At 3/23/08 12:34 PM, Bahamut wrote:
At 3/22/08 01:07 PM, Coop83 wrote:
We've gained two new members this month. Say hello to Haggard and Nomader.
Hello to Haggard and Nomader.
You're such a literalist, you!
Interesting. Thanks to Afro_Stud responding to some of my older reviews, I easily got over 666 responses and hopefully I'll have 700 responses on the next update! :D By then, I should pass RyanAn and Bezman. :O
CRAZY!
Well, that's me done on this list for another month. I hope that you all get sick on your chocolate, kiddies! >:)
I won't. :P
There's not enough Reese's PB Eggs in the world to make me sick.
:::has eaten over 40 in the past few weeks:::
At 3/24/08 07:29 AM, Coop83 wrote:
At 3/22/08 09:54 PM, gfoxcook wrote:
Nice and spiffy. Thanks for the update, oh heir to the RRR legacy (cousin to the LLL legacy heir, Bahamut?)!
Excuse me for sounding dense, but what does RRR stand for? (And LLL for that matter)
Oh, the Review Response Ratio, of course. Remember? The first list having to do with the review responses, made by yours truly, which ranked it all by ratio, not by overall count of responses, which is why I often comment on your schema for ranking your list? #;-}>
LLL = List Leapers List. The list I used to post in the pentalist topic after every single update, featuring how the new entrants to the list did?
Jeez, man. And you call yourself a fan of my lists. #;-}>
I could understand you not knowing what RRR referred to, as I don't think anyone used the acronym predominantly to refer to my old "one-off" list. But not to recognise LLL on site? (GASPS)
I think he used to have a 10%+ rate, BTW.... back in the olden RRR days of yore.
I've never seen him with a 10%, but this is since I've been following the list (About 18 Months ago, I think I got started with that craze :)
I'm talking 2004, I'm sure.
048) 0259 || + 00 || 38.89% gfoxcook
049) 0249 || + 07 || 17.15% Darkside7000 1
050) 0244 || + 01 || 41.71% f0d -1
Didn't I say I was gonna get booted down sooner or later and you were telling me that wasn't necessary the case and all that claptrap?
Looks to me like Darkside's gonna take me out back o' the bar and give me a sound beating in the alley of rank-swaps... quite soon indeed. #;-}>
His response gain is erratic. He didn't get any last month, remember.
WE'LL SEE. He needs so few....
If the ball bounces, it's going to be a ball, but if the batter swings, he can be called for a strike. I wonder if anyone has homered off such a ball?
Well, there's plenty of high balls that no umpire would call a strike, but SOME great hitters could hit a homer off of.... and that's a perfect case of a blatant ball that's a strike all the time with other batters whiffing at it in SPECTACULAR FAIL manner...
But no, I doubt anyone has, at least in the modern 1900-present era of teh MLBs.
However, in the 2004 playoffs, Carlos Beltran (when he was an Astro) hit a "golf shot" off of Cardinal pitching in the NLCS.... that the commentators exaggerated was "in the dirt" or "on the plate" or something similar to those wordings.
In reality, it was a very low pitch, probably a called ball from any umpire, but he swang low, scooped it up, golf-swing style, and rocketed it into the right field home bullpen for a home run.
It was wicked awesome, in Red Sox fan parlance. #;-}>
What, you'd prefer to WIN the KWAS award? Come on, now. #;-}>
Top of the tree for something is still top of the tree. I always strive for number 1!
#1 Response whore you shall be someday, then. #;-}>
There's ONE award, just by virtue of name alone, that almost anyone would be happier to slide by with a silver or bronze on... rather than have the sole claim to gold. HOW AWKWARD.
Well, I called it the KWAS award for the fact that he always seemed to gain the most responses. Now there's a new generation of statwhores, who are consistently gaining more responses than him, which is always a plus :)
Well, perhaps you should rename it, then. A "memorial KWAS award" seems to have been hastily named unless the "he always seemed to" period you reference was really all that long-lasting. I don't get the impression it was.
At 3/24/08 08:08 AM, Haggard wrote:
Oh, a tie for spot #90. I think there are some Bahamut flashes I haven't reviewed yet... after that I need to find some more response-sources... ^^
Maybe I should give in and review all teh Bahamut flashes.
I'm not going to bother with Afro_Stud flash, because I don't want to join Coop and Bahamut's "will he or won't he ever respond?" drama parties, though. #;-}>
Yes. About 50% of my responses are from Bahamut. ^^
Hmmm.... 150+ responses... that easy, eh? HMMMMM. #;-}>
At 3/24/08 08:46 AM, Coop83 wrote:
At 3/24/08 08:08 AM, Haggard wrote:
At 3/22/08 01:08 PM, Coop83 wrote:
088) 167 || -- 01 || 38.39% bgryderclock -1
089) 167 || + 00 || 13.40% Archile
090) 166 || + ?? || 56.66% Nomader NEW!
091) 166 || + ?? || 48.54% Haggard NEW!
Oh, a tie for spot #90. I think there are some Bahamut flashes I haven't reviewed yet... after that I need to find some more response-sources... ^^
Not quite - I have extra sort criteria. 1st is responses total, where both you and Nomader are tied. Second is the number of reviews, which Nomader has less of, so he takes the position. The third tie breaker, which has never been used so far, is the number of responses gained over this update. More active users gain more responses, therefore are more likely to advance between stat pull and the update.
What if the people have the same responses, same reviews, and are both NEW, like Nomader and Haggard both were?
Sign-up date, then?