Author Topic: OW rankings  (Read 54979 times)

tcthai

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: OW rankings
« Reply #180 on: August 16, 2011, 06:32:25 am »
cool

jennfurr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 340
    • View Profile
Re: OW rankings
« Reply #181 on: August 29, 2011, 12:25:51 pm »
cool.... i was gone for quite a few months (more than 6), and when I left i was 33rd, but I'm still in the top 100 now!  (91st)

Gonna miss Pliget :(

Janet Jaguar

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10166
  • Smell the sea, feel the sky, & fly into the mystic
    • View Profile
Re: OW rankings
« Reply #182 on: August 29, 2011, 07:55:25 pm »
Welcome back!!  We missed you.  I hope everything is ok right now. :)

heffkit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 340
    • View Profile
Re: OW rankings - summary of the first 3 million...
« Reply #183 on: October 05, 2011, 05:03:15 pm »
I was fascinated by popzeus' rankings table.  I notice the total number of published transcriptions he gives is now just over 3 million, and had some time to spare, so for fun have summarized his table for 3 Oct in a smaller table available here. If you don't like rankings, stats, competitiveness, or (even small) tables of numbers, then please give this a miss. ;D

So far 3,012,389 weather reports have been transcribed for 673,651 pages, giving an overall average of 4 reports per page.

The summary table shows the total reports transcribed, and a summary the number of reports transcribed by various ranks of the top 500 (i.e. those listed on popzeus' table):
the bottom 10%, 25%, 50% (i.e. the median), 75% and 90%, as well as the mean (the notional number of reports each of the top 500 have transcribed if you distribute all transcribed reports equally amongst them).

It also makes some deductions about the 232,425 reports transcribed by those outside the 'top 500', based on simple assumptions:
- a guess at the number of reports transcribed by the transcribers outside the top 500* [assumption]
- a guess at the number of pages transcribed by the transcribers outside the top 500 [assuming the overall average of 4 reports per page]

Health warning  ;)
Remember this is all a bit of fun - in effect, a 'back of a fag packet' calculation!
The above [assumptions] are likely to be extremely generous; one-off transcribers are very unlikely to have transcribed as many reports as those in the top 500!
For definitions & explanations of how the published rankings are made, see popzeus' replies nos. 24 & 125

PS thanks, popzeus, for introducing me to datascraping in general, and OutWit Hub in particular! (so far I'm not fluent in macros, so I'm afraid this a one-off effort!)
PPS this is a first stab - I'm sure someone will let me know of any goofs!!

Bunting Tosser

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2697
    • View Profile
Re: OW rankings
« Reply #184 on: October 05, 2011, 05:56:24 pm »
I am extremely impressed by (to me) incomprehensible tables of statistics and their compilers. I am even more impressed that you, of all people, carry a fag packet around for jotting purposes.
Now ... where did I put my pipe.

heffkit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 340
    • View Profile
Re: OW rankings
« Reply #185 on: October 05, 2011, 06:05:49 pm »
Sorry to disappoint, I had to use a virtual fag packet...


...and given that I'm on HMS Perth near the Gulf of Aden it has to be this:
« Last Edit: October 05, 2011, 08:03:52 pm by heffkit »

Bunting Tosser

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2697
    • View Profile
Re: OW rankings
« Reply #186 on: October 05, 2011, 06:23:04 pm »
 ;D
I didn't see that one coming.

Press-ganged by the Swiss Navy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: OW rankings
« Reply #187 on: October 05, 2011, 06:42:52 pm »
Howdy folks, I've been away for few months while adjusting to a new life in Switzerland. Blimey, you lot have been busy - so must the physiotherapists dealing with all the RSI injuries.  ;)

Since coming back from shore leave I've been doing  a fair bit on HMS Sapphire (sister to my beloved HMS Amethyst). I thought I would check on whether I was still in the top 100 OW Rankings...and I am sort of.  Because I got bored and changed my login I am in twice:

Dread Pirate Roberts: 8210  (rank 81)
Furey: 2654 (rank 178)

Actual total: 10864 (rank 62)

Today's lesson: rebrand in haste, repent at leisure

Sean


Bunting Tosser

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2697
    • View Profile
Re: OW rankings
« Reply #188 on: October 05, 2011, 06:55:51 pm »
Hey, welcome back and thanks for the CV update.
There was something about your current title that troubled my memory.
Dread Pirate Roberts - you don't look a day older. It must be the Swiss air.
(Other airlines are available.)

Thursday Next

  • Editor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2425
    • View Profile
Re: OW rankings
« Reply #189 on: October 05, 2011, 07:20:32 pm »
That is very interesting, heffkit.

I am surprised, though, that the average number of reports per page comes out as low as 4.  Most ships seem to have 6 or 7 reports to the page.  There are blank pages at the start and end of each month for the copy logs, of course, but I would have expected this to be more than compensated for by the Atlantic Patrol ships, many of which did 24 reports a day.  But perhaps this is the "Wonganella Effect", where there were sometimes long runs of pages with no reports at all?

heffkit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 340
    • View Profile
Re: OW rankings
« Reply #190 on: October 05, 2011, 07:57:53 pm »
I was a bit surprised, too, thursdaynext.

three thoughts:
  • I have no idea what the patterns of reports per page are in different areas & ships - this suggests quite a few with fewer than 6, though!
  • remember that each blank page requires another one with at least 8 readings to maintain the mean at equal to 4 (never mind more)
  • Perhaps many of the '501+' were newbies who tried transcribing, but got mystified/bored after one or two report transcriptions and just gave up?
« Last Edit: October 05, 2011, 08:23:07 pm by heffkit »

Randi

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13168
    • View Profile
Re: OW rankings
« Reply #191 on: October 05, 2011, 08:35:01 pm »
I remember reading this long ago: How Many Observation Sets per day
that might help explain the low numbers?

Quote
remember that each blank page requires another one with at least 8 readings to maintain the mean at equal to 4 (never mind more)
That is a good point, and it is probably a significant factor

heffkit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 340
    • View Profile
Re: OW rankings
« Reply #192 on: October 05, 2011, 09:03:13 pm »
I've just done another quick 'back of virtual fag packet' calculation...

The expected 6 readings in 31 days, would result in about 186 readings per month.

It appears that with the title page, captain's page, barometer details page, 2 blank pages and fewer than 31 pages used in Sep, Apr, Jun, Nov & Feb (=4+ unused per year), etc, every month will have at least 5 blank pages (it may be more, I couldn't quickly find consecutive pages at beginnings or end of months in my old logs to be able to be sure).

  186 spread over over 31 pages produces 6 readings/page
  186 spread over over 36 pages (i.e. incl the blank ones) produces 4.5 readings per page

I think it appears more plausible, now!

Helen J

  • Editor and Shipherd
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4701
    • View Profile
Re: OW rankings
« Reply #193 on: October 05, 2011, 09:07:46 pm »
And then there's spending weeks on end in dry dock with no readings at all to factor in ....

heffkit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 340
    • View Profile
Re: OW rankings
« Reply #194 on: October 05, 2011, 09:23:59 pm »
I rest my case, m'lud... ;)
« Last Edit: October 05, 2011, 10:27:14 pm by heffkit »