Better statistics -- stick it in your hat, Martin!

http://netscan.research.microsoft.com/Static/reportcard.asp?timespan=q&searchfor=rec.skiing.alp ine&savesearch=yes&searchdate=06%2F30%2F2003

I know, it's a M$ site. Choke on it!

--
Cheers,
Bev
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is.

Richard Henry wrote:
"The Real Bev" wrote

http://netscan.research.microsoft.co...sp?timespan=q&
searchfor=rec.skiing.alpine&savesearch=yes&searchd ate=06%2F30%2F2003

I know, it's a M$ site. Choke on it!

Neat. Added to favorites.

It seems to keep stats only for archived posts. We've got a number of
folks who use the X-No-Archive directive that keeps their posts out of
Google etc. and I don't see them represented.

For instance, Sven's prize-winning troll "The Sierra Club Sells Out"
garnered 470 posts on my news server, but this M$ site counts only 264
posts. I *think* the missing posts are non-archived posts, but I can't
say I've looked into it deeply enough to say for sure. If I ever get
that bored, I'll be sure to let everyone know.

Anyway, I don't mean to say that the site is wrong, but wanted to
clarify that the way they count may not be the way you think they
should. Of course, the FAQ is useless, as would be expected from M$.

But it's certainly better than Martin's stats. Eat your heart out
Mikey!

--
//-Walt
//
//

Walt wrote:
It seems to keep stats only for archived posts. We've got a number of
folks who use the X-No-Archive directive that keeps their posts out of
Google etc. and I don't see them represented.

Almost all of my posts are XNA'd, but my posts are stat'd.

-klaus

Sven Golly wrote:

klaus wrote in news:bgmivj$q2j$1
@terabinaries.xmission.com:

Walt wrote:
It seems to keep stats only for archived posts. We've got a number of
folks who use the X-No-Archive directive that keeps their posts out of
Google etc. and I don't see them represented.

Almost all of my posts are XNA'd, but my posts are stat'd.

Actually, the ones I saw that are stat'd are NOT XNA. Just like the one I'm
replying to now is NOT XNA'd.

Wasn't there a problem with M$ rounding a few years back?

--
Cheers,
Bev
MSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMSMS MSMSMSMSMSMS
FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION. It comes bundled with the software.

Sven Golly wrote:
Actually, the ones I saw that are stat'd are NOT XNA. Just like the one I'm
replying to now is NOT XNA'd.

Hmmm.... interesting.... guess somethings changed with the news
software.. guess I'll look into it.... Thanks for the heads up.

-klaus

"Walt" wrote in message
...
The Real Bev wrote:
Sven Golly wrote:
klaus wrote
Walt wrote:

It seems to keep stats only for archived posts. We've got a number
of
folks who use the X-No-Archive directive that keeps their posts out
of
Google etc. and I don't see them represented.

Almost all of my posts are XNA'd, but my posts are stat'd.

Actually, the ones I saw that are stat'd are NOT XNA. Just like the
one I'm
replying to now is NOT XNA'd.

Wasn't there a problem with M$ rounding a few years back?

That was Intel, and the floating point operations built into certain
Pentium chips. You had to be doing serious high-precision calculations
for it to make a difference, so it was much less of a big-deal than
everyone made it out to be.

The floating-point error was minor. The big problem was Intel's attitude
about it.

Richard Henry wrote:
"Walt" wrote
The Real Bev wrote:

Wasn't there a problem with M$ rounding a few years back?

That was Intel, and the floating point operations built into certain
Pentium chips. You had to be doing serious high-precision calculations
for it to make a difference, so it was much less of a big-deal than
everyone made it out to be.

The floating-point error was minor. The big problem was Intel's attitude
about it.

Essentially, they tried to say "it's not a problem for most people, so
we're only going to fix it for those who really need it fixed". And
while they were right that it didn't make a dimes worth of diference to
99.99% of users, the PR backlash was more than they could handle.
Eventually, they caved.

If it was Microsoft, they'd just redefine what they mean by "division"
so that their computer would be right and the rest of the world would be
wrong.

--
//-Walt
//
//

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Richard Henry wrote:
"Walt" wrote
The Real Bev wrote:

Wasn't there a problem with M$ rounding a few years back?

That was Intel, and the floating point operations built into certain
Pentium chips. You had to be doing serious high-precision
calculations
for it to make a difference, so it was much less of a big-deal than
everyone made it out to be.

The floating-point error was minor. The big problem was Intel's
attitude
about it.

Essentially, they tried to say "it's not a problem for most people, so
we're only going to fix it for those who really need it fixed". And
while they were right that it didn't make a dimes worth of diference to
99.99% of users, the PR backlash was more than they could handle.
Eventually, they caved.

If it was Microsoft, they'd just redefine what they mean by "division"
so that their computer would be right and the rest of the world would be
wrong.

They tried. At the time the FP error was a big topic, a much more
significant error was found in Windows 3.1 Calculator. Some simple equation
that was supposed to 1.099 for and answer actualy showed 1.2, or something
like that. MS still ahs a download patch for it at
http://support.microsoft.com/default....microsoft.com
:80/support/kb/articles/Q124/3/45.asp&NoWebContent=1