UKC

Are you sure that the top poster list is working correctly. For example, this week's top 10 shows Robert Durran at number 2, up three places from last week. But on last week's list he's shown at position 9 when I would expect him to have been at position 5. Also, Timmd (for example) is shown as having made 87 posts last week, but when you look at last week's figures it says he actually made 125. I'm surmising that both of these anomalies are due to posts expiring during the course of the week from the Pub and you are mixing up counts from the 'live' post figures for a period with the static ones recorded from the previous week.

And yes I do have way too much time on my hands.

In reply to Willi Crater:
Wouldn't a better judgement of a 'top' poster perhaps be the poster who has had the most likes rather than the most posts.
The top posters tend to be the same people who are constantly repeating the same old stale bollocks (invariably nothing to do with climbing).
Not really what id call a 'top' poster.

In reply to Willi Crater:


And making a sneaky effort to get yourself up next week's chart?

deacondeacon - I think that would make for "interesting" (i.e. it will waste a minute of work time) and would be cool to add as a separate list in its own right? *cough* mods *cough*

In reply to Willi Crater:

Think you might need a better hobby, maybe you should give climbing a try

In reply to Wsdconst:


My knackered fingers can't take more than the 3 days a week I spend outside on sharp crimpy limestone, so it's a hobby I need for the in-between times. Testing UKC features probably isn't the most satisfying one though, I certainly grant you that

In reply to ianstevens:


Nah - I'd write a program to do this.


Talking of which, whilst evaluating some data mining technology I knocked something that screen scraped the UKC forums to analyse the likes/dislikes, so have all this data available. I had to chose something as an evaluation subject, and the results aren't entirely without interest.

In reply to deacondeacon:

I have come to thinking of appearing in the top posters list as a mark of shame. It means I've been skiving off at work, and not climbing enough to have had enough time to post so much.

Perhaps that's what it secretly was for?

In reply to Willi Crater:

For me the embarrassing thing is that years ago I wouldn't have been the number 1 poster from my amount of posts, where as now I'm top of the list of 'people with nothing better to do'.

In reply to Willi Crater:

To be fair, I actually took time to read your post so I'm probably just as sad as you.

In reply to SenzuBean:

How is skiving off work a mark of shame?

In reply to ianstevens:


My current work situation makes skiving off far, far, far too easy. Some days in the past I worked so little I personally felt guilty. However the current status quo ends in just over a month, so after that who knows

In reply to SenzuBean:


Me too. I'm mortified when I see I'm in the top 40 and quickly tell myself to stop posting garbage on the internet.

In reply to Lusk:


Me too. I once made number 1 with 150 odd posts. I actually set out to do it( sad wenker).

In reply to Lusk:

Me too. I'm mortified when I see I'm in the top 40 and quickly tell myself to stop posting garbage on the internet.

I think the 'Top Poster' should be banned from posting for a week.

In reply to Dave the Rave:


Good effort!

I particularly miss my mate Zarg, who unfortunately got himself banned for reacting too badly to everyone winding him up about his conspiracy theories.

In reply to Lusk:



Ta. I particularly miss my cheap Scandinavian lager mate.