Well, no. The thread continued past the point where the post noting the total was found. Simple as that.
In fact, I noted in the current threat:
chrysostom’s 2014 annual awards
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
In fact, I noted in the current threat:
you made the post today
with misleading numbers
with misleading numbers
musterion
Well-known member
I'm impressed you managed to alphabetize the list.
No, I made today's post with accurate numbers then included an older post from toward the end of 2014 offered to observe a pattern beginning with the pruned thread. I included a link to that purpose.
If I'd thought about it I would have cut it off at 2013 then included my earlier post of the day where I set out 2014's numbers.
Nothing nefarious about it.
How did you come up with you number, TH?
Here's what happened.
I posted the current numbers on the 2014 thread and noted they were lower than the 2013 thread and that the numbers on his "awards" thread had declined every year. The figure I posted to make that note wasn't the figure he's complaining about.
Chrys said it was just that 2013 was a great year for the thread and that's why 2014 had looked poor by comparison.
I then posted an old post made during the latter stages of his 2014 thread that contained the numbers for 2011, 2012, 2013 and at that point and time current 2014 figures.
I was never skewing the figures on 2014. I'd already posted the updated figures. Did that first.
The point of using that earlier post was to demonstrate that the problem wasn't 2013 being a great year, that in fact it was a year declining from 2012, which had declined from 2011.
So he's just wrong in his complaint.
toward the end of 2014?
it was from 15 july 2014
and
the thread ended 17 july
2014: 993 posts, 13,531 views, 13.6 per post view average. (from your post)
2014: 1018 posts, 22213 views, 21.8 views per post (as of yesterday)
how do you explain this?
I don't really know except that the post was made at the time and you didn't say a peep about it at the time so both of us appeared to be okay about it then.
That said, I'm the guy who put the first revised figures for 2014 in this thread and noted the earlier post containing figures on each award thread from the beginning to demonstrate a fairly steady decline that had nothing to do with 2013 being a strong year. I think that's why you're trying so hard to not notice that outside of the one total neither of us had a problem with back in 2014 when it was published, the rates and figures are on track and make my case/refute your attempt to contextualize in a way that just isn't supported.
the fluff award for 2014
and the winner is
Psalmist
