Staredit Network

IMPROVING SEN

7. Beaurecratic Structures
a. Keep the current group system; stop trying to absolve differences and make everyone one. You remove the motivation to be a good member of the community, and the effort to keep the community a happy place declines.
b. Get a Reputation System (preferably mine (see below)) going right now. Code it into v4 with no actual use to gague the values and get a feel for how it works. Then implement in v5 with the regular-elite advancement and perhaps mineral-related matters if minerals will actually matter.

8. SEN v5
a. DO. NOT. RUSH. v5. End of story; it should be done and perfect when it is released. v4 is a workable servicable version, not the plague.

---

MY REPUTATION SYSTEM

Overview

if a > 0:
Rating = (f [(1.4a + b/10 + (d-5)/2 * (3e/4)] [(-1/20) (c-6)[sup]2[/sup] + 2]
else:
Rating = "Unknown"

Where

a - days as a member of SEN
b - post count
c - posts per day
d - member rating from 1 to 10
e - #of members who rated the person
f - admin rating of member starting at 1.000 and bounded from 0.500 to 1.200)

This system will generate a rating generally between 0 and 4000 (mine is 4048 as of not too long ago) which stands as a very good measure of how repectable and active someone is on SEN. Note that since Post Per Day values are screwed up for people who just joined, a catchall prints "Unknown" for those who have been here less than one day. Here are a few members calculated for September 28:

DT_Battlekruser
a = 841
b = 4119
c = 4.90
d = 9
e = 100
f = 1.2

(1.2 [(1.4(841) + 4119/10 + (9-5)/2 * (3(100)/4)] [(-1/20) (4.90-6)[sup]2[/sup] + 2])

1.2[(1177.4 + 411.9 + 150)(1.9395)]

4048


IsolatedPurity
a = 745
b = 924
c = 1.2
d = 9
e = 100
f = 1.2

(1.2 [(1.4(745) + 924/10 + (9-5)/2 * (3(100)/4)] [(-1/20) (1.2-6)[sup]2[/sup] + 2])

1.2[(1043 + 92.4 + 150)(0.848)]

1308

BeeR_KeG
a = 806
b = 1008
c = 1.3
d = 9
e = 100
f = 1.15

(1.15 [(1.4(806) + 1008/10 + (9-5)/2 * (3(100)/4)] [(-1/20) (1.3-6)[sup]2[/sup] + 2])

1.15[(1128.4 + 100.8 + 150)(0.8955)]

1420

Note BeeR's post count suffered majorly from the hacker, so this isn't really too precise. If we presume something like his 3250 posts he might have otherwise, we can try:

BeeR_KeG (Revised)
a = 806
b = 3250
c = 4.03
d = 9
e = 100
f = 1.15

(1.15 [(1.4(806) + 3250/10 + (9-5)/2 * (3(100)/4)] [(-1/20) (4.03-6)[sup]2[/sup] + 2])

1.15[(1128.4 + 325 + 150)(1.805955)]

3330

He has fallen a bit since before, and the number is what I think it should be. Even if he hasn't been doing anything recently, if you compare the number of his active days to his inactive ones, it is understandable why his rating is sustained at a fairly high number. Note that since he disappeared, he dropped 718 respective to me.

Note: Be careful when calculating your rating; the math is a little tricky.

---

Variable a - SEN Age

Position in Formula: (f [(1.4a + b/10 + (d-5)/2 * (3e/4)] [(-1/20) (c-6)[sup]2[/sup] + 2]

How do I get this? SEN age is very simple. It represents the numbers of days since you became a member of SEN. The older a member you are, the higher your a value.

How does it fit in? The 1.4a is part of the base value, the starting amount before it is affected by a pair of multipliers. This term is by far the largest factor in your base value; thus older members wil invariably be achieving higher base values even if they post less.

---

Variable b - Post Count (cumulative)

Position in Formula: (f [(1.4a + b/10 + (d-5)/2 * (3e/4)] [(-1/20) (c-6)[sup]2[/sup] + 2]

How do I get this? b is your Cumulative Post Count as seen in your profile. If IP goes on with his madman idea of absolving post counts, this might have to be rework, so rally some public support now!

How does it fit in? The b/10 term is another thing added to your base reputation value. One tenth your post count is usually a smaller factor than your age, but it still matters. The more you post, the higher your base.

---

Variables d and e - Member Rating (UNCODED AS OF YET)

Position in Formula: (f [(1.4a + b/10 + (d-5)/2 * (3e/4)] [(-1/20) (c-6)[sup]2[/sup] + 2]

How do I get this? The Member Rating introduces a factor of member popularity to your reputation. You may rate each member from 1 to 10 based on your opinion of them, and may later change that rating at any time. A screenshot of this can be seen from PyForums (the whole thing isn't yet coded):

[attachmentid=21424]

If you had rated that member, one of the numbers would be bolded and you could click the others to change your rating. Your default rating of someone is nothing. The other number involved is the number of people that have rated you.

How does it fit in? This one is a little complicated. The first term, (d-5)/2, takes your average member rating from 1 to 10 (d), and changes it to a number from -2 to 2.5 to set as a base. It is then multiplied by 3e/4, a factor that is 3/4 of the number of people that have rated you.

This way, if your average rating is below 5 (neutral), then the rating term will decrease your rating; if your rating is positive (over 5), then it increases it. Afraid of abuse? The amount that your rating affects your base reputation is proportional to the number of people that rated you, so if one person gave you a rating '1', such that your average rating is 1, you only lose -2 * 3/4 = -1.5 points, which isn't much. The more people that rate you, the more your rating affects your reputation.

---

Variable c - Posts Per Day

Position in Formula: (f [(1.4a + b/10 + (d-5)/2 * (3e/4)] [(-1/20) (c-6)[sup]2[/sup] + 2]

How do I get this? Your total Posts Per Day is that which is listed in your profile. Again, this relies on Cumulative Posts staying, so rally to the cause!

How does it fit in? This one is really complicated. If you've taken Algebra II, you can see that (-1/20) (c-6)[sup]2[/sup] + 2 is a concave down parabola with vertex (6,2) and a stretch factor of 1/20.

What does this mean? Your Posts Per Day go into the quadratic and generate a multiplier to your base reputation. From 0.00 posts per day, which gives a multiplier of 0.2, to 6.00 posts per day (multiplier of 2), the multiplier increases as activity (and hence posts per day go up). Above 6.00 posts per day, the multiplier starts to decline; and after about 12.4 posts per day, even goes negative, sending your reputation negative. So post a lot, but not too much. Worried? I currently lead the posts per day statistic with only 4.87 posts per day. To reach the horrible 12.4 or even to decline past 6.00 requires needless spamming.

---

Variable f - Staff Rating (UNCODED AS OF YET)

Position in Formula: (f [(1.4a + b/10 + (d-5)/2 * (3e/4)] [(-1/20) (c-6)[sup]2[/sup] + 2]

How do I get this? This, the other new additon to SEN, is a very simple value. When you join, you start with an admin rating of 1.000. This number can be changed by moderators and staff via the Warn panel, and will be decreased in punishment, and perhaps increased as a reward for good behavior or other actions. The number will be bounded between 0.500 and 1.200. Staff rating will be private, viewed only by yourself and warn-viewing Staff.

Here are some screenshots of Staff Rating in Pyforums (it is fully coded):

[attachmentid=21425]
[attachmentid=21426]
[attachmentid=21427]

How does it fit in? This one is very simple. Your final reputation after the c-multiplier is factored in is multiplied by your Staff Rating -- if you've been a good boy and have a 1.000 Staff Rating it will have no effect.

---

In general, I just beg that this system be implemented on v4 for testing purposes towards implementation on v4. Support, oh honorable members?

I like DTBK's system. The math is a bit much when you first look at it, but it seems to work smoothly. It also takes into account alot of good factors. Good job DTBK

I think people will be unhappy with their ratings though. Especially staff rating, which will lead to complaining.. and having people rate you, sort of seems like a popularity contest.. But I am all for implementing new things, or just testing before v5 is launched..

Right, but the staff having a negative opinion of you isn't really abusing, though..

DTBK, I liked your system back when you proposed it to Yoshi when he set up the original "karma" system.

I'm all for it.

DevliN
a - 790 (rough estimate of August 12, 2004)
b - 1410
c - 1.79
d = 9
e = 100
f = 1.2
(1.2 [(1.4(790) + 1410/10 + (9-5)/2 * (3(100)/4)] [(-1/20) (1.79-6)2 + 2]
1.2[(1106+141+150)(1.1138)]

1867

Did I get it right?

Felagund
a=889
b=1532
c=1.723
d=9
e=100
f=1.2

Rating = (1.2 [(1.4*889 + 1532/10 + (9-5)/2 * (3*100/4)] [(-1/20) (1.723-6)2 + 2]
Rating = 1.2(1547.8)(1.5723)
Rating = 2920.33

Meh, it seems alright for what it is, but I hardly think we need it.

I think you messed up, Felagund. I really doubt joining 3 months earlier than me and having 100 more posts than me would give your rating 1000 more points than my rating.

i'm a measly 733.906752. at least i think i did my math right

wow... didn't notice quite how many posts you had lol... its kinda scary

Nice maths DTBK, but the posts per day (c) in the equation may punish people who are simply involved in a lot of in-depth discussions across several days (like I was earlier for the OSMAP and some of my earlier map releases, easily having double digit posts for several days).

I think the only real way to solve that would be to find a way to determine the "quality" of a user's post, and factor that into their posts per day math. Or in other words, having a low quality to quantity ratio (= spam) is what'll punish you instead of simply having high posts per day.



Of course, that requires a way to "measure" post quality reliably. That would be the trick.

They do now, it is what reads how many characters are in each post. Like if its 50 or more it is worth 2 minerals and if it is 100 or more it would be worth 4 minerals and one post count, 400 or more is worth 1 post count and 8 minerals. I am not sure exactly but it is just from my guess.

That's still another form of quantity, though. You could have a quality post under 5 words, depending on the context. Though just the same (and far more likely) you could get a spam or useless post in under 5 words.

I don't think there is a reliable way to read true post quality, now that I think about it (spelling/grammar?). Perhaps simply having a binary judgement is good enough, as a spam or bad post is pretty obvious to detect, but short of that measuring by size as is done already averages out proportional with "quality" in the long run.

Yes I know, and I think everyone knows this, but I cant think of anyone that would play dummy for a Forum to sit and read every post and give minerals accordingly. There is no other way to read it, the closest way is to read the amount of spaces by the number of characters to see if they used big words or not. But then you would get people doingthis!

Well with an algorithm you could detect spelling, grammar, repetativeness, key words, and even time spent writing the post. That could weed out a lot of potential spam posts and improve quality measurement accuracy, but it would still be imprecise and have lots of exceptions.

Reading time? How would this matter of the post, so if you said that someone kept the window for new post open for like 5 days then typed what they wanted they would get a massive score, or someone that types very fast something longer and better, got worse? The more its open could be good but as you can see it could be bad too.

You'd have to fix everyones posts counts. I.E my 600 that ive lost, I should be near 750ish now. Anyway I have no idea how you do that so could you just take my date I joined

(September 7th 2004)
Post count : Lets say 700 on the dot

and whatever else you do, if you dont mind anyway I'm mathimatically challenged.

Well writing duration would factor in if someone makes a 5000 character post in under 10 seconds or something. Unless it's a cut and paste (and you could probably make some way of handling that exception), it's most likely spam or something.

It basically tells you exactly how to do it, also no one has gotten their post counts back, some people got their minerals back, only set to 2000 though. I had 4,500 minerals and 997 posts, Now, after all this time after the attack I am at 790 and 2,200 minerals.

I had like 600-650ish posts(I used the smaller number because thats more believe able especially since I hardly make many posts) Now I'm at 130ish. How do you think I feel. Who cares unless DTBK actually uses that rating system thingy then it really dosent matter at all.

I know exactly how you feel, but no one got them back, unless you were way in the negative you were set to like 300 or 1500 depending on your status.

I was the second lowest negative on SeN lol over 6 million in the -'s

Cloud
a = 760
b = 700
c = 0.2
d = 9
e = 100
f = 1.2

(1.2 [(1.4(760)+700/10+(9-5/2)*3(100)/4][(-1/20)(0.2-6)^2+2])
1.2 [(1064+70+150)(0.318)]

490