anwiii

it's quite simple. Xisto is now an addon domain. you can't optimize for addon domains. eventually all threads will be changed over to Xisto. when that happens, the threads will lose their rank because Xisto is a new domain. so obviously when this happens, we are getting less exposure. even the new threads wont rank as quick because of the new domain. in the meantime, it will cause traffic to lower and the loss of advertising monies that would have normally been made with "Xisto" if we didn't change over to a new name. that's why it is important that after opaque gets finished with the new office and stuff, there should have to be an advertising campaign here to make up for the losses(in my opinion). not so much for the revenues earned from google or kontera, but the active members to get this forum hopping again like it was 3 years ago.

hahaha! that's funny. well, i disagree with people who say people will stop playing after level 100. like simpleton said, there is way too much competition going on in those games so when someone reaches 101, other people will want to keep up. it doesn't take a genious to realize that.i think it's funny because the old saying is true "beware what you wish for. you might just get it!". this is certainly the case here when users were complaining about not having more user levels. i mean, they got an abundance of what they wished for. but this doesn't really matter because the compainers and whiners will always complain and whine about something....even if they got what they wished for. i think that is too funny! hahathese losers need to get a life. just play the game while it's still fun. when it's not fun anymore or you can find something more productive to do, then stop playing the game. it's as simple as that! i play castle age myself on facebook. as far as zynga games, i still play poker. i used to play dragon wars until they discontinued it. zynga also came out with a new game. it's taking facebook by storm. it might just might outdo farmville by the end of the year.

actually, you didn't prove a thing, but think what you want yes....thank you for supporting wd, magnafrost. she needed all the help she could get haha anyway, i would do the correct math in evaluating the laws of odds and averages as i mentioned in my last post to prove your math wrong, but i seriously don't want to waste anymore of my time on this. you will find some other way to argue that odds and averages shouldn't fit in with what you are trying to say.

ahhh! ok. so you are assuming that each post in each group is double. i get ya now. so much for assuming. you are wrong in your assumptions there i think i get you now. you think each group should double in value because you assume a doubled value based on the highest post in a group. hmmm. i would love to agree with you but unfortunately i cant. first, 2-5,5-10,10-20, and 20-40 do all double if you take the HIGHEST #. but you can't take the highest # when this highest # in one group is also the lowest # in another group. even if you put 1-5, 6-10,11-20,21-40 the highest #'s may double but that doesn't prove the group is doubling. there are 5 #'s in 1-5 which means the odds of posting a post with any of those lines in it is 1 out of 5 times. repeat. you can only assume you will be posting that highest # 1 out of 5 times! 6-10, same odds. the interesting part comes now. with 11-20, the odds of posting a 20 line post within that group is 1 out of ten times! in group D, the odds of posting a 40 line post is 1 out of 20 times. you are only taking 5 figures to assume each group is doubling. the total odds of this happening is 5 times out of 40. those are pretty low odds to make assumptions wd. n ow we are getting to the nitty gritty!. you see, i look at your title and it says "how to calculate the average from different data inputs". in fact, your whole proof isn't even doubling as you say it is because you are missing math. the ONLY thing that i see doubling is the HIGHEST lines per post # in each group. but i already proved the odds of any one post in that group. even if the odds were 50-50 in each group that the largest post would be posted in each group, it still VERY unlikey that each group is double the worth. you aren't even trying to prove an average. you said it yourself. so why the title to calculate an AVERAGE? all you are trying to prove is that each group should be worth double than the next group. that isn't claculating an average! haha i think you meant to say 1/8 of group d as what you are saying, group d hold 8x the value of group a. but i already proved you were wrong. the odds of any one post hitting that top post in any one group is RARE! it's 5/40 or 12.5% chance. you don't have to explain it another way. you keep repeating the wrong logic over and over again in this group doubling theory of yours actually haven't proved anything by your math. you haven't proven that each group is doubled, you haven't proven that .076 is the AVERAGE mycents earned per post if someone posted 400 posts and recieved $40 mycents, and you sure as heck didn't prove that taking the highest value in each group is the correct way to do this math. really, you haven't proved a thing. although, i can discredit ever step of your logic. i thought this was a proof to show the everage mycents earned per post. it turned out to be a post to try to prove that each group doubles in value now i want to run a more realistic scenario by you. if we are going by 400 posts, then you have to take in the laws of odds and averages which dictate if you flip a coin 1,000,000,000 times, you should notice that the coin lands on heads almost 50% of the time and it lands on tails almost 50% of the time. so we take this same law in to effect with your proof. with 400 posts, 10 will be 1 liners, 10 will be 2 liners, 10 will be 3 liners, 10 will be 4 liners, 10 will be a 5 line post, etc...etc...all the way to your 40 line post. if we use this law of odds and averages which i am sure you would never argue, in group a, you would have a total of 150 lines in group A, 400 lines in group b, 1550 lines in group c, and 6100 lines in group d. this actually proves by the LAWS of odds and averages that each group does NOT double in value. you are not using correct math OR and logic to prove any point. whether it's proving average mycents per post OR proving each group doubles in value. what you are doing is ASSUMING by taking the highest # post in each group and YOU CANNOT ASSUME when you are trying to prove anything and you cannot take only a PARTIAL bit of any one group to try and prove a point. now that we know that each group does not double in value and this was the only thing you were trying to prove and not the AVERAGE as you stated in your title, we can now lay this thread to rest. i mean, if you are going to argue my proof, you are arguing with the law of odds and averages, wd. and if you ARE going to keep arguing, then whatever your proof is, state it in a way that doesn't go against proven laws in math. . magnafrost, where in the world did you ever get that i taught math or majored in math? i said i will never brag about majoring in math or teaching math. i never did. math was just a hobby of mine when i was learning to code at the age of 16 and then later on when trying to figure out casino odds. web designer stated that she taught math and was a math major in the chat room. i am not one to try and build up my credentials. also, what do you mean you would stay out of those institutions? i should stay out of school? why do you say that? that makes absolutely no sense bud. i don't take offense to ridiculous comments, sorry and yup! kiddie math. i am sorry you had to follow the band wagon of misinformation. i also think my math is better than a 4 year old but your statement just proves my point that you don't know what you're talking about either

"?" you are basing a movie on real life? i don't think the majority of people will agree. we are talking about games, movies, software, etc. those things aren't just information bud. you say for the most part that people don't view piracy as wrong. again, i think most people will disagree with you there too. i think everyone knows it's wrong under the law and moral code. they just don't care. that's basically what it boils down to. not caring about right from wrong or thinking it's such a little wrong it doesn't matter. i mean....what is one guy. how can one guy hurt a company? they can't. but millions can and millions do. so it's really not so little after all. i do think most people actually care but i think they consider themselves 1 star in the galaxy. when everyone has the same mindset, it really will put a hurt on businesses. maybe not so much the big companies, but the smaller ones DEFINATELY when they don't have that diversity of products to target consumers with.

haha well i am not going to waste my time when you are going to tell me you would argue with an expert. that's just ridiculous. now that i know that you will just continue to argue even if you're wrong, i have to say this conversation is over. you haven't proved a darn thing and assuming you have the correct ratio was your downfall because below, i use your same logic with the same ratio values and i come up with two different results. this proves you cannot go by your logic UNLESS you can somehow prove to me that .5,1,2,and 4 were the correct values. but you can't. you picked those #'s in thin air to calculate a so called "average" which isn't even an average. also it's funny when you came up with .076 or something when trying to calculate the HIGH average when MY OWN AVERAGE was calculated at .10. you calculated for the highs and mine is still higher oh boy..... i just reread your post...haha WRONG! i NEVER EVER said all your posts equals .10 each. never in a million years. i said your average post value is .10 taking in the highs and the lows. i didn't even read this part of your post either. this explains ALOT. you taking the highest value for each group. sorry wd. taking the highest value in each group(5,10,20,40) will not constitute a correct average when in each group you also have 2,5,10,20. also, your table is wrong because you list 5 twice, 10 twice, and 20 twice. but i still understand what you were trying to do. why is taking the highest #'s only the correct way to do it but when i tried to average the group, taking the medians 3.5,7.5,15,30 is wrong? how can you possible figure that? again, you have shown absolutely NO PROOF in what you did. i ask you questions and you ignore them. are you even reading my posts and my formula to calculate things? because when you ignore me, i have to either assume you aren't reading everything or you don't want to answer because you can't answer. i mean which is it? you're in a catch 22 here you used .5,1,2,and 4 as a ratio to you highest posts in each group(5,10,20,40). so we can very well use .25,.50,1,2 OR 1,2,4,8 as the ratios since all you did was chose random #'s that doubled. if they weren't random, please tell me who you came up with your figures. so now let's see my two examples using my #'s. the logic is the exact same but it will produce difference results and the proof will remain the same at $40 group a- 70*.25=17.50 group b- 200*.50=100 group c- 100*1=100 group d- 30*2=60 40/277.50=.144144 according to your logic, this would be correct too. group a- 70*1=70 group b- 200*2=400 group c- 100*4=400 group d- 30*8=240 40/1110=.036036 3 calculations with the same logic and different results. i want to know why you chose .5,1,2, and 4! all these answers can't possibly be correct. with both examples, if you do the math backwards, ofcourse it will all equal back to $40 just like yours did so just because we can show supposed proof of that doesn't mean it's the right forumula to figure out an average. you have not proven a darn thing yet. nor will you because i don't think you can because not only did you input #'s that are wrong, your forumla is wrong and you don't account for EVERYTHING when all you're doing is trying to take the hight post values in each group. that is NOT an average. at most, it's an average on the high side. what if we take the average using your logic on the LOW side instead of the high side. do you know what the result will be? what would happen if we take the result of the high side and add that to the result of the low side and divide by two. do you know what that result would be using your logic and mine combined? well, i am not going to brag about how i taught math or how math was my major or anything like that but i will still say this is kiddie math

i actually did tell you not to bother replying twice. i will have a professor do the proof and i will post it. it's no use arguing here when the math is obviously wrong and people aren't seeing it. please just post the specific question you want answered in your own words and i will hand it off to a third party who should in effect be better at math than the both of us.

i am using the same ratio? now YOUR information is incorrect. how do you figure i am making up ratios or using the same ratios as she is? the 3.5,7,5,15,30 was a DISTICT average of posts per group. this was not a made up figure. her .5,1,2,4 were assumed and made up figures. how are you comparing the two when my figures were based on fact and the actual average of posts, and hers were based on assumtions and based on the weight of the posts? they are totally different figures dude. the fact still remains that every # i posted had a meaning and a formula behind it. hers didn't. also, the only good breaking down posts to lines does is give an average amount per line per group. they will vary. but after you add in the weight of not only the lines per post, but the posts per group, you can then figure out the correct weight % to give each group. the whole point to putting posts in groups is to take the weight of how many lines per posts there are in each group. since it varies, i averaged. she didn't even calculate anything to do with lines per post in each group. if you aren't going to break down the groups that way, seperating posts in to groups is unnecessary. for example. she weighted the last group D the highest. that is true if you are only considering mycents per post. but since everything is seperated in to groups, you also have to consider how many posts there are in that group. she does one and not the other. she is calculating the weight of the group SOLELY based on 1 factor.....the lines in a post not both. since both data is pertinant to the group, you have to weigh both factors. that is the error here that you obviously don't see. i know sometimes math can be confusing, but this is like kiddie math. i do this stuff in my sleep. she is trying to use a similar equation here as she does when she tries to figure out an average score in school based on different variables. this is totally different....although some of the math is the same. i want someone to go through each line of my post and tell me what is wrong with it. if you fail to understand it, then how can one even comment on it? i want to know from those who think they see errors in my calculations to tell me exactly where you think those errors are. from there, i can better explain exactly what i did in kiddie math.

it was never mandatory, but that is the way it has always been done here. once 100 mycents get converted to $1 credit, an email will always be sent.

that's the difference between you and i. i am not assuming anything. you are. i have CLEARLY showed how i figured everything including the weight of each group. you have not. you have only assumed and given twice the weight for each group. you are the one who wanted to break down posts in to groups and lines per post. i did it the way you said YOU were going to do it but you didn't do it that way. all you did was state how many lines in a post each group has. in no way shape or form did that enter in to your calculations at all. we could assume group A had 1-100 lines, group B had 101-200 lines, group C had 201-300 lines, and group D had 301-400 lines. they way you calculated what you did, it doesn't matter how many lines are in each group. you didn't factor in the lines at all! is that so hard to understand where one of your errors is? i came up with 3.5,7.5, etc as average #'s of lines per post, per group! pay attention you keep saying i am misunderstanding. i am not. you keep comparing who to figure this out with how you would figure grades in school. i know 555 is not the number of posts. supposedly this is your weighted factor after you assumed each group was twice as high as the next group. it's you who are misunderstanding and assuming things. in my formula, i assumed NOTHING. everything was proven in basic math and it's all there in black and white. you didn't calculate the values. you ASSUMED the values. so my dear....let me ask you how you calculated .5,1,2, and 4. you didn't. you ASSUMED those #'s out of thin air! haha if i am wrong, please tell me how you came up with those figures exactly because those figures are dictating that each group is twice as high as the next group. don't bother. if you got confused how i get the average lines per post, per group, then you will have trouble understanding everything else i did. do you not understand that the way you did it, it doesn't matter what weight you put on your groups? the final outcome will be the same according to your math? instead of using .5,1,2,4 for your weight, use prime #'s 1,3,5,7 or more realistic to what you were trying to accomplish use, 2,4,8,16. the way you did it and proved that everything added to 40, you can use ANY # for the weight and still get the same result! haha! so you are wrong, wd and you can't even see where you are wrong. i try to explain where you are wrong but you still don't see it because you are set it thinking that your formula is correct and that you can ASSUME the weight of each group rather than PROVING what the actual weight of each group is. lastly, you ARE trying to prove me wrong like deadmad says. this was obvious when you said i don't know math and you need to teach me YOUR math to prove that my math is wrong. deadmad- i ain't a nerd haha. i just hate when someone wants to correct me and use false information to try and prove a point. i will always argue what i know is correct when someone wants to tell me that my math is wrong haha. i have to save face here now after being accused of something that wasn't true.

it may just be you because i see his sig perfectly fine. it's spiderman!

nobody knows how things are calculated. that's why we can only figure out our own average based on how we posted in the past. i didn't guess anything. all the math i did is right there step by step. it's a long proccess of we want to break it down to lines per post, mycents per post, and the weight of each group. but like i proved, you don't need to go through that long process. you get the same result by just dividing $40 mycents earn by 400 posts made. it's .10 either way. wd is just trying to calculate it the long way, but her way has errors and doesn't account for everything.

are you on the logic pro plan? that is 6.66 a month. if you use less that 10 gigs of bandwidth, i would suggest the logic plan at 1.99 a month. if you use more than that, you can still use the logic plan and just get 50 gig bandwidth for an extra .99 a month for a total of $3 a month. it will still be less than 6.66 a month. you just have to figure out what the best plan is for your needs. if you have any questions, submit a support ticket so they can help you with it. get firefox! it will be well worth the switch!

haha just because her math was correct in what she did doesn't mean that she didn't leave anything out. she did. and some of her thinking was flawed. if she wants to separate the total posts in to groups based on the size of the post, then we will have add that factor in to our calculations based on the weight on how many lines AND how many posts in each group. NOT JUST HOW MANY LINES. this was a major flaw and i took time out to prove step by step....accounting for EVERYTHING. basing the weight on how many lines per post in each group is only half correct. here is my proof which is not flawed.... group A: for post from 2-5 lines. group B: for post from 5-10 lines. group C: for post from 10-20 lines. group D: for post from 20-40 lines. you have to assume the average: group A: for post from 2-5 lines. or 3.5 lines AVERAGE group B: for post from 5-10 lines. or 7.5 lines AVERAGE group C: for post from 10-20 lines. or 15 lines AVERAGE group D: for post from 20-40 lines. or 30 lines AVERAGE once you have the average lines per post in each group, you multiply the result with how many posts in each group to get the average in each group: group A: 70*3.5= 245 average total lines in group group B: 200*7.5= 1500 average total lines in group group C: 100*15= 1500 average total lines in group group D: 30*30= 900 average total lines in group now see? when you actually average out the total lines of each group, each group is NOT worth twice as much as the next group. so your simple error in what seems logical is in fact NOT factoring in ALL information. you only factored in SOME of the information. so now we figure out how many average mycents each line is worth. the first step in doing this is by adding all the averages: 245+1500+1500+900= 4145 now we divide the total amount of mycents earned by the result: 40/4145= .00965 per line now we can figure out the average total mycents in each group by multiplying what each line is worth with the average lines we figured out earlier: group A: .00965*245= 2.36425 group B: .00965*1500= 14.475 group C: .00965*1500= 14.475 group D: .00965*900= 8.685 NOTE: 2.36425+14.475+14.475+8.685= 40(total mycents earned) now we divide those totals in each group by the amount of posts in each group which you gave the figures for earlier: group A: 2.36425/70= .033775 group B: 14.475/200= .072375 group C: 14.475/100= .14475 group D: 8.685/30= .2895 now to get an the average mycents per post, all we do is add up all those figures and divide by 4: .033775+.072375+.14475+.2895= .5404/4= .136 this total isn't accurate though because we didn't figure out the weight of each group. as it stands now, each group has a total weight of 100%. so we have to recalculate by multiplying the weight percentage of each group. since 100% of the weight = $40, group A has an average weight of 5.9%. group B AND C have an average weight of 36.2%. group D has an average weight of 21.7%. this adds up to the total weight. now all we have to do is multiply the weight percentage of each group and subtract that weight for each group. showing the weight % of each group. the total matched the total mycents for each group group A: $40*5.9%= 2.36425 group B: $40*36.2%= 14.475 group C: $40*36.2%= 14.475 group D: $40*21.7%= 8.685 multiplying the weight percentage of each group group A: .033775*5.9%= .001992725 group B: .072375*36.2%= .02619975 group C: .14475*36.2%= .0523995 group D: .2895*21.7%= .0628215 subtracting the weight from the original totals to get the modified total mycents per post according to the weight of the group group A: .033775-.001992725= .031782275 group B: .072375-.02619975= .04617525 group C: .14475-.0523995= .0923505 group D: .2895-.0628215= .2266785 now to get the true average af mycents per post, you add the new totals and divide by 4 .031782275+.04617525+.0923505+.2266785= .396986525/4= .09925 or .10 per post now the EASY way of figuring out mycents per post is taking the total mycents earned($40) and dividing that by total posts(400) which also equals .10 per post so no matter if you do it the way i originally stated in another thread, or you break it down to lines per post, posts per group, and seperated in to 4 groups(or however many groups you want), the average mycents per post will always be the same. the only reason it didn't add up to .10 EXACTLY is because i averaged the weight percentage to the 10ths. so this is my proof here. i didn't just average how much each post is worth, but i averaged how much each LINE is worth in each group. when i figured in the weight of each post, the more correct average was displayed.

wd- i understand where you are going with this and your math is actually correct with what you did. that's why you could prove the total mycents earned was $39.96 when the math was reversed. your logic was flawed twice though. 1: you assumed each group was worth twice as much as the next group which they are NOT! 2: in the beginning, you stated how many lines were in each group but NOWHERE in your formula did you take that in to account. so not only did you assume something that is not true, but you left part of the math out. i think you need to re-figure your math. here is an example: group A: 70*3.5= 245 average total lines in group group B: 200*7.5= 1500 average total lines in group as you can see, group B is NOT worth twice as much as group A and you forgot to calculate in the average total lines from each group. you said yourself that we have to take in to account total lines for each post and you didn't calculate lines in a post anywhere in your math. where your math really goes haywire is in the end when you are still assuming total posts is 555 when in fact, your total posts are still 400 as you mentioned earlier. you just totally changed figures out of nowhere. if you did indeed post 400 times and the average mycents per post is .072 like you said, your total mycents earned would have been 28.80 which is a lot lower than $40, don't you think?

yea, i am finally glad kickball is finally over too. it's about as fun to watch as watching grass grow

hahaha! good one! what you said reminds me of someone here who is always talking about hitting people with their big book. i am old school thought when it comes to looking up #'s or businesses. i think the phone with with the white and yellow pages have a lot more local resources than what you can find online. i am all for researching stuff online. in fact, that's all i do sometimes but i have to say that the phone book will always be my safe bet over trying to find what i need on the internet.

well i still love your logos the best. i really don't like the simples logos. they look too plain to me. i also don't like those techie looking logos. it just doesn't fit what i think this forum is about. but the one opaque posted(which was evidently the wrong one) isn't the one of the ones i like either. i like a couple of the others you made though!opaque, why are you posting the wrong logo for?!?

well that is an interesting interpretation but dreams aren't as cut and dry like that. i have my own which i wont post. but to go along with your current interpretation, i think the mouse getting caught in the trap isn't because you feel great sadness when animals or pets are killed. i think the mouse turned in to the frog because you hate to see animals or pets killed. there would be less of a personal connection with a frog being sad about his friend mouse dying that a mouse seeing his mouse friend die. so you would feel less sad as a whole. since we can control our dreams consciously and subconsciously, i think that's what happened here. but again, i think there is a lot mroe to it than that which i wont get in to....very interesting dream though haha

you're gonna have to change it anyway. there is no light blue strip on the top of your logo to match the current theme

that was a good introduction carlcan. thanks for sharing!

there should be a top strip with a lighter shade of blue. it was obvious to me when i looked at it...

where are you getting all these percentages from? haha we are not claculating grades. we are calculating earnings. if you were going to give a real example, you should have given an example to recalculate the everage mycents per post like i did. i understand your math fully. in fact, most people can do it in their heads without those formulas. it's basic jr. high math. and you were spliting things in to groups again and giving a certain amount of weight to percentages to get a final percentage average but i still don't know where you are getting the 50% from or the 25% from and i am assuming those # were scores since you were talking about grades. to figure out earnings(not percentages), it total # of mycents divided by how many posts the person made. now if you want to prove otherwise, you do it with real statistics using mycents and posts like i did. otherwise, i am still going to have to disagree with you. as far as what my result would be according to what you were trying to convey, it would not have been 46, but 76 since i understand what you were trying to do when converting the percentages to 100%. in the case of averages in what i did, i didn't need to convert percentages because 100% equals the amount of posts made. it was a different fixed figure for each individual. i don't need to break down anyones post to find an average of mycents per post. now, i want YOU to figure out those peoples average mycents per post and tell me how you came up with that figure so i can try to understand you better rather than give fictitious #'s and percentages where i have no clue how your even coming up with the initial percentages in the first place. i understand what you are saying though since i have done it many times shooting free throws. if i shot 20 out of 25 free throws, i'm averaging 80% or 80 out of 100. but we aren't trying to find percentages or scores. we are trying to find the average value of one post when you take in to consideration ALL posts. not some of them split in to groups. i am not trying to give a math lesson here. just saying your making it harder than it has to be to find an average. start a new thread and we will discuss averages this is getting off topic.

amazon owns lockerz?!? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!! that must have been the stupidest move they could have ever done. buying out a new company like that? their reputation poinst had to go down after making THAT move! people need to read my initial review somewhere about lockerz. i warned you ALL and people didn't listen. yea, some people might get their stuff right away but i knew it would slow down. it was inevitable. now i don't support lockerz but deadmad, maybe it's a good thing that you were too late. you still have your points or lockerz money or whatever you want to call it. the next time, if you continue to waste your time on lockerz, you might be able to afford something better. so i wouldn't get your hopes up yet. obviously some people are able to order their stuff. if you ever do get your order through, quit this scam and use your brain to make money some other way. create your own lockerz business or something. your too smart to waste your time making a couple bucks an hour just to order something that you could get cheaper buying it from ebay and making other people rich.