TalesFromTheSlums
Too high IQ to post here or waste any time anymore
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2025
- Posts
- 1,427
- Reputation
- 3,141
We got a leaderboard for most posts; most reps; most trophies; VIP supporters; mods; etc.
Why is there not a board that lists the top 50 or 100 users by their post:rep ratios, mathematically?
It's quite easy to do with maths -- so it's not really a valid excuse.
I think I actually now know why this doesn't exist...
Because I'd be on that list. The site only wants shitposters/rotters/Chads to join leaderboards, but neglects ratiomoggers. They don't want a list of those with 1:2 or 1:3 ratios because this screws up the "system." More posters gradually scale with equivalent ratios, which means a 1:2 at 50 is 50 to 100, but a 1:2 at 100,000 is 200,000. This means total rep is useless -- it should be RELATIVENESS NOT ABSOLUTENESS. Relative rating always mogs absolutes because they say much more. They tell us how many reps a user gains relative to their posting amount.
The mods/Jews/Master want to create some specific system wherein only SOME "valuations" matter, i.e., who can post the most (usually lifeless, stupid shitposters) or total reps (usually relative to posts, so postmaxxing basically). They don't want to rank users in more useful ways.
There is NO SUCH LIST that -- outstanding -- puts users on by their highest post:rep ratio differentials. No one cares if some retard spams 100,000 posts but has a shit 0.8 ratio.
Usually the more a user posts their reps keep growing, but the ratio is always relative in this effect -- i.e., average user on here, from my analysis, has less than a 1:2 ratio 100%.
Most users are ~1:1
Smaller figures are ~1:2
Quite rare to find ~1:3 -- probably not even 3% of users likely.
Finding > 1:4 is extremely rare overall -- less than 1% of users.
In other words, total reps are worthless -- what's important/distinctive is THE RATIO between them, which tells us how often one has to post to reps/how many reps, and how relative these two figures remain in conjunction. Totals don't fucking matter since totals often stay relative by scale -- but the ratio of one to the other is far more important. You dumb fuck "mods."
Why is there not a board that lists the top 50 or 100 users by their post:rep ratios, mathematically?
It's quite easy to do with maths -- so it's not really a valid excuse.
I think I actually now know why this doesn't exist...
Because I'd be on that list. The site only wants shitposters/rotters/Chads to join leaderboards, but neglects ratiomoggers. They don't want a list of those with 1:2 or 1:3 ratios because this screws up the "system." More posters gradually scale with equivalent ratios, which means a 1:2 at 50 is 50 to 100, but a 1:2 at 100,000 is 200,000. This means total rep is useless -- it should be RELATIVENESS NOT ABSOLUTENESS. Relative rating always mogs absolutes because they say much more. They tell us how many reps a user gains relative to their posting amount.
The mods/Jews/Master want to create some specific system wherein only SOME "valuations" matter, i.e., who can post the most (usually lifeless, stupid shitposters) or total reps (usually relative to posts, so postmaxxing basically). They don't want to rank users in more useful ways.
There is NO SUCH LIST that -- outstanding -- puts users on by their highest post:rep ratio differentials. No one cares if some retard spams 100,000 posts but has a shit 0.8 ratio.
Usually the more a user posts their reps keep growing, but the ratio is always relative in this effect -- i.e., average user on here, from my analysis, has less than a 1:2 ratio 100%.
Most users are ~1:1
Smaller figures are ~1:2
Quite rare to find ~1:3 -- probably not even 3% of users likely.
Finding > 1:4 is extremely rare overall -- less than 1% of users.
In other words, total reps are worthless -- what's important/distinctive is THE RATIO between them, which tells us how often one has to post to reps/how many reps, and how relative these two figures remain in conjunction. Totals don't fucking matter since totals often stay relative by scale -- but the ratio of one to the other is far more important. You dumb fuck "mods."
Last edited:
