I'll continue to post interesting and relevant statistics in this thread, which will mainly assist with the administration of the game and provide new perspectives on the public operation of the game.
While the idea came from Seko's frequent posting of statistics within Cantr, my intention is very different. I also will work with public data which is somewhat harder to interpret and use effectively. In a similar attempt to Seko, I will accept ideas for statistics.
The first statistic relates to the author of posts in the 'Accepted Suggestions' thread, and the frequency of their accepted posts. The collected data begins in 2007 and ends in 2010. Any author with less than 2 accepted suggestions is considered statistically insignificant and thus not shown in the data.
In descending order of the number of accepted suggestions:
6 - SekoETC
6 - formerly known as hf
4 - Doug R.
3 - Nakranoth
3 - T-shirt
3 - Cookie
2 - fishfin
2 - Agar
2 - Ahoyhoy
2 - Pie
2 - Cogliostro
2 - Marian
2 - *Wiro
2 - SCUBA
2 - The Industriallist
2 - TatteredShoeLace
Interestingly;
When we look at the type of author (either ex/current staff member OR lay member), 43.75% members on the list are staff (this is a conservative figure based partly on my own knowledge and partly on what role the forum says they have), whereas 56.25% of members on the list are lay, normal members.
This is good, INITIALLY it shows that general members of Cantr have an equal chance of getting their ideas accepted by staff.
However, when we look at the author type AND the number of accepted suggestions they have, we see a greater chance for a staff member to have his or her suggestion accepted.
Basically, if you are a staff member, your suggestion is more likely to be accepted but the difference is hardly significant.
53.33% of accepted suggestions are by authors who are 1) ex/current staff and 2) have more than 1 accepted suggestion,
46.66% of accepted suggestions are by authors who are 1) normal members and 2) have more than 1 accepted suggestion
I'm both surprised at the result and happy with the result.
Even though the data and the means of interpreting it are shallow and not very accurate (in the sense that posts in Accepted are frequently moved to Implemented, and authors with less than 2 accepted posts aren't counted), it still gives a good indication that the staff members who are accepting suggestions are doing so in a fair and reasonable manner and are not giving more value or weight to staff member posts.
My surprise is based on the expectation that we'd see a higher number of staff-accepted posts, and my happiness is attributed to the fact that this is not the case.
More to come.
