Schneelocke Posted November 25, 2004 The forums passed 5000 registered users recently. Congrats to buntcake for being the 5000th. ^^ 0 Share this post Link to post
Fredrik Posted November 25, 2004 And 500 000 posts is only a few miles ahead... 0 Share this post Link to post
Schneelocke Posted November 26, 2004 Fredrik said:And 500 000 posts is only a few miles ahead... Yeah. We should keep an eye open on postid 517885... ^^ 0 Share this post Link to post
DoomDan Posted November 26, 2004 Schneelocke said:The forums passed 5000 registered users recently. Congrats to buntcake for being the 5000th. ^^ Heh.Many users never ever posted here at all, they just register and leave.Did Buntcake ever posted?? 0 Share this post Link to post
Schneelocke Posted November 26, 2004 Not yet. But then, he only registered yesterday... 0 Share this post Link to post
Relica Religia Posted November 26, 2004 Would it help free up the server any if all the inactive or postless users were deleted out of the forum? 0 Share this post Link to post
Grazza Posted November 26, 2004 No. Being a registered lurker isn't completely pointless: it means you can search the forums and view people's profiles. Just because someone isn't posting doesn't mean they're not benefiting from this place. 0 Share this post Link to post
Schneelocke Posted November 26, 2004 Grazza said:No. Being a registered lurker isn't completely pointless: it means you can search the forums and view people's profiles. Just because someone isn't posting doesn't mean they're not benefiting from this place. Besides, what benefits would deleting inactive accounts have? 0 Share this post Link to post
Grazza Posted November 26, 2004 It would have serious negative effects: it would screw up any threads in which they have posted. (I hadn't responded to that part of the suggestion because there's no chance of it being taken seriously. I think.) 0 Share this post Link to post
Relica Religia Posted November 26, 2004 Thanks. I was just wondering if it did have any negative effect on the server, that's all. 0 Share this post Link to post
Stealthy Ivan Posted November 26, 2004 There is growing number of doomers!!! This is good thing for the community. Rock on! 0 Share this post Link to post
Lüt Posted November 26, 2004 Heh actually I did prune a bunch of inactive accounts around the time Doom 3 was released. 839 I think it was. Ling did a similar prune years back so we've probably had well over 6,000 registrations total. Deleting accounts of members who have posted will result in their posts showing the "Ignored Member" message for everybody who views the thread regardless of their individual ignore preferences (see reply by Fanatic in this thread), so we never prune anybody who's made a post or been banned/losered. The search criteria for the last prune were: registered user; 0 posts; hasn't logged in since Jan 1, 2004. I also made an exceptions list of important users, people who've had their postcounts reset or people who've only posted in blogs. 0 Share this post Link to post
Schneelocke Posted November 27, 2004 At least it's got searchid 100000. ^^ 0 Share this post Link to post
Schneelocke Posted December 5, 2004 Here's another milestone: Melfice has just posted the post with postid 500000. Not the 500000th post yet, but still nice. ^^ 0 Share this post Link to post
Vile Posted December 5, 2004 Schneelocke said:Here's another milestone: Melfice has just posted the post with postid 500000. Not the 500000th post yet, but still nice. ^^ And why not celebrate the 500001th post?! THAT'S A BIG NUMBER TOO! Who cares. ;) EDIT: here's a winking face for ya as collateral. 0 Share this post Link to post
Xenaero Posted December 5, 2004 Numbermind said:Damn freeloaders. Damn tirekickers. 0 Share this post Link to post
Schneelocke Posted December 5, 2004 Vile said:And why not celebrate the 500001th post?! THAT'S A BIG NUMBER TOO! Who cares. ;) EDIT: here's a winking face for ya as collateral. Sure, it's just another number... but then, for example, isn't 30 minutes for a 30nm run, too? Does it make a difference whether you can get below 30:00 or, say, 31:47? You probably won't hear anyone say "yay, this is a historic moment, the first time this was done in less than 31:47", yet people will (did) say things like that about reaching a sub-30:00 time. ^^ I hope this made some sense - I'm so tired I can hardly type. ^^ 0 Share this post Link to post
Vile Posted December 5, 2004 Schneelocke said:Sure, it's just another number... but then, for example, isn't 30 minutes for a 30nm run, too? Does it make a difference whether you can get below 30:00 or, say, 31:47? You probably won't hear anyone say "yay, this is a historic moment, the first time this was done in less than 31:47", yet people will (did) say things like that about reaching a sub-30:00 time. ^^ I do that because people will bug me about it otherwise. Well played contradiction, though. Speaking of which, it's taking a while for Henning to take his record back... I wonder if he's waiting to submit it on the 31st or something. 0 Share this post Link to post
Fredrik Posted December 6, 2004 Those two numbers are not equally special. 30:00 is more special because it has very low information intropy, whereas 31:47 has high information entropy. Strings (we can think of numbers as strings of digits) with high entropy are ubiquitous, whereas strings with low entropy are rare. Note that information entropy (or, equally, Kolmogorov complexity) is a mathematically well-defined concept. (One may argue that in the case of 31:47 and 30:00, the difference in entropy is insignificant. But think 3147...[insert normal distribution of 1000000 random digits here] and 3000...[insert 1000000 zeroes here], and the difference will will apply in a highly concrete form. In fact, the difference will be infinite if you continue infinitely many digits.) 0 Share this post Link to post
Bucket Posted December 6, 2004 It took you two paragraphs to say that "30 is a nice round number that rolls off the tongue easily". 0 Share this post Link to post
DooMBoy Posted December 6, 2004 That's the way of it with these nerds. 0 Share this post Link to post
Fredrik Posted December 6, 2004 Numbermind said:It took you two paragraphs to say that "30 is a nice round number that rolls off the tongue easily". No. That is a consequence of the things I explained combined with how human language works, but not the same thing as what I explained. 0 Share this post Link to post
Schneelocke Posted December 6, 2004 Fredrik said:Those two numbers are not equally special. 30:00 is more special because it has very low information intropy, whereas 31:47 has high information entropy. Strings (we can think of numbers as strings of digits) with high entropy are ubiquitous, whereas strings with low entropy are rare. Note that information entropy (or, equally, Kolmogorov complexity) is a mathematically well-defined concept. (One may argue that in the case of 31:47 and 30:00, the difference in entropy is insignificant. But think 3147...[insert normal distribution of 1000000 random digits here] and 3000...[insert 1000000 zeroes here], and the difference will will apply in a highly concrete form. In fact, the difference will be infinite if you continue infinitely many digits.) My point was not that 30:00 is not special. 0 Share this post Link to post
Fredrik Posted December 6, 2004 Then what on Jupiter is "Does it make a difference whether you can get below 30:00 or, say, 31:47? You probably won't hear anyone say "yay, this is a historic moment, the first time this was done in less than 31:47", yet people will (did) say things like that about reaching a sub-30:00 time." supposed to mean? 0 Share this post Link to post
Schneelocke Posted December 6, 2004 It was just meant to illustrate the point that certain numbers *are* more interesting than others. 30:00 for a 30nm is a more interesting milestone than 31:47 (e.g.), and a postid of 500000 is more interesting than one of, say, 493761. 0 Share this post Link to post