradable rice paper), shred them and feed them to swine.



There is no accounting for taste;  I try really hard not to Judge, but sometimes I go ahead and do it anyway.

You're a super nice guy. But yes, Jacky has lost his marbles.

I didn't think he was a nutter up till now, funnily enough.

But he's unstable, manic and paranoid. I dunno how I didn't see it before.