By dividing the #replies by the #views, one obtains the “Thread Contribution Factor”. I calculated the average TCF for several of the forums:
General Questions - 2.52%
Great Debates - 6.40%
Cafe Society - 6.60%
IMHO - 6.73%
MPSIMS - 7.21%
BBQ Pit - 2.86%
So from this, we see that GQ seems to have the last interesting threads, as it stimulates a reply rate of only 2.52%. MPSIMS seems to have the most interesting threads, as it has a reply rate of 7.21%.
Of course, this is only a random sampling of the 50 current threads in each forum. It will be interesting to see how these statistics change over time.
It appears that any title with the word “statistics” in it will get a low number of both replies and views.
If you used the current 50 threads in each forum, it was hardly a random sampling, but rather a convenience sample. Your definition of #replies/#views = interesting is dubious as well. I’m sometimes quite interested in a thread even though I don’t post a reply to it. Most people would consider the most interesting thread to be the one with the most total views. MPSIMS by definition is mundane, and easy to add a response to. IMHO is asking for opinions. When I go into GQ, I usually go in hoping to learn something, rather than to contribute.
I seem to be the only one who finds these statistics interesting enough to warrant a comment.
I won’t quibble with the statistical collection process, but I will quibble with the conclusion drawn from the numbers.
I don’t think “interesting thread” is what this measures. I think it is more along the lines of where in the average doper’s cognitive ability does a particular forum fall?
GQ threads tend to require specific knowledge of a specific subject. The Pit requires rage about a specific subject. Thus, you have a more limited subset of the Doper population willing or able to answer. In the other threads, you will find that everyone has an opinion, can say something mundane, etc.
You may be able to build a trend line or a growth line from the lowest TCF forum to the highest.
“Interesting” was a bad choice of words. At the top of my post you’ll notice I referred to it as the Thread Contribution Factor. These statistics measure the average #replies per view.
However, if you take the inverse of the statistic (ie, views per reply) then you would indeed have a more accurate “interest” indicator.
I realize the first 50 posts aren’t accurate…the idea is that I will collect the first 50 for a period of time and build a TCF graph of somesort.
BTW, this thread has an instantaneous TCF of 3.13%.
)