Rating Posts

JokerJames wrote (in part):

<<TOTALS:
On-topic:  6
Sorta on-topic:  5
Off-topic:  18

On-topic and worthwhile:  1 (maybe...) (16%)
Sorta on-topic and worthwhile:  4  (80%)
Off-topic and worthwhile (or amusing):  13  (72%)

Sounds like we oughta kick all that strictly on-topic crap off the list!>>

I would appreciate a more graphical presentation of those breakdowns, along
with analysis as to geographical, age, and political tendencies of
contributors.  Then we can compare to the statistical breakdown of the entire
list, as well as all internet users worldwide.  With this info, a better
screening and recruiting system could be developed allowing for a more (or
less) homogeneous list, depending on the judgement of our opinion leaders.
 OTOH, we could just go with the flow.

BTW, I'm enjoying most of the posts.  But, I would suggest that brevity in
the pursuit of debating points would result in higher scores for the
competitors.  Speaking to both Mark L and Bernd....flame away, if you like,
just try and limit your non-Who posts and responses to 10 or 15
lines....Discipline yourselves and you may keep your audience.  If this were
Olympic scoring, I would suggest automatic deductions or .1/line after posts
exceed 15 lines.  So your 10.0 arguments scores become 7.5s and you miss a
medal!

Line 13 (only counting my lines), so I'm outahere

   - Andy