Usage graphs for April:
We're in love. We're ... lovers. We're lesbian, gay-type lovers.
Willow ,'Potential'
Bureaucracy 3: Oh, so now you want to be part of the SOLUTION?
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
§ ita § - May 04, 2004 8:15:56 am PDT #404 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Consuela - May 04, 2004 8:21:07 am PDT #405 of 10001
We are Buffistas. This isn't our first apocalypse. -- Pix
Thanks, ita. Nice to see the flurry has died down a bit.
§ ita § - May 04, 2004 8:29:06 am PDT #406 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Interesting that the bandwidth doesn't very closely match the visitors after the spike. Fewer people, but staying longer and reading more, I guess.
Nilly - May 04, 2004 8:31:18 am PDT #407 of 10001
Swouncing
Thanks, ita, I love the graphs (but then again, it's me - I would have liked them even if their content were less relevant).
Interesting that the bandwidth doesn't very closely match the visitors after the spike. Fewer people, but staying longer and reading more, I guess.
I was just going to remark on that, but ita was quicker. If I only had time to play with those numbers, find correlations and geek out properly.
Burrell - May 04, 2004 8:35:50 am PDT #408 of 10001
Why did Darth Vader cross the road? To get to the Dark Side!
Four and Twenty Natters: WHO ARE YOU BAKING FOR?!?!?!?!?!
As far as thread naming goes, I feel like a similar pattern often repeats itself. We have several suggestions of short, clever thread titles. Then someone combines them into one longer, clunkier, less clever title. Everyone but me raves over it. It is selected.
Sigh.
Okay, this is so my personal ish.
Carry on.
§ ita § - May 04, 2004 8:43:12 am PDT #409 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
If I only had time to play with those numbers, find correlations and geek out properly.
You could do a paper ...
Then someone combines them into one longer, clunkier, less clever title.
But if well combined (which I think this one is, aside from my aforestated interrobang issues (how about ??!?!!?! ?)), wouldn't that rate as cleverer?
Liese S. - May 04, 2004 8:50:51 am PDT #410 of 10001
"Faded like the lilac, he thought."
I'm with Burrell on the pattern. Although I think this one's pretty much okay.
Nilly - May 04, 2004 8:52:36 am PDT #411 of 10001
Swouncing
You could do a paper ...
How much of the data do you have? t /I don't believe I'm asking this
Burrell - May 04, 2004 8:53:50 am PDT #412 of 10001
Why did Darth Vader cross the road? To get to the Dark Side!
But if well combined (which I think this one is, aside from my aforestated interrobang issues (how about ??!?!!?! ?)), wouldn't that rate as cleverer?
Clearly the judgement about what constitutes clever is subjective. In my book, longer and overly complexicated (not a word, but should be) is almost always less clever.
Sean K - May 04, 2004 9:11:51 am PDT #413 of 10001
You can't leave me to my own devices; my devices are Nap and Eat. -Zenkitty
In my book, longer and overly complexicated (not a word, but should be) is almost always less clever.
Also slap dash jumbles strike me as less clever, most of the time. I don't like combos to work two popular suggestions into one please-em-all title, either.