Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 15:07:07 +0000
Reply-To: toby dunn <tobydunn@HOTMAIL.COM>
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: toby dunn <tobydunn@HOTMAIL.COM>
Subject: Re: Unofficial 2006 Year-End Review
In-Reply-To: <BAY103-F27C5F68ABE337E276DBB01B0BC0@phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Hmmmm .... well lets see, my gender was switched in one post last year, and
so far in this thread I have been a 'Bot' and now I am upgraded to a 'really
complex AI', who is surfing for kinky pics of mainframes. Definitly
getting inerested in seeing what I become next.
P.S. David is did see some pics the other day of a IBM mainframe, ooolala
.... love those sexy I/O controlers....lmao
Toby Dunn
To sensible men, every day is a day of reckoning. ~John W. Gardner
The important thing is this: To be able at any moment to sacrifice that
which we are for what we could become. ~Charles DuBois
Don't get your knickers in a knot. Nothing is solved and it just makes you
walk funny. ~Kathryn Carpenter
From: David L Cassell <davidlcassell@MSN.COM>
Reply-To: David L Cassell <davidlcassell@MSN.COM>
To: SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU
Subject: Re: Unofficial 2006 Year-End Review
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 22:49:41 -0800
art297@NETSCAPE.NET wrote:
>
>Hari,
>
>While I had indicated that the list's unrepresentative date-time stamps
>precluded their use for the kind of analysis you suggested, I did observe
>that both Toby's and David's posts had consistent date-time stamps (albeit
>Toby's had to be adjusted because he really isn't from England), and
>wondered if an analysis of their posts might answer your question.
>
>Result: we definitely can't use David's posts, at least as far as times
>are concerned. Interestingly, he either really does sleep, or at least
>elects not to respond to posts between 1 and 7 am, and seldom before 10
>am! However, most of David's posts are between 10 pm and midnight, which
>I don't think reflects the majority of the list's activities.
>
>Both Toby's and David's posting activity results do concur with Tuesday
>being the day when most people post, and Friday being the day that the
>fewest posts are recorded, followed by Saturday. Sunday, interestingly,
>has far more mosts than I would have thought.
>
>Toby may well be a 'bot', as David has suggested sometime ago, as the only
>hours he doesn't post are between 4 am and 6 am. However, it is also
>possible that he is doing something other than sleeping then, there is
>also the possibility that there simply isn't anything requiring a response
>at those times. If Toby really does reflect a microcosm of the list's
>posts, then the majority of posts occur between 8 am and 11 am, and then
>taper off during the day and are virtually non-existent during the time
>when most of us sleep.
The reason Toby doesn't post during those hours, is that we have to
have a set time to upload new data and do housekeeping. He's a
really complex AI, and he keeps trying to go offline to surf the web for
pictures of mainframes with their covers off.
:-) :-) :-)
>In an off-line conversation (I did get David's and Toby's permission to
>post this level of detail), David suggested that his daily counts might
>not reflect the entire lists' behavior. As such, I did a day-of-week
>analysis for all of the list's 2006 posts. As you can see, Friday really
>does appear to be the day with the fewest posts, followed by Saturday.
>For some reason, things already start to pick up on Sunday and Tuesday is
>THE day with the most posts.
>
>If this still doesn't answer your question, let me know what might.
>
>Art
>
>Results
>-------
>Name Day Count Percent Hour Count Percent
>---- --- ----- ------- ---- ----- -------
>David
> Sat 278 11.01 0 62 2.45
> Sun 363 14.37 1 5 0.20
> Mon 459 18.17 8 3 0.12
> Tue 551 21.81 9 1 0.04
> Wed 451 17.85 10 52 2.06
> Thu 351 13.90 11 209 8.27
> Fri 73 2.89 12 171 6.77
> 13 222 8.79
> 14 210 8.31
> 15 161 6.37
> 16 127 5.03
> 17 113 4.47
> 18 24 0.95
> 19 28 1.11
> 20 51 2.02
> 21 203 8.04
> 22 571 22.60
> 23 313 12.39
>
>Toby
> Sat 96 4.80 0 22 1.10
> Sun 364 18.20 1 9 0.45
> Mon 362 18.10 2 3 0.15
> Tue 397 19.85 3 3 0.15
> Wed 370 18.50 7 4 0.20
> Thu 377 18.85 8 222 11.10
> Fri 34 1.70 9 249 12.45
> 10 200 10.00
> 11 182 9.10
> 12 140 7.00
> 13 147 7.35
> 14 159 7.95
> 15 143 7.15
> 16 170 8.50
> 17 40 2.00
> 18 42 2.10
> 19 42 2.10
> 20 72 3.60
> 21 69 3.45
> 22 54 2.70
> 23 28 1.40
>
>Summary for the entire list
> Sat 1756 5.17
> Sun 5252 15.46
> Mon 6221 18.32
> Tue 6784 19.97
> Wed 6538 19.25
> Thu 5978 17.60
> Fri 1435 4.23
>
>On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 05:27:27 -0800, Hari <excel_hari@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
>
> >Art,
> >
> >Just for fun.. I was wondering as to whether the posts fluctuate a lot
> >by day of the week (more on Monday/Tuesday than rest etc?). Also,
> >whether it changes much by time of the day whether more during working
> >hours than outside of it. But yes, it might be difficult to do this
> >accurately as folks post from different time-zones or can that be taken
> >care of?
> >
> >Regards,
> >HP
> >India
> >
> >Arthur Tabachneck wrote:
> >> First of all, happy new year to all.
> >>
> >> I couldn't resist. During 2006 the list increased its number of posts
>by
> >> 26%, from 26,992 in 2005, to 33,963.
> >>
> >> And, not all due to David, as his posts only increased by 18.4%, from
> >> 2,133 to 2,526. However, that was enough to keep him, again, as the
> >> list's most frequent poster.
> >>
> >> Thus, until Howard gets a chance to verify the numbers, here are the
> >> unofficial stats.
> >>
> >> 50 Most frequent posters (actually 51 as there was a 3-way tie for 49th
> >> place):
> >>
> >> rank name COUNT
> >> 1 David Cassell 2526
> >> 2 Toby Dunn 2000
> >> 3 Howard Schreier 1519
> >> 4 Arthur Tabachneck 618
> >> 5 Jim Groeneveld 604
> >> 6 Gerhard Hellriegel 587
> >> 7 datanull@gmail.com 558
> >> 8 Joe Whitehurst 536
> >> 9 Alan Churchill 490
> >> 10 Richard DeVenezia 487
> >> 11 Paul Choate 470
> >> 12 Jiann-Shiun Huang 448
> >> 13 Mark Terjeson 422
> >> 14 Sig Hermansen 397
> >> 15 Ya Huang 389
> >> 16 Ron Fehd 378
> >> 17 Peter Flom 371
> >> 18 Ian Whitlock 326
> >> 19 Peter Crawford 301
> >> 20 Roland Berry 299
> >> 21 Venky Chakravarthy 276
> >> 22 Kevin Viel 264
> >> 23 WenSui Liu 226
> >> 24 Nathaniel Wooding 224
> >> 25 Michael Raithel 221
> >> 26 Sté°¨ane Colas 218
> >> 27 Clinton Rickards 194
> >> 28 Jack Hamilton 189
> >> 29 Yu Zhang 188
> >> 30 Roy Pardee 176
> >> 31 Shiling Zhang 171
> >> 32 Hari Prasadh 169
> >> 33 Ben Powell 168
> >> 34 Paul Dorfman 167
> >> 35 proccontents@gmail.com 153
> >> 36 Harry Droogendyk 152
> >> 37 Eric Hoogenboom 146
> >> 38 Dale McLerran 144
> >> 38 Mehdi Soleymani 144
> >> 40 Rune Runnestoe 136
> >> 41 Ken Borowiak 134
> >> 42 Daniel Nordlund 132
> >> 43 Ken Lin 131
> >> 44 John Gerstle 116
> >> 44 Monal Kohli 116
> >> 46 Hari Nath 113
> >> 47 Madan Kundu 112
> >> 48 Chang Chung 99
> >> 49 Irin Figvam 97
> >> 49 Muthia Kachirayan 97
> >> 49 Robert Bardos 97
> >>
> >> While number of lines (as calculated by the listserv) may not be the
>most
> >> accurate definition of post length, using it as a measure the following
> >> either had a lot to say or .. The envelope please (note: only
>considered
> >> those who had at least 50 posts):
> >>
> >> rank name Average # of lines
> >> 1 Randy Herbison 167
> >> 2 Bora Yavuz 161
> >> 3 Joe Whitehurst 143
> >> 4 Jake Bee 122
> >> 5 Mark Terjeson 122
> >> 6 Jiann-Shiun Huang 120
> >> 7 Paul Dorfman 119
> >> 8 Nathaniel Wooding 118
> >> 9 Jack Clark 115
> >> 10 Irin Figvam 114
> >>
> >> So, who was either extremely succint, didn't paste the entire thread,
>or ..
> >> The following are the 10 (who had at least 50 posts) who had the lowest
> >> average number of lines:
> >>
> >> rank name Average # of lines
> >> 1 Tanwan Zang 27
> >> 2 Dianne Rhodes 31
> >> 3 Mehdi Soleymani 32
> >> 4 Eric Hoogenboom 33
> >> 5 slhappyls@gmail.com 36
> >> 6 Dimitri Shvorob 41
> >> 7 Roland Berry 42
> >> 8 A.Benedictus 42
> >> 9 Byron Kirby 43
> >> 10 Mkrogh@dsr.kvl.dk 45
> >>
> >> Which words showed up most frequently in the subject line? Excuding
> >> commonly used words like a, the, I, etc., the 20 words which showed up
> >> most frequently were:
> >>
> >> rank word count
> >> 1 HOW 2447
> >> 2 MACRO 2373
> >> 3 QUESTION 1690
> >> 4 VARIABLE 1621
> >> 5 HELP 1284
> >> 6 SQL 1204
> >> 7 PROBLEM 1040
> >> 8 VARIABLES 1025
> >> 9 FILE 1012
> >> 10 USING 979
> >> 11 DATASET 888
> >> 12 VALUES 713
> >> 13 VALUE 640
> >> 14 DATE 627
> >> 15 OUTPUT 614
> >> 16 EXCEL 593
> >> 17 FORMAT 566
> >> 18 INTO 544
> >> 19 ABOUT 537
> >> 20 BY 515
> >>
> >> When did we post the most? March!
> >> When did we post the least? December!
> >>
> >> month count
> >> March 3182
> >> May 3136
> >> October 2979
> >> August 2909
> >> July 2893
> >> January 2842
> >> November 2837
> >> April 2811
> >> June 2745
> >> September 2720
> >> February 2526
> >> December 2383
> >>
> >> Further, we seem to be middle-of-the-week people:
> >>
> >> week count
> >> 3 8199
> >> 2 7931
> >> 1 7716
> >> 4 7547
> >> 5 2570
> >>
> >> Again, these results are unofficial but, in the chance you were curious
> >> too, I thought I'd share them.
> >>
> >> Art
I think it's safe to assume that I'm too weird - even for this group -
to be representative of anything.
:-)
David
--
David L. Cassell
mathematical statistician
Design Pathways
3115 NW Norwood Pl.
Corvallis OR 97330
_________________________________________________________________
The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes is here. Get all the scoop.
http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/?icid=nctagline2
_________________________________________________________________
The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes is here. Get all the scoop.
http://tv.msn.com/tv/globes2007/?icid=nctagline2
| 
