I'm curious about this one.

Here you go]Ok, since my comment keeps having the page changed, there are three users with the present lowest of a -8 record, each blocked on site. You can use my link and jump to the last page to find their user page...

malleablecrowbar said:
I'm curious about this one.

Zandolaf
Dragonrump
Souldragon

All three users have a record with -8

Shame the OP got banned for being underage; that's a negative record...

What's funny is that he's been here for 2 years and it took them this long to notice. I'd be more surprised if someone DIDN'T have a negative record on this site.

Naughtynose said:
What's funny is that he's been here for 2 years and it took them this long to notice. I'd be more surprised if someone DIDN'T have a negative record on this site.

I don't have a negative, not sure I got a neutral even, though that's absolutely nothing to brag about, there are loooooots of people who don't have negative records, e.g. there's currently about 2% who have a record < 0. It's like usual; a small minorty of people cause a majority of the problems.

Naughtynose said:
What's funny is that he's been here for 2 years and it took them this long to notice.

It's no shame on our part that a user has been here *2 years* and made a total of 34 comments before we realized there was something wrong. He also wasn't active in the forums either. I mean, we are giving you the benefit of the doubt that when you say you're an adult that you're an adult. I don't think anyone wants to get into age verification or anything like that. c_c

I'd be more surprised if someone DIDN'T have a negative record on this site.

Comments like this make me sad.

We have 322161 members.
let me talk about our negative/neutral records.

As you can see, a lot of people get in trouble for dumb stuff like trying to cheat the system, repeatedly uploading DNP, or being creepy. it's not hard to avoid that... just don't break the rules.

To continue:

Note, On several days, there were high numbers of ban evaders -- 5 in particular.

Protip: don't try and evade your ban.

So, as you can see: on any given day, we only give about 14 people a record--neutral, negative or otherwise.

We've been kicking around since 2007... about 4302 days. at 322,161 users, we're gaining about 75 new users a day. (it's actually a LOT more than that, but we're talking averages here.)... at 14 new records a day.... it is literally impossible for everyone to get a record. A record of any sort! You said negative record, which is only about half of the total numbers... yeah.

It's not hard to avoid a negative record. <3

I remember a certain DJ having the lowest record of anyone, or perhaps just anyone who wasn't banned, at either -7 or -8.

XXXFentacion said:
I remember a certain DJ having the lowest record of anyone, or perhaps just anyone who wasn't banned, at either -7 or -8.

I know the one your talking about

Aren't there also a huge proportion of users that literally have no anything -- no comments, no posts, no favs, no blips, no records? I remember an admin saying something like that before.

savageorange said:
Aren't there also a huge proportion of users that literally have no anything -- no comments, no posts, no favs, no blips, no records? I remember an admin saying something like that before.

Sure. Have a look at me: I've been here 8 years and I only have about 1000 favorites. I generally don't use them. Also only about 850 comments. Those just aren't ways I interact with the website and that's fine.

but those people are still here on the website, y'know? they still count.

I dunno why they don't comment or whatever, but if it makes them happy, it makes them happy.

Edit:

Ah, here we go. If you go to https://e621.net/user anc click on 'record' you can sort people via number of records.

There are 18311 pages of users.
On page 17929, it transitions from 0 to -1. So there are 383 pages of users with -1. Give or take a page, anyway. There are around 20 per page, so.. around 7660 negative record.

Of course these are SUPER squishy numbers for a whole lot of reasons that I'm not gonna get into, the point is more that there are a WHOLE BOATLOAD of people with no records.
can't see facve numbers there though, just posts and notes and tag edits and whanot.

Having the option to like/dislike/tag/etc. has value, even if you don't ultimately make use of it.

Heck, I feel like I do make regular use of the site's core features, but I'm a lerker compared to Snow. Been here longer, but have less of pretty much everything that's public knowledge.

SnowWolf said:
Sure. Have a look at me: I've been here 8 years and I only have about 1000 favorites. I generally don't use them. Also only about 850 comments. Those just aren't ways I interact with the website and that's fine.

but those people are still here on the website, y'know? they still count.

I dunno why they don't comment or whatever, but if it makes them happy, it makes them happy.

Edit:

Ah, here we go. If you go to https://e621.net/user anc click on 'record' you can sort people via number of records.

There are 18311 pages of users.
On page 17929, it transitions from 0 to -1. So there are 383 pages of users with -1. Give or take a page, anyway. There are around 20 per page, so.. around 7660 negative record.

Of course these are SUPER squishy numbers for a whole lot of reasons that I'm not gonna get into, the point is more that there are a WHOLE BOATLOAD of people with no records.
can't see facve numbers there though, just posts and notes and tag edits and whanot.

He wasnt' talking about people who only do some stuff, he meant people who get accounts and do absolutely nothing with them. A single account with no faves blips or anything. There's a lot of em like that.

ikdind said:
Having the option to like/dislike/tag/etc. has value, even if you don't ultimately make use of it.

Heck, I feel like I do make regular use of the site's core features, but I'm a lerker compared to Snow. Been here longer, but have less of pretty much everything that's public knowledge.

I will admit I find the lone 6-year-old blip to be pretty funny.

I didn't mean to imply that everyone should have some of those numbers, but if a user has none of everything, it's quite unclear whether it's proper to count them as a user for the purposes of this discussion. Where is the evidence of usage?

I think most people would set the bar of 'usage' a little above merely logging in within a given time period (which IIRC is how the stat of active vs inactive users is determined). Certainly, it would be strange if a user who never did anything, other than logging in occasionally, had the potential to receive a record.

XXXFentacion said:
He wasnt' talking about people who only do some stuff, he meant people who get accounts and do absolutely nothing with them. A single account with no faves blips or anything. There's a lot of em like that.

I know, I started off talking about the rock, but ended up staring at the log again. They were a little connected in my head, but I think the tissue connecting them disappeared lol.

savageorange said:
I didn't mean to imply that everyone should have some of those numbers, but if a user has none of everything, it's quite unclear whether it's proper to count them as a user for the purposes of this discussion. Where is the evidence of usage?

They were here at some point and said "I would like an account." Some users go away, some come back. Some only come around every couple weeks or on friday nights for 20 minutes. Some are here every day. Some probably make use of just the blacklist.

At one point, I believe you had to have an account to use the blacklist. But that was a long time ago. Still, people like having their saved settings, and whatnot.

I think most people would set the bar of 'usage' a little above merely logging in within a given time period (which IIRC is how the stat of active vs inactive users is determined). Certainly, it would be strange if a user who never did anything, other than logging in occasionally, had the potential to receive a record.

Come on man, it's like you're trying to prove me wrong when my point is that most people don't get records added to their account :P

But I mean. Users keeping their head down and just browsing and using blacklist and whatnot are still users. They're still users even if they only come by every 3 months or every few years.

I mean, yeah, you can't get arrested for speeding if you don't get in the car, but you're still an adult with a driver's licence. You are a part of the statistic about licensed drivers. You are not part of the statistic for people who go down I-95 every day, or part of the statistic group for people who drive 3 hours a day, but you're still a driver. You may even be a car owner! You may drive once a week to go to the store for groceries, you're still licensed to drive, you're still statistically part of the group that has a license, no matter how much you do or don't use it.

If the discussion were about the 'toxicity' of e621 comments... or about... the perscentage of people who comment... or something like that.... or the percentage of active acccounts or whatnot, I'd be 100% behind you. :P

(on a side note, despite our reputation, I actually think we're a pretty nice group of people over all, just a bit overly honest at points. Some people are assholes, but I'd rather wander through e621's comments than my twitter feed. yikes.)

SnowWolf said:
But I mean. Users keeping their head down and just browsing and using blacklist and whatnot are still users. They're still users even if they only come by every 3 months or every few years.
[...]
(on a side note, despite our reputation, I actually think we're a pretty nice group of people over all, just a bit overly honest at points. Some people are assholes, but I'd rather wander through e621's comments than my twitter feed. yikes.)

I agree, users are users, if you don't don't make specific arguments for looking at part of the population, then everyone counts.

And I'd rather have people yelling at each other and being assholes than everyone kissing ass or being too afraid to say anything, if we're talking extremes that is.

TBH I think the case that people don't get many records could easily be made even after factoring out all the accounts that don't do anything (for example, spidering the user database and only counting 'active' users who also have at least one of something that e621 counts stats on)

So it's not as if I don't agree with the conclusion (and I have to say, I think the quality and consistency of e621's administration contributes significantly to the relative civility of users, so good job admins).

It's just when the evidence is too vague, it makes the argument look less convincing than if you hadn't cited that evidence to begin with, IME.

savageorange said:
TBH I think the case that people don't get many records could easily be made even after factoring out all the accounts that don't do anything (for example, spidering the user database and only counting 'active' users who also have at least one of something that e621 counts stats on)

But those are not the only active users. Those are the *visible* site features. There are plenty of *invisible* site features a user can make use of that we, as normal users, cannot see then using.

For example:

• sets - There are aproximately 1900 public sets, starting with set #1. THe post recent public set is 12,825. That means there are something like 11,000 private sets. Some people prefer sets to favorites.
• blacklist
• posts per page
• Dmails
• Hiding descriptions or comments. I enjoy reading comments, even if I don't typically comment.
• Image resizing
• one's user profile boxes where one might store favorite searches

So it's not really a 'valid' metric. Plus, is some user who made an account 10 years ago, changed one tag and never came back more 'valid' than someone who visits every day, looks at most new images, and just never comments or faves?

I mean... yes... people who don't comment are not going to get swatted for creepy commenting, just like people who don't drink won't get arrested for drunk driving. People don't don't vote manipulate aren't going to get in trouble for vote manipulating. people who ban evade aren't going to get in trouble for ban evading. You won't get in trouble for posting DNP artwork if you don't post. Or only post your own artwork, or that or an artist you've received permission from to post. You can't get in trouble for bad tagging if you don't change tags.

but we're not talking about the percentage of taggers who tag badly. we're not talking about the percentage of uploaders who upload dnp. we're taking about the percentage of users to have records.

So it's not as if I don't agree with the conclusion (and I have to say, I think the quality and consistency of e621's administration contributes significantly to the relative civility of users, so good job admins).

<3

It's just when the evidence is too vague, it makes the argument look less convincing than if you hadn't cited that evidence to begin with, IME.

while this *is* fair... the point I was originally refuting was...

Naughtynose said:
I'd be more surprised if someone DIDN'T have a negative record on this site.

Naughtynose said:
I'd be more surprised if someone DIDN'T have a negative record on this site.

heh heh heh

Naughtynose said:
I'd be more surprised if someone DIDN'T have a negative record on this site.

This really hasn't been the case at any point under the current administration, which has been running the site for about 8 years now.

EightyNine said:
heh heh heh

Hey, you used to have a red.