Staredit Network

Shoutbocks paying? No thanks.

Shoutbocks = lots of spam , and would cause people to shout more often which would be more spam, that just sounds like a totally bad idea.

So every week... you go through the 4000 members to give them ratings?
Isn't rating a member simply based on popularity? Your friends get 10 while enemies get 1?


The % to get 1 little mineral would be too low to even attempt to spam to get anything worthwhile. Besides, being caught spamming the shoutbox would simply mean a mineral deduction worth years of shoutbox mineral gains.

I still don't see why numerical values found via complex formulas are better than human reasoning and opinions of responsible human ability... maybe I should develop a rating system.

I want this figured out before writing tons of code for it...

The thing is dtbk, if a member were to purposely cheat the system, don't you think the same member would be the type to get "warns"?
I was thinking, if a member's post gets reported and a mod takes action, they loose rep points of (the number of member's who reported the post) * 3 or something.

Your system is based on rating the MEMBER. That cries out popularity right there. And really, who in their right mind would go around rating anyone other than their friends and enemies? Again, 4000 different members each week (or even month)? Think about that, because, that would be a serious conflict with your 2nd equation.

Giving rep points for a post would be a simple click and reload back to where you were. I would think that if a couple people want to waste their rep points on each other instead of on real posts they respect/like, it really wouldn't balance out for them in the end. Rep nymphomaniacting would probably be easy to see if their logs for rep all goes to the same member multiple times for retarded posts.

Any system would be flawed.


I think this discussion harded my decision on the system I'm concieving now...
I want to see a system moose comes up with though ;o


The only other feasible system I would think of is having no rep system at all... .. .



In the end, the rep system is just for fun and what difference does it make if it's slightly skewed from people basing their decisions on sheer popularity?

I like DTBK's idea/formula. It factors in more than just reputation/karma and includes things like post count and the amount of days the person has been here, sort of like participation.

I think that's better than just member ratings/reputation/karma alone.

Oh.

Well, in that equation, d naturally equals e, unless admin karma gets switched to +5 rep points per global+ dishing out some rep.

I really don't see the reason for an admin rating...
Karma would be subtracted if moderation actions are taken against the member, given by global+ for good posts, and probably increase naturally with post activity like gamefaqs system. In such a situation, karma would balance out repuation...

I really don't see that much of a problem with such a system and, if using a reputation system based on individiual posts, I don't see a need for your equation then.



What I really could use is some type of shoutbox equation for that 1 mineral gain. MAYBE factor in shouting count for the member and make the % perportional to that. So, the more you spam up the shoutbox, the less of a % to gain that little mineral. That kinda sounds good.

1 / (total shouts * 10 / (karma * 5 + reputation))

1 / ((2000 * 10) / (50 * 5 + 500))

= 4% chance

1 / ((1000 * 10) / (25 * 5 + 250))

= 4% chance

1 / ((500* 10) / (25 * 5 + 250))

= 7% chance

1 / ((1500 * 10) / (2 * 5 + 100))

= .7% chance

1 / ((500* 10) / (2 * 5 + 100))

= 2% chance


kinda seems to balance out...? ? ?







Post count and sen age would naturally be a factor if karma increases with time + activity and the longer you've been here and the more intelligent/funny posts you make, the more chances at rep you'll have.

So, what would I be using this formula compared to, I don't know, Syphon?

Well the english ones refear to God as... God. Jews don't believe in Jesus, or at the least don't believe he was the messiah. And moving allt he bibles to the fiction section would still be going against judaism since the Torah is simply the old testement with some books changed around.

(Also off topic)

Merrell, is that an optical illusion or is the ... in your title pink?



Are you asking something of me? I'm not sure.

---

This system proposed by DTBK seems excelent, save the fact that everyone would have a massive karma count.

Might it be to much to ask how you're going to do all these calculations though? Program, or by hand? ...Program.

Could someone calculate mine? I think I made a mistake when I did it.

Uggh, It's gonna be tricky because by the time version 5 roles around I should not be leaving every other weeked, like I'll have about 30 posts a day. Hmm... Where'd I put my calculator...

It seems like I gave an impression that was quite a bit stonger than I intended. I didn't mean to say that all new members spam or that no new members make valuable posts. Rather, now and then, I notice that some members, not necessarily through any fault but simply because of inexperience, make posts that are a little annoying to more established members because they don't understand the social conventions.

So Moose, I really am talking about "newbs", and not "noobs". Established members who should already know the rules do definitely cause a problem, but my suggestion is targeted towards new members, to help them to start out with a better footing.

But on reflection, perhaps the problem isn't as big as I first thought, and it may be more beneficial to deal with the flamers and spammers first.


It's not just about stating the rules - it's about getting the rules into members' heads. People learn rules best through observation. Of course, if someone observes Moose posting in an otherwise-unacceptable fashion, and then doesn't realise that Moose is the only one allowed to do that, then a new member can actually learn the wrong lesson.

I think that Staff still have a responsibility to act in the fashion expected of other members - they are the leaders of SEN, and they should lead by example.


As far as I can see, all versions of this rule are pretty useless for any new member, and either confusing or ambiguous or misinterpreted by all other members.

The fact that members still flame and spam to the point of getting suspended for it only emphasises the fact that simply stating the rules, no matter how explicitly or clearly, won't necessarily get the message across. That said, I recognise that this example also counters the notion that experience improves social conduct.


I didn't intend to be egoistic or elitist with this suggestion - I'm trying to say that new members don't know the rules because of inexperience (which can be fixed through experience), not because they are flawed or immature. I know when I first joined SEN that I said things that were probably a little annoying for other members because I was unfamiliar with SEN's style. The idea is to make sure that all members start out on a better footing so that they don't aggravate other members just because they're inexperienced. (Of course it's also good if other members are nice and don't get aggravated too often.)

---

My examples of restrictions you might use are only examples of what I could think of at the time; they are open to feedback, change, and demolition (most likely the latter =S). I would support light restrictions on posting and making topics in null, lite and serious discussion forums such as proposed by DTBK [snapback]348691[/snapback].

---

I'm quite glad that the topic has turned towards a discussion of a karma system (as opposed to becoming filled with irrelavent posts) because I think a feedback system for members would be a valuable thing. It would give members good incentive to make high-quality posts, it would indicate to new members which members are good examples to follow, and it could add a bit of fun to SEN.

I understand that the relatively recent karma system that was at SEN got taken down because people were trying to trick each other into giving them karma - or was it something else?

Personally, I prefer a more member-to-member basis for reputation/karma than a formulaic calculation based on SEN-age/post-count/posts-per-day/member ratings, because it's more straightforward and intuitive. I'm not exactly sure how you can (or how DTBK did) decide what 'weightings' each component gives - why would it be, for example, that the optimal number of posts per day should be six? (apart from the fact that DTBK himself has ppd of 6.3 jk)

I agree with IP that karma should be given for posts, not for people. If it is a rating of a 'person', then popularity plays a bigger role than if your rating as a person is derived from ratings of how good your posts are.

I think that each post should be rate-able, so that other members can give either positive or negative feedback on any post, and the feedback given on posts should both be displayed as part of the post itself (so people know which post to read in a thread) and contribute to the member's karma/reputation number (in the same way as accumulated minerals are displayed for each person).
New members should start with some base amount of reputation (e.g. 100); the amount of reputation you can give out (number of people per week and/or strength of feedback per post) increases the more reputation you have yourself; if your reputation is sufficiently low, you shouldn't be able to give feedback at all.
Exploitation of the system can be punished by taking away reputation permanently or by temporarily suspending ability to give feedback. You might make reputation very slowly reset over time to account for inactivity or to give offenders a second chance. Reputation would be a good basis for member groups with extra privileges (like the current 'regulars' and 'elites').
Hmm...Looks like I've outlined a system very similar to that referred to by Ultimo [snapback]349715[/snapback] - but I like it.

I guess reputation could include age/posts as a factor, so requiring an equation - but it seems that DTBK's formula makes member ratings quite weak. I would put the main emphasis on member ratings (derived from post ratings), and make age and post count less important. I don't think admin rating is necessary if staff will naturally have a higher reputation score (and therefore more influence on others' reputation) as well as punishing power.

I don't think exploitation by getting friends to give reputation will be too widespread if ratings clearly have to be based on good (or bad) posts, not just a liking/disliking for a person - especially if you put appropriate restrictions on how often/how much reputation you can give.

Well, then I agree with him - just because it's Moose's opinion, doesn't mean that it's not mine

I don't see posts per day as a very good indicator for reputation - I'm sure it'd be relatively easy to find two people each with the same number of ppd, but one posts far more spam than the other. At the same time, it's possible to have a low number of ppd (much less than 6) and still make a valuable contribution. And I think that having ppd contribute to rep would only encourage some people to spam.

I think valuable factors for reputation should be (from most to least important): member/admin rating, total post count and SEN age.

On the other hand, posts per day are a good indicator of activity or participation - and participation, as a separate number, can be quite useful. For example, it can tell a member who he or she can expect to get the fastest reply from.

I think valuable factors for participation should be (from most to least important): posts per day, total post count, SEN clicks per day (can you measure this?), and total SEN clicks. I've included 'clicks' because they tell you how often a member visits SEN and how much of SEN they visit, because some people visit SEN often but only post rarely.

I think it's good to have separate indicators for different things - I wouldn't try to put it all into an indicator-of-everything number.

I think that your post-quality point system is a good starting point for a rep system.

Nice posts in_a_biskit. Are you interested at playing with senv5 and helping out with ideas? ATM, there isn't too much help that I'm looking for until the forums are more stabalized, but, I could still add you anyways...



DTBK, your equations are too massive. For senv4, promotions are simple if my.posts = x, promote me. I don't think ppd should play in any role of promotions...
Post count is an easy determination... but seriously flawed because it's too common for people to spam to increase, and that's it's only flaw. While your equation may deal with it, it's really too excessive.


Maybe your equations could work... I just can't glance at them and say, oh, hey, that makes a lot of sense... however, I judge them by what they are composed of. There is NO admin rating from .5 to 1.2 (like the 4th time I said it, I know) for example!



I like moose's senority thing for promotion... the idea's flaw is that any extra participation over 1 ppd doesn't benefit you at all... and it probably should. Wounds and healing is a nice factor, however, senv5 will only have logs... and due to complications, they may be faulty to an extent, but not against the member (because all log entries will have links to the orginal post material for reference).


An equation that might work beautifully takes into account Moose's "Senority"... maybe. Or maybe just senority by itself...! Or perhaps senority multiplied by PPD bonus.

Bonus (x)
Senority (S)

Promotion rating = S * 1.X

As PPD increases, X increases... to an extent.
PPD of 2, X = .07
PPD of 3, X = .125
PPD of 4, X = .163
PPD of 5, X = .191
PPD of 6, X = .210
PPD of 7, X = .219

I don't remember how to write an equation such as that...
But you get the idea...

You need a promotion rating of at least 75 to become a regular. That means, at least 75 posts (weak) but at least 75 active days on sen. Posting more than 1 ppd helps, but only so much... and as PPD increases, it still helps, just doesn't increase as much as it gets in the higher numbers. With this (fake) number scale, you could become a regular with PPD of 3 and 67 days.

It has a small flaw... of course... but, it's rather simple.


Edit: Perhaps, maybe, I should re-think my own definitation of a "regular" because when I judge methods, I look at total participation and not total participation over the time span. But then again, promotions for senv4 are the same way so that's why I naturally think like this. A "regular" should regularly be posting, right?
However.
If someone goes away for awhile and then comes back, ppd gets ruined drastically... and it really shouldn't hinder promotion.

On another note, promotions aren't some dead-serious matter like presidental elections or anything... it would be nice to stop the spamming to get to a promotion though. Moose's senority method (minus the rating) easily does that... but takes away the aspect of serious participation... however, adding a ppd bonus like stated or SOMETHING might offset that.


I challenge you to make an equation that takes these thoughts into mind...

For all those wondering what my system was, it wasn't posted in this topic or this forum. Here it is:

I fail to see the problem with isolated's original reputation system.

Hm, couldn't you just make a cron script that checks logs for circles of friends that abuse the system every 24 hours, if need be? It'd be fairly simple - if userX has had reuputation added by userY five times in a row in the past 12 hours, warn both users.

...Or something?

DT, you have a seriously bad habit of posting your system directly after mine, you've done it two out of two times. -_-