Report, edit, etc...Posted by Cloud on 2006-10-12 at 18:45:49
QUOTE(CheeZe @ Oct 12 2006, 10:19 PM)
Please. Cheeze's system is so much cooler. 
[right][snapback]575798[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]575798[/snapback][/right]
Damn right, throw out Moose's system! Up with the CheeZe
QUOTE(Syphon(MM) @ Oct 12 2006, 10:24 PM)
Syhon's system is lazy, at best.
[right][snapback]575800[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]575800[/snapback][/right]
Syhon!?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-10-12 at 18:56:25
QUOTE(IsolatedPurity @ Oct 12 2006, 10:30 AM)
I'm done posting in this topic 
. You're just going to have to trust me DTBK.
[right][snapback]575605[/snapback][/right]
. You're just going to have to trust me DTBK.[right][snapback]575605[/snapback][/right]
In no way whatsoever do I trust you. I am simply resigned to your will.
QUOTE(Centreri @ Oct 12 2006, 02:10 PM)
QUOTE(DTBK)
I desparately beg for this to run in v4 for this reason: People continually trash this system because their math skills are atrocious and they have no clue how it works.
To adress a few things:
-1/20 (c-6)2 + 2 is a CONCAVE DOWN PARABOLA with a VERTEX at (6,2). Values for a Posts Per Day multiplier will increase on the inerval [0,6) and decrease on the interval (6,∞), going below zero at about 12.4.
This means that for any reasonable posts per day, the higher your activity, the higher the multiplier. However, one who spams like heck for posts will have a lower multiplier if their ppd exceeds the "ideal" 6. The reason 6 presides as an "ideal" number is because it is far above that of any active poster on SEN, and thus represents a level at which a person begins to be excessive.
The Member Rating part of the formula follows the standard algebraic Order of Operations and should be unsterstood easily. With 150 members rating you, which is about 50% of SEN's active member base, your average rating plays a factor about half again as much as your post count, but not as much as your age.
Before you baselessly attack my system, PLEASE a) CHECK YOUR MATH and b) produce an example of a member where the system gives a misleading value.
To adress a few things:
-1/20 (c-6)2 + 2 is a CONCAVE DOWN PARABOLA with a VERTEX at (6,2). Values for a Posts Per Day multiplier will increase on the inerval [0,6) and decrease on the interval (6,∞), going below zero at about 12.4.
This means that for any reasonable posts per day, the higher your activity, the higher the multiplier. However, one who spams like heck for posts will have a lower multiplier if their ppd exceeds the "ideal" 6. The reason 6 presides as an "ideal" number is because it is far above that of any active poster on SEN, and thus represents a level at which a person begins to be excessive.
The Member Rating part of the formula follows the standard algebraic Order of Operations and should be unsterstood easily. With 150 members rating you, which is about 50% of SEN's active member base, your average rating plays a factor about half again as much as your post count, but not as much as your age.
Before you baselessly attack my system, PLEASE a) CHECK YOUR MATH and b) produce an example of a member where the system gives a misleading value.
I know that it first goes up then starts going down. That's what I was saying was wrong with your formula. By putting this in you're making it so that if people post more then 6 posts per day, possibly good posts all, they're reputation will decrease, and thus removing the motivation for activity. And the parabola stuff was both obvious and irrelevant. Graphing data has nothing to do with your formula's practical errors.
And as DoA said, the reputation system is inaccurate. I'm sure 100% of the modder community here knows him, and quite probably 50% of everyone else. Everyone knows he's an awesome modder, and 400/4000 doesn't do him justice. If it doesn't work for everyone, the reputation system isn't worth using.
Even though I'm against the reputation stuff, I think it would be cool and more interesting if members could rate each other (one member can rate any person they want one time, but rate however many people they want) and be able to revise their rating whenever they wished. I don't want it to show anything like 'average rating' with every post, but it would be interesting if it was shown in the profiles of people. It's also not that hard to implement.
[right][snapback]575719[/snapback][/right]
People posting more than 6 cumulative posts per day and still having good posts? It's possible, but there is no example of this.
QUOTE
However, I don't think this is accurate enough. Ask around, I'm worth more than the 400 your system gives me.
Final notes:
1. Rating a member isn't an easy process, I know. I doubt that any formula can be created which will give an accurate representation. Sure, you can have people rate the member, but then you get the option of someone getting a group of members unhappy enough to trash their rating.
Final notes:
1. Rating a member isn't an easy process, I know. I doubt that any formula can be created which will give an accurate representation. Sure, you can have people rate the member, but then you get the option of someone getting a group of members unhappy enough to trash their rating.
Well, three things:
1) You missed about 100 days of you being here, and hence another 100 or so to your reputation.
2) If you actually were able to take an even sampling of ratings around here, you;d find that 500 isn't all that low. Just because I posted up my 4000 doesn't mean a 500 is bad. In my way of seeing things scaled, 750-1000 should be an elite, so I see you right on track DoA.
3) I wholeheartedly agree on the fact that my system isn't perfect. I just think it is very good for being wholly automatic.
Oh, and DoA, I'd swear your Staff Rating would be a tad higher than 1
If anyone out there holds you in high esteem, it's me.All in all, it doesn't look like this will get anywhere, but I beg the community to remember it as I shall win through example.
A classless society is doomed to fail: the Soviet Union, China, anyone? But I shall sit back and be content to wait.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Felagund on 2006-10-12 at 19:29:54
Admin dissenting from IP? All Hell has broken loose. 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Syphon on 2006-10-12 at 20:04:36
QUOTE(DT_Battlekruser @ Oct 12 2006, 05:56 PM)
A classless society is doomed to fail: the Soviet Union, China, anyone? But I shall sit back and be content to wait.
[right][snapback]575843[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]575843[/snapback][/right]
China...
China seems to be doing okay.
WRE HAVE BIRRION PEOPRE. KIRR ARR? WE HAVE BIRRION MOLE NEXT TUESDAY.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DiscipleOfAdun on 2006-10-12 at 21:27:14
Oh. 
I forgot those days. Those would be the days I took break completly from sen. I guess I played a special bit of extra editing on it, factoring in days I wasn't around. The ratings were just to give a feel. I would expcect them to be a bit higher, but I wanted to be more impartial with them. I did think about others ratings, and between those days I forgot and thinking, it's less radical than I originally though it. Still, I'm hesitant to think about days on sen as much as you had them.
I had a bit today to think about it more, and I'm a little ready to change my views. I hadn't heard how space stuff was to be done, but it it reasonable. That does give me a better reason to not like regular/elites for v5.
Still, I think you need something. Dunno what, but I don't think nothing is going to last for long.
I forgot those days. Those would be the days I took break completly from sen. I guess I played a special bit of extra editing on it, factoring in days I wasn't around. The ratings were just to give a feel. I would expcect them to be a bit higher, but I wanted to be more impartial with them. I did think about others ratings, and between those days I forgot and thinking, it's less radical than I originally though it. Still, I'm hesitant to think about days on sen as much as you had them.I had a bit today to think about it more, and I'm a little ready to change my views. I hadn't heard how space stuff was to be done, but it it reasonable. That does give me a better reason to not like regular/elites for v5.
Still, I think you need something. Dunno what, but I don't think nothing is going to last for long.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-10-12 at 21:27:30
Ah, but China is now nominally capitalist and certainly isn't a classless society. All pure Communist states have either fallen or drifted away from the pure ideal of Communism.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2006-10-12 at 21:31:16
QUOTE
I know that it first goes up then starts going down. That's what I was saying was wrong with your formula. By putting this in you're making it so that if people post more then 6 posts per day, possibly good posts all, they're reputation will decrease, and thus removing the motivation for activity.
Do you realize how hard it is to get over 2 PPD (without being a new member at SEN, that is)? In the past month, I've have about 15-25 posts made each day and my PPD is still 1.89 or something. I seriously doubt anyone will reach that 6+ PPD mark that you're talking about, so it really isn't an issue.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-10-12 at 21:33:27
Yeah, that's the point.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2006-10-12 at 21:36:50
Yeah sorry, I just copied/pasted. That was Centreri's quote I was responding to.
I know that's the point. That was my point, that I understood that that was the point , but I don't think he understood the point. Wow, that was a fun sentence.
I know that's the point. That was my point, that I understood that that was the point , but I don't think he understood the point. Wow, that was a fun sentence.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by IsolatedPurity on 2006-10-13 at 03:31:46
I said I was done posting... but... I'm sick and feeling rather cocky...
This is a god damn website
.
But I'm glad you are content to wait... like I said, it can always be changed later.
QUOTE
A classless society is doomed to fail: the Soviet Union, China, anyone? But I shall sit back and be content to wait.
This is a god damn website
.But I'm glad you are content to wait... like I said, it can always be changed later.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by in_a_biskit on 2006-10-13 at 08:26:49
Hmm... the question to ask about a system like this is, what's the point?
The great thing about having something like a rating or class like "regular", "elite" etc, is - as DTBK and Devlin and others point out - it works as a motivator. It motivates participation, at the very least, even if not good behaviour.
What I think is interesting about your system, DTBK, is that the number you give seems to be a very stable number - that is, it seems like there's not much most can do (other than posting to the point of almost getting banned) to make it increase or decrease by a very significant amount.
In a previous discussion [snapback]509981[/snapback], I said that the rating seemed to be dominated by SEN age. I still think that - and the older a member is SEN, the more their score is determined by their age, and the less it is possible to change through posting lots or little (since ppd hardly changes when you're old, as Devlin pointed out). So I'd have reservations about whether such a score would serve as a very good motivator, especially for older members.
I think a better system would be more dynamic - it would be based on posts rather than overall impressions, and would weight recent posts more heavily than older posts, to encourage continuing participation, and to give newer members more of a chance. (It also means that any anomalies would only be temporary.) It could also give members different scores for each forum or group of forums, so that forums with less participation can still reflect which members make the best posts.
The great thing about having something like a rating or class like "regular", "elite" etc, is - as DTBK and Devlin and others point out - it works as a motivator. It motivates participation, at the very least, even if not good behaviour.
What I think is interesting about your system, DTBK, is that the number you give seems to be a very stable number - that is, it seems like there's not much most can do (other than posting to the point of almost getting banned) to make it increase or decrease by a very significant amount.
In a previous discussion [snapback]509981[/snapback], I said that the rating seemed to be dominated by SEN age. I still think that - and the older a member is SEN, the more their score is determined by their age, and the less it is possible to change through posting lots or little (since ppd hardly changes when you're old, as Devlin pointed out). So I'd have reservations about whether such a score would serve as a very good motivator, especially for older members.
I think a better system would be more dynamic - it would be based on posts rather than overall impressions, and would weight recent posts more heavily than older posts, to encourage continuing participation, and to give newer members more of a chance. (It also means that any anomalies would only be temporary.) It could also give members different scores for each forum or group of forums, so that forums with less participation can still reflect which members make the best posts.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by IsolatedPurity on 2006-10-13 at 09:21:07
Aye... maybe a factor of how much posts you made in the last 30 days + the last 6 months + a few extra points for a couple of posts in website feedback (why not a bonus for caring about the site?)... etc
Report, edit, etc...Posted by (U)Bolt_Head on 2006-10-13 at 11:15:26
QUOTE(DevliN @ Oct 11 2006, 12:57 PM)
Were you around when Yoshi implemented the "Karma" idea? Karma (from the looks of it) is being transferred to v5, and it was basically a numerical rating of how good of a member you were and how respected you were. You'd make a post and if people liked it, they'd give you a better rating. If they didn't, they would give you a bad rating.
The problem is that it was severely abused. I think by the end of the first day, Bolt_Head had something like 200 karma without doing much.
I see DTBK's system as being somewhat flawed, but nonetheless automatic. It doesn't take into account grudges, sour grapes, sucking up, and bribery - which is why I support it over the karma system.
[right][snapback]574969[/snapback][/right]
The problem is that it was severely abused. I think by the end of the first day, Bolt_Head had something like 200 karma without doing much.
I see DTBK's system as being somewhat flawed, but nonetheless automatic. It doesn't take into account grudges, sour grapes, sucking up, and bribery - which is why I support it over the karma system.
[right][snapback]574969[/snapback][/right]
I don't think I ever had 200 karma, not even close espcially not on the first day.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2006-10-13 at 15:15:42
Okay fine, its an extreme exaggeration. But you do remember getting tons of Karma in that first week for doing nothing at all, right? That's why I was saying its flawed. Not that you don't deserve it or anything, but I figured the point of the karma system was to reward good posts and people rewarded you with karma simply based on the fact that you're the almighty Bolt_Head. 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-10-18 at 17:04:06
QUOTE(IsolatedPurity @ Oct 13 2006, 06:21 AM)
Aye... maybe a factor of how much posts you made in the last 30 days + the last 6 months + a few extra points for a couple of posts in website feedback (why not a bonus for caring about the site?)... etc
[right][snapback]576097[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]576097[/snapback][/right]
Yeah, you could skew b however you wanted in terms of the recent-ness of your posts.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Laser_Dude on 2006-10-18 at 21:33:47
You know, DoA summed up all of my thoughts (Probably by accident). That means I don't have to say it all in one big paragraph.
Now let's see how well a relatively new member does. (using the super high ratings)
a~192
b=146
c=.76
d=9
e=100
f=1.2
(f [(1.4a + b/10 + (d-5)/2 * (3e/4)] [(-1/20) (c-6)^2 + 2]
(1.2[1.4(192)+(146)/10+((9)-5)/2*(3(100)/4][(-1/20)((.76)-6)^2+2]
(1.2[268.8+14.6+150][.62712])
(1.2[433.4][.62712])
326
hmmm, I don't think that's too accurate, since cloud has 490, and I'm just a n00b.
ADDITION:
You know, DoA summed up all of my thoughts (Probably by accident). That means I don't have to say it all in one big paragraph.
Now let's see how well a relatively new member does. (using the super high ratings)
a~192
b=146
c=.76
d=9
e=100
f=1.2
(f [(1.4a + b/10 + (d-5)/2 * (3e/4)] [(-1/20) (c-6)^2 + 2]
(1.2[1.4(192)+(146)/10+((9)-5)/2*(3(100)/4][(-1/20)((.76)-6)^2+2]
(1.2[268.8+14.6+150][.62712])
(1.2[433.4][.62712])
326
hmmm, I don't think that's too accurate, since cloud has 490, and I'm just a n00b.
Now let's see how well a relatively new member does. (using the super high ratings)
a~192
b=146
c=.76
d=9
e=100
f=1.2
(f [(1.4a + b/10 + (d-5)/2 * (3e/4)] [(-1/20) (c-6)^2 + 2]
(1.2[1.4(192)+(146)/10+((9)-5)/2*(3(100)/4][(-1/20)((.76)-6)^2+2]
(1.2[268.8+14.6+150][.62712])
(1.2[433.4][.62712])
326
hmmm, I don't think that's too accurate, since cloud has 490, and I'm just a n00b.
ADDITION:
You know, DoA summed up all of my thoughts (Probably by accident). That means I don't have to say it all in one big paragraph.
Now let's see how well a relatively new member does. (using the super high ratings)
a~192
b=146
c=.76
d=9
e=100
f=1.2
(f [(1.4a + b/10 + (d-5)/2 * (3e/4)] [(-1/20) (c-6)^2 + 2]
(1.2[1.4(192)+(146)/10+((9)-5)/2*(3(100)/4][(-1/20)((.76)-6)^2+2]
(1.2[268.8+14.6+150][.62712])
(1.2[433.4][.62712])
326
hmmm, I don't think that's too accurate, since cloud has 490, and I'm just a n00b.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-10-18 at 21:45:46
Take out your ridiculously high rating and it might make more sense.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by smasher25 on 2006-10-19 at 00:17:26
Wow looks really tough and must take a long time to figure out. (even though I'm in math honors and have the top mark in the class) and since I took a three month break from staredit.net my reputation ranking will probably be extremely low.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2006-10-19 at 01:22:01
Actually it really isn't that hard at all. its all basic algebra, plugging in numbers. The only problem is its a bit time consuming without a nice scientific calculator, so I made an easy-to-use spreadsheet in Excel to calculate it for me.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Oo.Jamal.oO on 2006-10-22 at 13:15:04
Does this remind anyone of this? Anyway I like the system, time to figure out my rating.. 
ADDITION:
Does this remind anyone of this? Anyway I like the system, time to figure out my rating..
Edit:// I'm to lazy to figure out my reputation, anyone do it for me?
A. 466
B. 172
C. 0.4
D. 5
E. 1
F. 1.000
Plz?
ADDITION:
Does this remind anyone of this? Anyway I like the system, time to figure out my rating..
Edit:// I'm to lazy to figure out my reputation, anyone do it for me?
A. 466
B. 172
C. 0.4
D. 5
E. 1
F. 1.000
Plz?
ADDITION:
Does this remind anyone of this? Anyway I like the system, time to figure out my rating..
Edit:// I'm to lazy to figure out my reputation, anyone do it for me?
A. 466
B. 172
C. 0.4
D. 5
E. 1
F. 1.000
Plz?
ADDITION:
Does this remind anyone of this? Anyway I like the system, time to figure out my rating..
Edit:// I'm to lazy to figure out my reputation, anyone do it for me?
A. 466
B. 172
C. 0.4
D. 5
E. 1
F. 1.000
Plz?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Killer_Kow(MM) on 2006-10-22 at 13:19:39
QUOTE(Jamals2fat @ Oct 22 2006, 02:14 PM)
Does this remind anyone of this? Anyway I like the system, time to figure out my rating..
ADDITION:
Does this remind anyone of this? Anyway I like the system, time to figure out my rating..
Edit:// I'm to lazy to figure out my reputation, anyone do it for me?
A. 466
B. 172
C. 0.4
D. 5
E. 1
F. 1.000
Plz?
ADDITION:
Does this remind anyone of this? Anyway I like the system, time to figure out my rating..
Edit:// I'm to lazy to figure out my reputation, anyone do it for me?
A. 466
B. 172
C. 0.4
D. 5
E. 1
F. 1.000
Plz?
[right][snapback]577336[/snapback][/right]
ADDITION:
Does this remind anyone of this? Anyway I like the system, time to figure out my rating..
Edit:// I'm to lazy to figure out my reputation, anyone do it for me?
A. 466
B. 172
C. 0.4
D. 5
E. 1
F. 1.000
Plz?
ADDITION:
Does this remind anyone of this? Anyway I like the system, time to figure out my rating..
Edit:// I'm to lazy to figure out my reputation, anyone do it for me?
A. 466
B. 172
C. 0.4
D. 5
E. 1
F. 1.000
Plz?
[right][snapback]577336[/snapback][/right]
Mind fixing that post? You've said the same thing way too many times over again.
I'd figure out my rating, but I'd have no idea what my member/staff ratings would be
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2006-10-22 at 19:21:55
QUOTE(Jamals2fat @ Oct 22 2006, 10:14 AM)
Does this remind anyone of this?
Duh. It's basically the same system.
QUOTE(Jamals2fat @ Oct 22 2006, 10:14 AM)
I'm to lazy to figure out my reputation, anyone do it for me?
A. 466
B. 172
C. 0.4
D. 5
E. 1
F. 1.000
Plz?
[right][snapback]577336[/snapback][/right]
A. 466
B. 172
C. 0.4
D. 5
E. 1
F. 1.000
Plz?
[right][snapback]577336[/snapback][/right]
Based on the values you posted, your rating would be 289. Becaue D=5, E becomes irrelevant. Funny stuff.
QUOTE(Killer_Kow(MM) @ Oct 22 2006, 10:19 AM)
I'd figure out my rating, but I'd have no idea what my member/staff ratings would be
[right][snapback]577345[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]577345[/snapback][/right]
Theoretically...
A=225
B=652
C=2.9
D=9
E=100
F=1
Your score would be 806.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2006-10-22 at 19:27:20
DO ME DEVLIN!
Also, Kow... he can't fix anything, edit is broken.. which is why his post is f'ked up in the first place =\
Also, Kow... he can't fix anything, edit is broken.. which is why his post is f'ked up in the first place =\
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DevliN on 2006-10-22 at 19:33:04
Okay...
A. 445
B. 1292
C. 2.9
D. 9
E. 100
F. 1.0
Your theoretical DTBK rating is 1371. If your admin rating was 1.2, the score would be 1645.
A. 445
B. 1292
C. 2.9
D. 9
E. 100
F. 1.0
Your theoretical DTBK rating is 1371. If your admin rating was 1.2, the score would be 1645.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Oo.Jamal.oO on 2006-10-22 at 20:35:54
Exactly Deathawk. THank you.