Comments for The FAWM Blog

Comment on The 50 Songs in 90 Days Challenge by Melissa

Melissa — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 06:03:21 +0000

It\’s a great and valuable site!t

Comment on Announcing Fawmpilation Vol. 3 by Pwhndvve

Pwhndvve — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 16:44:01 +0000

Rimsky went look closer buy cytotec dead hand daughters.

Comment on FAWM 2008 Anaylsis #2 - Fawmers by Charlie Cheney

Charlie Cheney — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:14:06 +0000

“You left a mark on me, it’s permanent, a tattoo”
-Lucinda Williams

I just think the social network graph is cool looking… like a sand portrait or a kaleidescope pointed at back-lit stained glass.

I Love The FAWM.

Comment on Announcing Fawmpilation Vol. 3 by SanAntonio

SanAntonio — Thu, 22 May 2008 18:51:34 +0000

Famous remarks are very seldom quoted correctly.

Comment on FAWM 2008 Anaylsis #2 - Fawmers by spinhead

spinhead — Thu, 15 May 2008 17:25:16 +0000

Y’know, Burr, you just keep opening yourself up for more feature requests. I want these graphs for my profile page, updating in real time.

It’d be interesting to see the lines of the triangle between Nancy and Charlie and I get thicker and blacker all month long . . .

Comment on FAWM 2008 Anaylsis #2 - Fawmers by Nancy

Nancy — Tue, 13 May 2008 20:39:37 +0000

I think the forums are a big reason that the social network is so welcoming. And although it’s not reflected in this data, I think the practice of “zonging” also broadens the connections among fawmers. It would be interesting to see how the scatterplot and network figures changed by April 1 or May 1 ….

Comment on FAWM 2008 Anaylsis #2 - Fawmers by Scott Lake

Scott Lake — Tue, 13 May 2008 18:30:52 +0000

@Burr - Aha - that explains it. I did lots of commenting on other’s songs AFTER March 1 when I had more time on my hands.

The social network thing is a very cool way to look at the data.

Comment on FAWM 2008 Anaylsis #2 - Fawmers by Burr

Burr — Tue, 13 May 2008 16:03:49 +0000

Scott — Note that the scatterplot and network figures are based on comments made on or before March 1 (i.e., during the actual FAWM event). So if you’ve made (or received) a lot of comments since then, your dot will be elsewhere.

Cactus — No, I didn’t do any correcting for anything, mostly because (1) FAWM is relatively young anyway and (2) I’m lazy. That’s an interesting consideration for the future, though, thanks!

Comment on FAWM 2008 Anaylsis #2 - Fawmers by Cactus Joe

Cactus Joe — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:07:39 +0000

Hi Burr,

With my day job in research (to support my night job in rocking), I appreciate the graphs and data analysis. Excellent to see the average age is going up, but I must ask if you corrected for past fawming activity. That is to say, the average age would be expected to increase by one year for repeat fawmers, just by the fact that it’s an annual event. You can correct this figure by subtracting years of fawming from repeat fawmer ages to get a measure of “average age at first fawm,” or segregate out the first timers and report their average age separately. Semantics I suppose. Your number tells the truth, which is the average age of fawmers this year. But it’s always going to trend upwards unless a lot of fawmers quit to balance those who join, which is very unlikely, because its addictive and grows exponentially. I love it.

Thanks.

Joe

Comment on FAWM 2008 Anaylsis #2 - Fawmers by Scott Lake

Scott Lake — Tue, 13 May 2008 15:03:45 +0000

OK, I’m a nerd. I tried finding my spot on the comments vs. avg comments scatterplot and I can’t find my dot. I made 230 comments according to the site, and I added up my comments and divided by my number of songs, and got 9.9

Well, there’s a big white area in the graph where my red dot should be. I’m lost.