The only thing is that guys like Crayfish would have a huge average only cuz they submitted one video that got an ungodly amount of votes.

Wow, karaidl - that's pretty funny. He only has THREE sifted videos? I never saw that coming.
That and almost every vote on the ukulele video is from a "P" Weird.

Weird, indeed, Marine... weird, indeed.

*Dramatic pause/stare*

*Uncomfortable silence*

The general consensus is that they all came over from some fan website or something like that just to vote up the vid. From there it just grew and grew cuz new users are always interested in seeing the #1 video.

The sad thing is it'll never die now. Oh sure, it could just wind up in the dead pool, but only to be revived later. It's Sift-herpes.

By the way, when you count up averages, SiftBot is the #1 user with an average of 370. Way to go, bud.

The only thing is that guys like Crayfish would have a huge average only cuz they submitted one video that got an ungodly amount of votes.

Hmm. True I guess. Would still love some kind of statistic thingy.
Maybe not public, bt where I can see it only.

There are just so many interesting numbers out there...

I always wondered about the ukelele post - then again, it is freaking insanely great playing.

Neat idea, maatc. I occasionally calc that average. I had tried to stay above an average of 20 when I first started, but that quickly dropped. It can be heavily dependent on when your posts hit the front page.

You could just set a minimum number of posts to be considered for the averaging. Like say 10. Another option would be a drop box that reads something like "Only include members with {1,10,100...} posts." That'd let the user see who's batting a 1.000 but also those who've had more at-bats and thus a more accurate average.

Good suggestions Doc_M!

I hope stuff like is somewhere near the top of the list for future improvements.
I remember different suggestions for statistics keep coming up over time (like here) The discussion kind of faded out though.

Is anyone collecting them, or even working on them in his batcave without our knowledge?

If I were concerned about maintaining an average, I'd be less likely to submit videos I wasn't sure of, like my Michael Douglas one </shameless self-promotion>, which has gotten 29 votes in 2.5 days. The goal of sifters should be to get stuff published, i.e. find lots of vids good enough to make the cut. Trying to maintain an average on top of that, I believe, would shift energy away from that goal and not benefit the Sift as much as the decreased volume would hurt it.

From another angle, what looming problem does this solve? Is anybody complaining about a lack of quality submissions? If so, the solution would be to up the number of votes required to get published, which is the point of a voting system in the first place.

That said, mods might find this stat useful internally so they could ask consistently successful how they go about finding good posts. I would not support publishing this stat, however.