Simple Question:
Looking above at the top of the page, Total time have you been logged into the AARoads Forum thus far???
Me: 32 days, 31 minutes.
4 days 9 hours and 32 minutes. Have been here a month and a half.
25 days, 9 hours, and 5 minutes.
96 days, 19 hours and 16 minutes.
This isn't a particularly accurate measurement, by my own estimations.
42 Days, 8 hrs and 57 minutes.
Scott, I thought there was some kind of algorythm built in that cancels the time out if one remains on a page too long with no activity?
I know that if the system counted the entire time I was logged in I'd be well over 1000 days. I almost always have the forum open while at work, but quite often get interrupted by, well, work (911 doesn't answer itself, lol).
Quote from: slorydn1 on January 26, 2018, 04:33:49 AM
Scott, I thought there was some kind of algorythm built in that cancels the time out if one remains on a page too long with no activity?
Nope. You need to load a new page on the forum every 15m, otherwise, time doesn't count (oh, and don't close the browser, as that does reset it for sure, as it counts it as a new session).
259 days, 11 hours, and 1 minutes.
The counter doesn't know when to use the singular form.
I stay on "Recent Unread Topics" and reload the page quite often, which is why it's so high.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on January 26, 2018, 04:53:04 AM
Quote from: slorydn1 on January 26, 2018, 04:33:49 AM
Scott, I thought there was some kind of algorythm built in that cancels the time out if one remains on a page too long with no activity?
Nope. You need to load a new page on the forum every 15m, otherwise, time doesn't count (oh, and don't close the browser, as that does reset it for sure, as it counts it as a new session).
Ahh ok that makes more sense-not that I'm here for statistical purposes anyway. 20 years ago that may have been a thing but I'm to old to be worrying about my post count and time on the forum now anyway.
97 days, 5 hours, 24 minutes. That seems high to me. I do leave the forum open in the browsers on both my iPhone and iPad when I'm not using them, but based on the comment above, in theory that shouldn't affect the stats.
108 Days, 12 Hours, 7 Minutes. Usually I have the forum up when I'm at home with the computer and I reload pretty frequently to see topic updates.
I find it mildly interesting that none of the top 10 posters are in the top 10 for time spent online.
For me personally, 6 days, 19 hours, 55 minutes at the time of this post.
Quote from: 1995hoo on January 26, 2018, 07:30:00 AM
97 days, 5 hours, 24 minutes. That seems high to me...
See, I look at your post count and think that seems low :-D
18 days, 12 hours and 8 minutes.
36 days, 17 hours, and 46 minutes
Thus far, I've managed to waste here 77 days, 18 hours and 22 minutes. It'll grow with time.
Total time logged in: 73 days, 10 hours and 58 minutes.
I'm surprised. Maybe they left off the years and months. :)
Interesting. I just logged out (by hitting the "Logout" button at the top of the page). I then scrolled down and noticed I had completely disappeared from the "users active in the last 15 minutes" list. I would have thought I should still be on that list for 15 minutes, even if I'm technically offline. :confused:
12 hours 36 minutes. I don't visit (or post) very often...
6 days, 18 hours, 13 minutes
73 days, 20 hours and 9 minutes for me. I thought it would be more, given the amount of time I spend here...
At the very moment that I type this post, my total time logged in is 39 days, 22 hours and 6 minutes.
Back in early 2017, when my OCD was much worse, it would force me to take screenshots of my total time logged in in each and every hour that it progressed (23d 1h, 23d 2h, 23d 3h, etc.). Not only did this waste storage on my phone, but it was incredibly nerve-wracking and boring, and it would force me to read and browse the forum logged out most of the time during that period of time (except when I was actually posting, of course) - this was especially annoying when I wanted to read things in boards that are only visible to actual users who are actually logged in. Finally, I stuck the bird to my mind, and that was all over with. I feel a lot more free now, I don't have to intermittently log out and stay out, then log back in just to post, all for that stupid compulsive reason. But the point is that during that period of time, my total time logged in was not very accurate, over those several most severely mentally ill months (probably February to July 2017, practically half a year), I stayed in the range of 22 to 24 days logged in - now, since then, I have gone from 24 to nearly 40 days logged in, which is probably a rapid rate. With all of that said, my "total time logged in" seems to be most likely a few days short of actually being accurate, due to that obsessive period of time where I had to spend most of my time on the forum reading stuff logged out. I'd say I probably spend a good bit of time on this forum, and I do refresh things quite often to see new posts. I feel a lot more free now, so that's very good, and my mind can no longer restrict me from being logged in whenever I am actually browsing the forum.
8 days, 4 minutes.
Quote from: slorydn1 on January 26, 2018, 04:33:49 AM
42 Days, 8 hrs and 57 minutes.
Scott, I thought there was some kind of algorythm built in that cancels the time out if one remains on a page too long with no activity?
I know that if the system counted the entire time I was logged in I'd be well over 1000 days. I almost always have the forum open while at work, but quite often get interrupted by, well, work (911 doesn't answer itself, lol).
Wait a minute! You're logged-in to the forum while you're dispatching? That's a risk in itself.
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on January 26, 2018, 11:01:50 AM
Quote from: slorydn1 on January 26, 2018, 04:33:49 AM
42 Days, 8 hrs and 57 minutes.
Scott, I thought there was some kind of algorythm built in that cancels the time out if one remains on a page too long with no activity?
I know that if the system counted the entire time I was logged in I'd be well over 1000 days. I almost always have the forum open while at work, but quite often get interrupted by, well, work (911 doesn't answer itself, lol).
Wait a minute! You're logged-in to the forum while you're dispatching? That's a risk in itself.
How so? My computer has 4 screens, and it takes me a half-second to point my mouse at the cad portion of the screen. Or would you just have me staring at the TV watching the weather channel with the sound off for hours on end?
My total is embarrassingly high, as if to guilt-trip me into spending less time here.
Why is the total even displayed when we're logged in? I can see administrators making some technical use of that statistic, but how it helps users is to me unclear at best.
Quote from: slorydn1 on January 26, 2018, 11:23:37 AM
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on January 26, 2018, 11:01:50 AM
Quote from: slorydn1 on January 26, 2018, 04:33:49 AM
42 Days, 8 hrs and 57 minutes.
Scott, I thought there was some kind of algorythm built in that cancels the time out if one remains on a page too long with no activity?
I know that if the system counted the entire time I was logged in I'd be well over 1000 days. I almost always have the forum open while at work, but quite often get interrupted by, well, work (911 doesn't answer itself, lol).
Wait a minute! You're logged-in to the forum while you're dispatching? That's a risk in itself.
How so? My computer has 4 screens, and it takes me a half-second to point my mouse at the cad portion of the screen. Or would you just have me staring at the TV watching the weather channel with the sound off for hours on end?
Ok, maybe on a "slow day".
Oh goody, another "longest penis" contest, not dissimilar to "who has the most posts?"
Quote from: hbelkins on January 26, 2018, 11:48:40 AM
Oh goody, another "longest penis" contest, not dissimilar to "who has the most posts?"
Posts are not always good. Time spent online is always good. That's the key difference, at least in my eyes.
Quote from: oscar on January 26, 2018, 11:38:40 AM
My total is embarrassingly high, as if to guilt-trip me into spending less time here.
Why is the total even displayed when we're logged in? I can see administrators making some technical use of that statistic, but how it helps users is to me unclear at best.
I view high amount of time spent online as a good thing. In particular, a high minutes-to-posts ratio is a good thing. RGT, for example, has about 8 days spent online and 2800 posts. It's pretty safe to assume the posts are mostly short and pithy (:pan:). It also gives you a pretty good idea how likely someone is to be online at any given moment. Some people post and log out, others, like myself, tend to browse around a bit, and read plenty of threads without posting in them.
Quote from: webny99 on January 26, 2018, 11:52:39 AM
Posts are not always good. Time spent online is always good.
No.
QuoteI view high amount of time spent online as a good thing. In particular, a high minutes-to-posts ratio is a good thing. RGT, for example, has about 8 days spent online and 2800 posts. It's pretty safe to assume the posts are mostly short and pithy (:pan:).
Combine the words "short" and "pithy" in one particular way (and with one slight consonant tweak) and you'll get my general sentiment about excessive posting.
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on January 26, 2018, 11:42:07 AM
Quote from: slorydn1 on January 26, 2018, 11:23:37 AM
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on January 26, 2018, 11:01:50 AM
Quote from: slorydn1 on January 26, 2018, 04:33:49 AM
42 Days, 8 hrs and 57 minutes.
Scott, I thought there was some kind of algorythm built in that cancels the time out if one remains on a page too long with no activity?
I know that if the system counted the entire time I was logged in I'd be well over 1000 days. I almost always have the forum open while at work, but quite often get interrupted by, well, work (911 doesn't answer itself, lol).
Wait a minute! You're logged-in to the forum while you're dispatching? That's a risk in itself.
How so? My computer has 4 screens, and it takes me a half-second to point my mouse at the cad portion of the screen. Or would you just have me staring at the TV watching the weather channel with the sound off for hours on end?
Ok, maybe on a "slow day".
When you join the everyday office workforce, you'll understand.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 26, 2018, 11:54:43 AM
Quote from: webny99 on January 26, 2018, 11:52:39 AM
Posts are not always good. Time spent online is always good.
No.
... and?
Your second statement confirms that you agree that "posts are not always good". So when
isn't time spent online good? :confused:
22 days, 16 hours and 2 minutes
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 26, 2018, 12:09:20 PM
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on January 26, 2018, 11:42:07 AM
Quote from: slorydn1 on January 26, 2018, 11:23:37 AM
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on January 26, 2018, 11:01:50 AM
Quote from: slorydn1 on January 26, 2018, 04:33:49 AM
42 Days, 8 hrs and 57 minutes.
Scott, I thought there was some kind of algorythm built in that cancels the time out if one remains on a page too long with no activity?
I know that if the system counted the entire time I was logged in I'd be well over 1000 days. I almost always have the forum open while at work, but quite often get interrupted by, well, work (911 doesn't answer itself, lol).
Wait a minute! You're logged-in to the forum while you're dispatching? That's a risk in itself.
How so? My computer has 4 screens, and it takes me a half-second to point my mouse at the cad portion of the screen. Or would you just have me staring at the TV watching the weather channel with the sound off for hours on end?
Ok, maybe on a "slow day".
When you join the everyday office workforce, you'll understand.
I hope my plans steer me away from cubical work! :-D :D
Honestly, I had to find this particular section. Guess I always kept mine minimized.
81 days, 11 hours and 31 minutes
As others have mentioned, not 100% accurate for how long I spend browsing. I often will browse in incognito when I'm bored since I don't want to disrupt the read/unread forum markings for when I do my "full" checks of the forum (which involve methodically going through every forum with unread posts, looking at every single new post on the threads I'm interested in). Since I tend to queue up a bunch of threads all at once in batches (though I should probably adjust those since General Highway Talk is less active than it used to be and Off Topic a lot more active), that probably further decreases the time online since I could well go 15 minutes without opening anything new or posting, if people have been making long posts in a lot of threads.
Quote from: webny99 on January 26, 2018, 12:10:38 PM
... and?
Your second statement confirms that you agree that "posts are not always good". So when isn't time spent online good? :confused:
My point, which I probably should've elaborated upon, is not whether time spent here is good or bad; it is that this statistic is useless. It isn't really an indicator of anything.
Mine is a frighteningly-large 45 days, 16 hours and 47 minutes. I tend to read a lot more than I actually post.
Quote from: vdeane on January 26, 2018, 01:24:31 PM
I often will browse in incognito when I'm bored...
If you're referring to logging in from an incognito
window, I do that almost exclusively, and it definitely still counts your time spent online.
If you're referring to browsing offline, well, (obviously) that isn't counted.
Quote from: vdeane on January 26, 2018, 01:24:31 PM
(though I should probably adjust those since General Highway Talk is less active than it used to be and Off Topic a lot more active)
I've noticed that too :pan: The statistics-loving part of my brain cannot help wondering if Off-Topic will ever surpass General Highway Talk for total posts. I hope not. I'm trying to make sure that will never happen.
[posts to Off-Topic][/irony]
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 26, 2018, 01:34:40 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 26, 2018, 12:10:38 PM
... and?
Your second statement confirms that you agree that "posts are not always good". So when isn't time spent online good? :confused:
My point, which I probably should've elaborated upon, is not whether time spent here is good or bad; it is that this statistic is useless. It isn't really an indicator of anything.
Statistics are
not useless. I don't deny being over-obsessed/interested in them, but they do have some very valuable, practical benefits.
Quote from: webny99 on January 26, 2018, 01:36:54 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 26, 2018, 01:24:31 PM
I often will browse in incognito when I'm bored...
If you're referring to logging in from an incognito window, I do that almost exclusively, and it definitely still counts your time spent online.
If you're referring to browsing offline, well, (obviously) that isn't counted.
Offline, since these aren't full checks and I don't want to disrupt the read/unread indicators. If you open a thread in a forum with unread posts, the entire forum will be marked unread until someone else posts even if there are other unread posts. I don't know if AARoads does this (pretty sure it doesn't, since I accidentally closed the index once and was able to browse back without too much disruption), but I know there are other forums where closing the forum will cause ALL forums to be marked read, even ones you haven't checked (or at least there were some 10 years ago), so this habit is something I developed back when I used to browser more forums regularly.
Quote from: webny99 on January 26, 2018, 01:38:51 PM
Statistics are not useless. I don't deny being over-obsessed/interested in them, but they do have some very valuable, practical benefits.
I didn't say that. I said
this one particular statistic is useless. But please, enlighten me. I would love to know how you believe "total time logged in" can be correlated in a meaningful way to anything.
Quote from: webny99 on January 26, 2018, 01:36:54 PM
Quote from: vdeane on January 26, 2018, 01:24:31 PM
(though I should probably adjust those since General Highway Talk is less active than it used to be and Off Topic a lot more active)
I've noticed that too :pan: The statistics-loving part of my brain cannot help wondering if Off-Topic will ever surpass General Highway Talk for total posts. I hope not. I'm trying to make sure that will never happen.
I hope that will never happen as well. Even though Off-Topic can seem quite vibrant at times, I do highly doubt that it will ever actually surpass General Highway Talk, Traffic Control, and the sort. I just don't see it happening.
Quote from: webny99 on January 26, 2018, 01:38:51 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 26, 2018, 01:34:40 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 26, 2018, 12:10:38 PM
... and?
Your second statement confirms that you agree that "posts are not always good". So when isn't time spent online good? :confused:
My point, which I probably should've elaborated upon, is not whether time spent here is good or bad; it is that this statistic is useless. It isn't really an indicator of anything.
Statistics are not useless. I don't deny being over-obsessed/interested in them, but they do have some very valuable, practical benefits.
I am interested in statistics a good bit myself. I agree that posts are not always good, but that time spent online can never be bad (is always good or neutral). I do understand that the statistic of it isn't
particularly significant (or among the
most useful of things around), but it is definitely nice and good to have, for reference, and for those who really, really do like statistics. :-P
Though, it should not be meant to be a stick-measuring contest, of course. Some people read and type faster than others (I am not one of them, especially with the former), so they can create more posts in a shorter amount of time (this does
not imply that it is always the case that those posts are low-quality, though). Some people have more free time than others, and can browse, read, post, and ultimately collect more online time than others. Some people may simply refresh more than others, which also directly affects the collective online time. Some people don't always browse the forum while logged in, as has been noted. And there are many other things to consider as well. This statistic is definitely interesting and good to have, but of course, it is not something to be measured to see who "has the best," due to all those factors.
39 days, 10 hours and 57 minutes. For whatever it's worth.
Statistics are fun, and actually often misunderstood. However, they can be misunderstood by both the gatherer and the user, and they are usually misused in such a way to get someone to agree to one's position.
Hopefully you are taking college classes that gear towards statistics since you like them so much. I took one in school. If you "get it", it's an enjoyable course. If you don't "get it", you just hope to survive the course.
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 26, 2018, 01:57:51 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 26, 2018, 01:38:51 PM
Statistics are not useless. I don't deny being over-obsessed/interested in them, but they do have some very valuable, practical benefits.
I didn't say that. I said this one particular statistic is useless. But please, enlighten me. I would love to know how you believe "total time logged in" can be correlated in a meaningful way to anything.
In two words: Post quality.
Time spent online is an indicator, to a certain extent, of how much browsing a user has done, and how much time and thought they have put into their posts. I also find it interesting to compare time online to post counts, and as I mentioned above:
QuoteI find it mildly interesting that none of the top ten posters are in the top ten for time spent online.
Some users make many posts in a short amount of time, inflating post counts while time online remains low. On the other hand, those who regularly post high-quality content are going to spend much more time online, by default. So my point is not that time spent online is particularly important (as mentioned above, some users, myself included, browse offline as well). Rather, my point is that time spent online is probably
more accurate and meaningful than post count, with regards to a user's credibility and/or road related knowledge. Obviously, neither one is a be-all, end-all measure.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 26, 2018, 02:40:33 PM
Statistics are fun, and actually often misunderstood. However, they can be misunderstood by both the gatherer and the user, and they are usually misused in such a way to get someone to agree to one's position.
Hopefully you are taking college classes that gear towards statistics since you like them so much. I took one in school. If you "get it", it's an enjoyable course. If you don't "get it", you just hope to survive the course.
See, I don't find the urge to
use statistics, so much as just to fill my brain with as many of them as possible (and constantly change those over which I have control - such as post count, topics started, etc.).
I'm not taking any college classes - yet. I'm still in decision mode ;-)
Who gives a shit?
Quote from: webny99 on January 26, 2018, 03:06:06 PM
Quote from: MNHighwayMan on January 26, 2018, 01:57:51 PM
Quote from: webny99 on January 26, 2018, 01:38:51 PM
Statistics are not useless. I don't deny being over-obsessed/interested in them, but they do have some very valuable, practical benefits.
I didn't say that. I said this one particular statistic is useless. But please, enlighten me. I would love to know how you believe "total time logged in" can be correlated in a meaningful way to anything.
In two words: Post quality.
Time spent online is an indicator, to a certain extent, of how much browsing a user has done, and how much time and thought they have put into their posts.
My 259 days is largely waiting for new replies on Recent Unread Topics.
Quote from: Takumi on January 26, 2018, 03:19:57 PM
Who gives a shit?
I never had looked at this before and am now depressed that I spent such a large percentage of the last nine years refreshing the forum
Quote from: 1
My 259 days is largely waiting for new replies on Recent Unread Topics.
So you're always quick to respond... I'd say that's still to your credit, even if it's not a direct indication of post quality.
Quote from: corco on January 26, 2018, 05:01:30 PM
Quote from: Takumi on January 26, 2018, 03:19:57 PM
Who gives a shit?
I never had looked at this before and am now depressed that I spent such a large percentage of the last nine years refreshing the forum
You aren't impressed that you're #4 overall for time spent online? ;-)
Quote from: webny99 on January 26, 2018, 05:24:18 PM
Quote from: 1
My 259 days is largely waiting for new replies on Recent Unread Topics.
So you're always quick to respond... I'd say that's still to your credit, even if it's not a direct indication of post quality.
Quote from: corco on January 26, 2018, 05:01:30 PM
Quote from: Takumi on January 26, 2018, 03:19:57 PM
Who gives a shit?
I never had looked at this before and am now depressed that I spent such a large percentage of the last nine years refreshing the forum
You aren't impressed that you're #4 overall for time spent online? ;-)
No, I don't particularly see that as something to be proud of
Someone mentioned statistics, so I decided to run a sample analysis based on the information posted to this thread:
First I calculated a time-per-post metric `tpp` that measured a user's average number of minutes of forum browsing per post:
username posts time tpp
22 bm7 4 12 180.000000
21 DeaconG 655 947 86.748092
20 1 4594 6227 81.327819
19 slorydn1 907 1016 67.210584
18 Thing342 1112 1096 59.136691
17 CNGL-Leudimin 1910 1772 55.664921
16 Buck87 613 544 53.246330
15 adventurenumber1 1107 958 51.924119
14 busman_49 237 162 41.012658
13 Max Rockatansky 5796 2604 26.956522
12 thenetwork 2085 768 22.100719
11 webny99 484 163 20.206612
10 Scott5114 7150 2323 19.493706
9 jp the roadgeek 2017 609 18.116014
8 TheArkansasRoadgeek 646 192 17.832817
7 roadman 3061 881 17.268866
6 1995hoo 8678 2333 16.130445
5 vdeane 8581 1955 13.669735
4 jeffandnicole 7912 1762 13.361982
3 brandon 9039 1866 12.386326
2 Hurricane Rex 677 105 9.305761
1 Henry 3810 444 6.992126
(The formula is simply the number of hours spent on the forum divided by number of posts)
Then, I wondered what variables (other than the obvious) might influence this metric, so I gathered up people's listed ages and their user ID number (serving as a rough proxy for how long they've been here, lower -> older). Using that, I calculated a correlation matrix:
Quote
userid age posts time tpp
userid 1.0000000 -0.69243768 -0.7023296 -0.11343862 0.4295641
age -0.6924377 1.00000000 0.3383106 -0.09978523 -0.2951400
posts -0.7023296 0.33831064 1.0000000 0.51151575 -0.4057392
time -0.1134386 -0.09978523 0.5115158 1.00000000 0.4184179
tpp 0.4295641 -0.29514000 -0.4057392 0.41841791 1.0000000
The results of this experiment weren't that surprising:
- User ID is highly negatively correlated with number of posts and age; meaning that people who've been here longer tend to have more posts (obviously) and tend to be older (also fairly intuitive). There's also weak positive correlation between account age and time-per-post, but it's not strong enough to draw any strong conclusion from.
- Age doesn't appear to be a very significant variable otherwise, only barely negatively correlated with TPP.
- Total number of posts has a mild positive correlation with time spent on the forum, which should also be obvious as to why.
Finally, here's a basic report on the data:
userid age posts time tpp
Min. : 33 Min. :17.00 Min. : 4.0 Min. : 12.0 Min. : 6.992
1st Qu.: 2052 1st Qu.:19.25 1st Qu.: 660.5 1st Qu.: 469.0 1st Qu.: 16.415
Median : 8566 Median :31.50 Median :1963.5 Median : 952.5 Median : 21.154
Mean : 7397 Mean :32.22 Mean :3230.7 Mean :1306.3 Mean : 40.459
3rd Qu.:12658 3rd Qu.:42.75 3rd Qu.:5495.5 3rd Qu.:1842.5 3rd Qu.: 55.060
Max. :14144 Max. :56.00 Max. :9039.0 Max. :6227.0 Max. :180.000
In summary, the only real conclusion that I can draw is that tenured members of the forum maybe tend to spend more time researching the boards before composing a post. However, this is beset by the fact that the total login time variable is somewhat of an unreliable measurement. It's also a small sample size (N = 22), maybe if I had a larger dataset the results would be more concrete. I could always scrape the members list, but I suspect the admins wouldn't be too pleased about that.
User IDs are weird. From June 10, 2011 to September 6, 2013 (I have no idea why those dates), many non-members were counted as being registered when they were not. This only affects two things: this page (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?action=stats) and user IDs; user IDs increased for these non-members during this time period. This means that user IDs between 2652 and 12350 are mostly skipped, as they are assigned to these "non-members".
Not that I care at all, but apparently I've spent 8 days, 19 hours, and 55 minutes on here.
Thing 342:
Sorry I didn't want to quote your post and then do all the work to delete all the unnecessary stuff for my answer (I just woke up so I'm feeling lazy).
Registration date can be problematic as well. To illustrate I'll use my own experience as an example:
It is true that I registered on March 26th 2012, a Monday after a long weekend of night shift at work. I was researching information about US-70 becoming a full freeway between Raleigh and Morehead City NC and one of the links on Google was a thread in the Fictional section of this forum. Non Members can't (couldn't ?) see the threads in the Fictional section so I registered. It took a full day or 2 before my registration was accepted. By then I found what I had been looking for and kinda forgot about the forum for a while. I was still checking out various sections of AA Roads (pictures, exit guides (etc), but I had basically forgotten that the forum existed. In my defense at the time I was moderating 2 non road related forums so most online "forum time" was spent attending to those duties.
I had rediscovered the forum sometime late 2013, early 2014 but I didn't spend a lot of time here, just lurking in whatever threads non members could read (I wasn't logging in). In fact I had forgotten that I had already registered in 2012. I tried to register in late January 2015 and was told my username already existed. With some correspondence back and forth with Rickmastfan67 I was set up and could log in, and I made my first post the first day I logged in on February 3rd 2015 . That truly is my start date on the forum.
While I am pretty sure I am the only one with that kind of gap between registration date and first meaningful forum activity, there has to be others who have some sort of gap to where their registration date becomes meaningless from a statistical standpoint.
*Note: With my caffeine deficiency I somehow misunderstood the "time" column to mean since registration and not the hours online displayed. Not sure how I could have done that since the whole point of this thread is "time online" but it is what it is. I'm going to leave the post up just in case someone else has a crazy idea to do something in relation to registration date, and I am now going to go drink some damn coffee.....
Quote from: oscar on January 26, 2018, 11:38:40 AM
My total is embarrassingly high, as if to guilt-trip me into spending less time here.
Why is the total even displayed when we're logged in? I can see administrators making some technical use of that statistic, but how it helps users is to me unclear at best.
mine too. Too much time on my hands.
My total time might seem impressive; I don't know, and like I said upthread, I'm not a big fan of these penis measurement contests, so I'm not going to post my statistics.
But I wonder if they're skewed because anytime I'm forced to do a new login (which sometimes happens after a browser crash), I always choose the "Stay Logged In Forever" option.
Quote from: hbelkins on January 26, 2018, 08:34:27 PM
My total time might seem impressive; I don't know, and like I said upthread, I'm not a big fan of these penis measurement contests, so I'm not going to post my statistics.
OMG! We agree on something. :o :-o
If someone really wanted to get anal-retentive, one could compare time on-line vs number of posts.
Quote from: Thing 342 on January 26, 2018, 06:32:10 PM
Someone mentioned statistics, so I decided to run a sample analysis based on the information posted to this thread:
First I calculated a time-per-post metric `tpp` that measured a user's average number of minutes of forum browsing per post:
username posts time tpp
22 bm7 4 12 180.000000
21 DeaconG 655 947 86.748092
20 1 4594 6227 81.327819
19 slorydn1 907 1016 67.210584
18 Thing342 1112 1096 59.136691
17 CNGL-Leudimin 1910 1772 55.664921
16 Buck87 613 544 53.246330
15 adventurenumber1 1107 958 51.924119
14 busman_49 237 162 41.012658
13 Max Rockatansky 5796 2604 26.956522
12 thenetwork 2085 768 22.100719
11 webny99 484 163 20.206612
10 Scott5114 7150 2323 19.493706
9 jp the roadgeek 2017 609 18.116014
8 TheArkansasRoadgeek 646 192 17.832817
7 roadman 3061 881 17.268866
6 1995hoo 8678 2333 16.130445
5 vdeane 8581 1955 13.669735
4 jeffandnicole 7912 1762 13.361982
3 brandon 9039 1866 12.386326
2 Hurricane Rex 677 105 9.305761
1 Henry 3810 444 6.992126
(The formula is simply the number of hours spent on the forum divided by number of posts)
Then, I wondered what variables (other than the obvious) might influence this metric, so I gathered up people's listed ages and their user ID number (serving as a rough proxy for how long they've been here, lower -> older). Using that, I calculated a correlation matrix:
Quote
userid age posts time tpp
userid 1.0000000 -0.69243768 -0.7023296 -0.11343862 0.4295641
age -0.6924377 1.00000000 0.3383106 -0.09978523 -0.2951400
posts -0.7023296 0.33831064 1.0000000 0.51151575 -0.4057392
time -0.1134386 -0.09978523 0.5115158 1.00000000 0.4184179
tpp 0.4295641 -0.29514000 -0.4057392 0.41841791 1.0000000
The results of this experiment weren't that surprising:
- User ID is highly negatively correlated with number of posts and age; meaning that people who've been here longer tend to have more posts (obviously) and tend to be older (also fairly intuitive). There's also weak positive correlation between account age and time-per-post, but it's not strong enough to draw any strong conclusion from.
- Age doesn't appear to be a very significant variable otherwise, only barely negatively correlated with TPP.
- Total number of posts has a mild positive correlation with time spent on the forum, which should also be obvious as to why.
Finally, here's a basic report on the data:
userid age posts time tpp
Min. : 33 Min. :17.00 Min. : 4.0 Min. : 12.0 Min. : 6.992
1st Qu.: 2052 1st Qu.:19.25 1st Qu.: 660.5 1st Qu.: 469.0 1st Qu.: 16.415
Median : 8566 Median :31.50 Median :1963.5 Median : 952.5 Median : 21.154
Mean : 7397 Mean :32.22 Mean :3230.7 Mean :1306.3 Mean : 40.459
3rd Qu.:12658 3rd Qu.:42.75 3rd Qu.:5495.5 3rd Qu.:1842.5 3rd Qu.: 55.060
Max. :14144 Max. :56.00 Max. :9039.0 Max. :6227.0 Max. :180.000
In summary, the only real conclusion that I can draw is that tenured members of the forum maybe tend to spend more time researching the boards before composing a post. However, this is beset by the fact that the total login time variable is somewhat of an unreliable measurement, plus the lurking factor thatiser with what they post, anyways. It's also a small sample size (N = 22), maybe if I had a larger dataset the results would be more concrete. I could always scrape the members list, but I suspect the admins wouldn't be too pleased about that.
That is some
incredibly high-quality work that you have done there my friend, and I applaud you for your hard work. :clap: :thumbsup:
That is very interesting indeed. I'm sure that will be a treat for anyone intrigued by statistics. :sombrero:
And just to clarify, I did post my own statistics, but that does not mean I am taking part in the dick-measuring contest. I simply volunteered the information for anyone who is interested in these statistics.
If I was being competitive, I wouldn't have that much to offer against several other people in this thread who have their collective time online in days in the hundreds. :-D :D
Quote from: hbelkins on January 26, 2018, 11:48:40 AM
Oh goody, another "longest penis" contest, not dissimilar to "who has the most posts?"
LOL. Similar to what most women will tell you about dicks. In the case of the forums it's not the length of time you spend on the forum that matters, it's how you use that time.
In the interest of science and data points: 31 days, 12:09 (+/-3 days of logged-off browsing).
I don't care for contests, but I don't see this as a contest, merely as an aggregation of data. I'm up to nearly a fortnight, at 13 days, 23 hours, and 15 minutes. I don't sign in just to read, and don't post a lot, but when I do sign in I usually stay signed in well after I need to, so I haven't actually spent that much time in non-lurking mode.
Quote from: US71 on January 26, 2018, 09:53:02 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on January 26, 2018, 08:34:27 PM
My total time might seem impressive; I don't know, and like I said upthread, I'm not a big fan of these penis measurement contests, so I'm not going to post my statistics.
OMG! We agree on something. :o :-o
If someone really wanted to get anal-retentive, one could compare time on-line vs number of posts.
Quote from: wxfree on January 26, 2018, 10:50:43 PM
I don't care for contests, but I don't see this as a contest, merely as an aggregation of data.
Yeah, this. It's only a contest to the extent you make it one, and those of us who
have answered the question aren't treating it like a contest at all. To the contrary, its quite an interesting discussion, not at all a bad one to be having.
ETA: Another thing I just noticed is that time you spend with the "post reply" window open does not count towards your time spent online. :hmmm:
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on January 26, 2018, 10:25:04 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on January 26, 2018, 06:32:10 PM
[stats snipped]
That is some incredibly high-quality work that you have done there my friend, and I applaud you for your hard work. :clap: :thumbsup:
That is very interesting indeed. I'm sure that will be a treat for anyone intrigued by statistics. :sombrero:
Yeah, I second that. That was extremely interesting (whether it has any wider-reaching significance or not :spin:), and I'd love to see a graph like that for all of the forum users. Factoring in some of our even younger users, such as RGT, may also have an impact.
Quote from: webny99 on January 26, 2018, 11:26:51 PM
ETA: Another thing I just noticed is that time you spend with the "post reply" window open does not count towards your time spent online. :hmmm:
It does, trust me. However, if it takes you 16m to make the post, you don't have any time counted, but if you post within the 15m window, it does.
Quote from: Thing 342 on January 26, 2018, 06:32:10 PM
Someone mentioned statistics, so I decided to run a sample analysis based on the information posted to this thread:
First I calculated a time-per-post metric `tpp` that measured a user's average number of minutes of forum browsing per post:
username posts time tpp
22 bm7 4 12 180.000000
21 DeaconG 655 947 86.748092
20 1 4594 6227 81.327819
19 slorydn1 907 1016 67.210584
18 Thing342 1112 1096 59.136691
17 CNGL-Leudimin 1910 1772 55.664921
16 Buck87 613 544 53.246330
15 adventurenumber1 1107 958 51.924119
14 busman_49 237 162 41.012658
13 Max Rockatansky 5796 2604 26.956522
12 thenetwork 2085 768 22.100719
11 webny99 484 163 20.206612
10 Scott5114 7150 2323 19.493706
9 jp the roadgeek 2017 609 18.116014
8 TheArkansasRoadgeek 646 192 17.832817
7 roadman 3061 881 17.268866
6 1995hoo 8678 2333 16.130445
5 vdeane 8581 1955 13.669735
4 jeffandnicole 7912 1762 13.361982
3 brandon 9039 1866 12.386326
2 Hurricane Rex 677 105 9.305761
1 Henry 3810 444 6.992126
I have a tendency to look at the posts while not logged in before logging in to post, hence the artificially low ratio. However, on the off-topic, weather and the challenge boards, I tend to post the first thing I can think of however not everything because that would make me look like an idiot. I feel like when I was in my first weeks it was a higher post per hour ratio because I had about 200 posts in my first day online (time logged in, about 7.2 minutes per post).
Also, thank you for your time finding these statistics.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on January 27, 2018, 01:01:05 AM
Quote from: webny99 on January 26, 2018, 11:26:51 PM
ETA: Another thing I just noticed is that time you spend with the "post reply" window open does not count towards your time spent online. :hmmm:
It does, trust me. However, if it takes you 16m to make the post, you don't have any time counted, but if you post within the 15m window, it does.
It should not have taken me more than 15 miutes to make that post. But I guess it did, apparently :pan:
I'm at 26 days, 22 hours and 48 minutes as of this post.
26 days
5 hours
45 minutes
:)
7 days, 7 hours, 7 minutes :clap: :bigass:
58 days, 17 hours, and 47 minutes
Total time logged in: 8 days, 20 hours and 17 minutes.
Quote from: webny99 on February 01, 2018, 10:08:21 AM
7 days, 7 hours, 7 minutes :clap: :bigass:
Since you really like statistics/numbers oddities like that, I have a treat for you: :sombrero: :bigass:
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180201/aaa81d20a21e173caa7ceb3f381f3c22.jpg)
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180201/ccfd0df3eb778b7d038f4dbdfe3704cd.jpg)
8 days, 15 hours and 24 minutes
Quote from: webny99 on February 01, 2018, 08:37:12 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on February 01, 2018, 06:12:26 PM
8 days, 15 hours and 24 minutes
Similar time to me, strangely enough. I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions :meh:
Comparing Roadgeekteen's time and your time gives a ratio of 1.172. Not noteworthy. That would be equivalent to me saying someone with 224 days or 306 days (actual: 261d 9h 17m) is similar to my time online.
What about quality of posts vs time logged in?
Quote from: webny99 on February 01, 2018, 11:01:45 PM
Quote from: US71 on February 01, 2018, 10:30:11 PM
What about quality of posts vs time logged in?
Typically either both high or both low. Just throwing that out there ;-)
Having just typed and posted a quality epistle over in the Northeast board, I feel qualified to say that much :D
Don't strain your arm patting yourself on the back. :spin:
Quote from: US71 on February 02, 2018, 12:23:45 AM
Don't strain your arm patting yourself on the back. :spin:
Oh, no worries, my arm muscles are well adapted for that exact purpose :sombrero:
Total time logged in: 9 days, 3 hours and 26 minutes.
3 days, 20 hours, and 26 minutes.
Just returned from a completely unintentional (and slightly embarrassing) absence of uncertain but considerable length. Sorry, guys!
4 hours and 39 minutes. :-(
I've been following this site for almost 15 years, and even contributed some info to some of the highway guides back around 2005, but somehow never got into the forums until about a year ago, and I've pretty much just been a lurker. I was much more into message forums back then, and may have registered under a different name/email, but darned if I can figure out what it would have been.
Quote from: Thing 342 on January 26, 2018, 06:32:10 PM
In summary, the only real conclusion that I can draw is that tenured members of the forum maybe tend to spend more time researching the boards before composing a post. However, this is beset by the fact that the total login time variable is somewhat of an unreliable measurement. It's also a small sample size (N = 22), maybe if I had a larger dataset the results would be more concrete. I could always scrape the members list, but I suspect the admins wouldn't be too pleased about that.
I wonder if the inclusion of moderators/admins may be skewing the data. There are times when I'm not particularly interested in a topic, but I spend time checking on the thread and not posting because it looks like it may need moderation at some point.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 10, 2018, 02:40:16 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on January 26, 2018, 06:32:10 PM
In summary, the only real conclusion that I can draw is that tenured members of the forum maybe tend to spend more time researching the boards before composing a post. However, this is beset by the fact that the total login time variable is somewhat of an unreliable measurement. It's also a small sample size (N = 22), maybe if I had a larger dataset the results would be more concrete. I could always scrape the members list, but I suspect the admins wouldn't be too pleased about that.
I wonder if the inclusion of moderators/admins may be skewing the data. There are times when I'm not particularly interested in a topic, but I spend time checking on the thread and not posting because it looks like it may need moderation at some point.
No, I'm skewing the data. I have more than twice the time of anyone else included in those 22.
Quote from: 1 on February 10, 2018, 02:43:23 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 10, 2018, 02:40:16 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on January 26, 2018, 06:32:10 PM
In summary, the only real conclusion that I can draw is that tenured members of the forum maybe tend to spend more time researching the boards before composing a post. However, this is beset by the fact that the total login time variable is somewhat of an unreliable measurement. It's also a small sample size (N = 22), maybe if I had a larger dataset the results would be more concrete. I could always scrape the members list, but I suspect the admins wouldn't be too pleased about that.
I wonder if the inclusion of moderators/admins may be skewing the data. There are times when I'm not particularly interested in a topic, but I spend time checking on the thread and not posting because it looks like it may need moderation at some point.
No, I'm skewing the data. I have more than twice the time of anyone else included in those 22.
Plus a lot of my time is just double checking stuff, and fixing the forum while it's maintenance mode. Sometimes I can rack up 3-4 hours doing that if the problem is that big.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on February 10, 2018, 10:32:23 PM
Quote from: 1 on February 10, 2018, 02:43:23 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 10, 2018, 02:40:16 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on January 26, 2018, 06:32:10 PM
In summary, the only real conclusion that I can draw is that tenured members of the forum maybe tend to spend more time researching the boards before composing a post. However, this is beset by the fact that the total login time variable is somewhat of an unreliable measurement. It's also a small sample size (N = 22), maybe if I had a larger dataset the results would be more concrete. I could always scrape the members list, but I suspect the admins wouldn't be too pleased about that.
I wonder if the inclusion of moderators/admins may be skewing the data. There are times when I'm not particularly interested in a topic, but I spend time checking on the thread and not posting because it looks like it may need moderation at some point.
No, I'm skewing the data. I have more than twice the time of anyone else included in those 22.
Plus a lot of my time is just double checking stuff, and fixing the forum while it's maintenance mode. Sometimes I can rack up 3-4 hours doing that if the problem is that big.
Well, lookie here! Mr. Maintenance wants a cookie! :-D :-P[/sarcasm]
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on February 13, 2018, 12:11:35 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on February 10, 2018, 10:32:23 PM
Quote from: 1 on February 10, 2018, 02:43:23 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 10, 2018, 02:40:16 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on January 26, 2018, 06:32:10 PM
In summary, the only real conclusion that I can draw is that tenured members of the forum maybe tend to spend more time researching the boards before composing a post. However, this is beset by the fact that the total login time variable is somewhat of an unreliable measurement. It's also a small sample size (N = 22), maybe if I had a larger dataset the results would be more concrete. I could always scrape the members list, but I suspect the admins wouldn't be too pleased about that.
I wonder if the inclusion of moderators/admins may be skewing the data. There are times when I'm not particularly interested in a topic, but I spend time checking on the thread and not posting because it looks like it may need moderation at some point.
No, I'm skewing the data. I have more than twice the time of anyone else included in those 22.
Plus a lot of my time is just double checking stuff, and fixing the forum while it's maintenance mode. Sometimes I can rack up 3-4 hours doing that if the problem is that big.
Well, lookie here! Mr. Maintenance wants a cookie! :-D :-P[/sarcasm]
Send me $500 and I'll be quiet. :P lol. :sombrero:
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on February 13, 2018, 10:29:46 PM
Quote from: TheArkansasRoadgeek on February 13, 2018, 12:11:35 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on February 10, 2018, 10:32:23 PM
Quote from: 1 on February 10, 2018, 02:43:23 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 10, 2018, 02:40:16 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on January 26, 2018, 06:32:10 PM
In summary, the only real conclusion that I can draw is that tenured members of the forum maybe tend to spend more time researching the boards before composing a post. However, this is beset by the fact that the total login time variable is somewhat of an unreliable measurement. It's also a small sample size (N = 22), maybe if I had a larger dataset the results would be more concrete. I could always scrape the members list, but I suspect the admins wouldn't be too pleased about that.
I wonder if the inclusion of moderators/admins may be skewing the data. There are times when I'm not particularly interested in a topic, but I spend time checking on the thread and not posting because it looks like it may need moderation at some point.
No, I'm skewing the data. I have more than twice the time of anyone else included in those 22.
Plus a lot of my time is just double checking stuff, and fixing the forum while it's maintenance mode. Sometimes I can rack up 3-4 hours doing that if the problem is that big.
Well, lookie here! Mr. Maintenance wants a cookie! :-D :-P[/sarcasm]
Send me $500 and I'll be quiet. :P lol. :sombrero:
What? Are my two cents not good enough for you rick? :-D
I've only been a member of this forum for about two weeks and I have 11 hours logged in. I know there are people here who have thousands of posts and have been here for years, so I'm wondering how much time they have been logged in to this forum.
Last thread on this: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22131.0
Quote from: Big John on August 25, 2019, 11:29:24 PM
Last thread on this: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=22131.0
Merged. :nod:
Currently at 87 days 1 hour 29 minutes. But "logged in" doesn't necessarily mean I'm doing anything.
I thought time logged in was part of "stats", and therefore on of the ever-growing list of banned topics.
9 days, 2 hours, 11 minutes. That sounds about right for me, based on how long I've been a member here.
163 days, 15 hours and 37 minutes apparently.
Quote from: webny99 on August 26, 2019, 01:31:58 PM
I thought time logged in was part of "stats", and therefore on of the ever-growing list of banned topics.
Was already an active thread.
Quote from: webny99 on August 26, 2019, 01:31:58 PM
I thought time logged in was part of "stats", and therefore on of the ever-growing list of banned topics.
Depends. If it's just a simple question and the answers are accepted, it won't be banned.
If someone becomes obsessive over the stats, then it becomes an issue.