Staredit Network

I prefer DT's system...
Plus, like he said, we can claim that it's actually magical.

Uh...



I don't see how it "should make your reputation be about constant..."

[(-1/20) (c-5)2 + 2]

replace with...

SQRT(0.2c) + 1

Might need slight tweaking, but it's a lot better. The equation reflects what I was trying to say before about the Senority w/ slight bonus. PPD of 0 (impossible) = 1. Anything after that adds ever-increasing amounts in decreasing perportions.

I think the best way to handle a factor like that is make PPD of 30 better than PPD of 5... but like .03 better than PPD of 29. However, PPD of 5 is 2x while PPD of 1 is 1.4X.

Or you could just take some of the more rudimentary variables out of DTBK's equation and simplify it somewhat.

Going back to the karma / reputation system...
I think I'm still going to go with it, slightly changed with some thinking of other people's input (mostly moose's idea of reputation).
It needs some tweaking however...

Everyone starts with 100.00 karma.
Karma, instead of reputation, directly affects posts.

Rules:
You can affect x posts per 5 days. Members = 2, Regulars = 4, Elites = 6. *
The affect of positive karma on the post's owner is 1% of your karma.
Negative karma subtracts 1% of the owner's karma, and .5% of your own karma.
-
Must have at least 10 'senority' before being able to give out reputation and 50 posts.
-
Each post can only be positively affected by 5 users.
Each member can only affect the same member once in those 5 days.
-
The first post (the topic itself) counts for 3x reputation, positive or negative and can be rated by 10 users instead of 5. Giving out negative karma affects 1% of your karma instead of would would be 1.5%.


* You won't have to keep track at all. If the links to give out karma are gone, you have no more available.





Thoughts?

Haha... I used to be a god at math. It's just been awhile .
Either way, sqrt() or ^0.5, it IS the same thing.

Now... the rest of the equation needs a little work...

Inactive days... does it really need to be in the equation?
Post count / inactive days + active days (to a degree) already exists...
And if Senority does take place (active days), then what does inactive days have anything to do with it?

r = reputation
d = PPD
s = senority

s[(r/100)[sup]0.3[/sup]][(0.007d)[sup]0.5[/sup]+1]

Reputation of 130%
PPD of 2
Senority of 50
= 60

Reputation of 110%
PPD of 1.2
Senority of 60
= 74

Reputation of 200%
PPD of 5
Senority of 40
= 58

Works for me...?

wow you guys going crazy on this and i cant understand a single thing.. well i will read the fourms before... and this will be in SEN v.5 if it ever comes out?

THis really would be the best way to stop spamming, but how anbout every 1 days instead of 5?

I agree.
And anyways, I don't think spamming is such a big deal.
People know when somebody is spamming, we can just have officials punish them, like have Forum Mod's or something... I'm sure this will work and all, but isn't it going a little out of hand for something we can do without all these complications?

I don't see it as more complicated than your system, DTBK. Most of what IP outlined are karma rules that your system must have as well; and these rules aren't really things that need to be kept track of, because they happen just as automatically as you magic number appears. Both systems are easy to use.

On the other hand, I think that IP's system is more intuitive, and therefore more appealing to use. The way I see it, the impact that members can have on each other is more obvious under IP's system than under yours - making the incentive to make better posts stronger under his system.

By the way, on the testing of various formula systems, keep in mind that there are very few people at SEN with PPD of more than 4. I would venture to guesstimate (after doing a quick scan of a few different forums) that most of the posts on SEN are made by people with PPD of 2 to 3, and with total post count probably between 200 to 300. Remember that people like DTBK are at the extreme end of the spectrum in terms of almost any statistic. Personally, I think that 2 ppd is already heaps for any member older than about my SEN age - that's making two posts, on average, every day since they first joined SEN. I don't think there is much reason to say that any more than that is necessarily desirable.

But I still maintain that ppd is not a very good indicator of reputation. It's possible to output a lot of spam into one forum or thread with less than 2 ppd. Remember, a person doesn't have to spam in every forum before what they post is considered excessive spam. And ppd is very volatile for newcomers.

So one solution is to moderate the impact of ppd using SEN age. But {posts per day} times {SEN age} simply equals {total post count}: so you may as well simply use total posts as an indicator instead of ppd. PPD is an indicator of activity, as I said before, not of reputation.

---

Here's my thoughts on how a reputation system should be constructed.

A post that impresses others enough to give positive feedback on it should be worth considerably more than normal, average posts. One good post, which is appraised by, say, three people, should be worth as much as ten average posts (I imagine that about one in ten posts will get positive feedback). We should favour quality over quantity.

It wouldn't be a bad idea to even scale the impact of posts according to their length, as it is done for giving minerals - so perhaps each post adds reputation points equal to one tenth of the mineral bonus awarded (I imagine that would be maybe between 0.2 and 0.5 for most posts, giving most regular visitors about 1 a day from posting). This would also minimise the impact of spamming.

Long-standing members at SEN deserve some respect and reputation simply for being old. But simply being a member without posting isn't nearly as good for the community as being a member and posting, so SEN age should be an even smaller factor than posts. I think posts are a good enough indicator of visits/activity already, so I don't think we need to split this up into 'active' and 'inactive' days. So maybe reputation should go up by 0.2 each day.

So, I have the equation:

Reputation points = 50 + P + 0.1M + 0.2A

where:
P = post rating points gained from member ratings (positive and negative),
M = accumulated minerals from posts (as opposed to from games; doesn't decrease with fines/spending), and
A = SEN age in days.

As for how member ratings work, I quite like IP's concept [snapback]352146[/snapback].
Rules:
Everyone starts with 50 karma. (I would support giving staff members a higher base to begin with, say 100).
You can affect x posts per week (Don't make it 5 days, that's not easy to keep track of), where x = reputation/50, rounded up (I like this idea of DTBK's).
The effect of positive karma on the poster's is 1% of your karma.
Negative karma subtracts 1% of the owner's karma, and .5% of your own karma.
-
Must have at least 10 posts. (Newcomers will want to compliment people who help them, and that should be encouraged; seniority sounds like it'll be gotten as fast or faster than post count anyway; the influence of newcomers' rep points will be relatively little anyway, so they can't spoil much.)
-
(I don't think it's necessary to restrict the number of people who can appraise a post.)
Each member can only affect the same member once in a week. (I think this will be good enough to prevent excessive exploitation of the system - a week is a long time to wait for most SEN members. )
-
(I don't really see a basis for making the topic post (first post) worth extra - normally it just asks a question - not just in assistance forums but even in serious discussion.)

Finally, warnings should adversely affect your reputation. A warning for bad behaviour (flaming, spamming, etc) should subtract 10 or 20 percent of your reputation, depending on the seriousness - a substantial amount that can act as a deterrent for both newcomers and more established members. Improved, good behaviour will be rewarded naturally as karma rises again.

What kind of numbers should you expect under this system?

in_a_biskit: minerals from posts (M) = 2468; post count = 364; SEN age (A) ~ 200 days; warn level = 0; let's assume that I'm pretty representative of SEN in terms of post quality, and I expect about one in ten posts to receive positive feedback, giving me maybe 60 post rating points (P) over 36 posts.

Reputation [sub]biskit[/sub] = 50 + 60 + 0.1*2468 + 0.2*200 = 50 + 60 + 246.8 + 40 = 396.8
----> I can rate up to 8 posts a week, and each rating gives the other member a boost of 4.0 points. A reasonably serious warning could drop my reputation to around 310.

-
Reputation [sub]moderator[/sub] ~ 100 + 200 + 0.1*4500 + 0.2*500 = 100 + 200 + 450 + 100 = 850
-
Reputation [sub]spammer before warn[/sub] ~ 50 + 0 + 0.1*1000 + 0.2*200 = 50 + 0 + 100 + 40 = 190
-
Reputation [sub]newbie[/sub] ~ 50 + 0 + 0.1*50 + 0.2*15 = 50 + 0 + 5 + 3 = 53

Simple enough to understand, takes into account ratings, posts, and age, and works for me . What do you think?

Okay - wait - stop.
Where are these numbers (who cares how they're generated) used? If your reputation is over 500, you get to be an elite? 1000, HT forum? I'm not sure where you're going with the system after you make the formula.

Well, I thought that the fact that others were complimenting your posts was enough to motivate people to raise their reputation, even without having anything to 'do' with it (aside from giving you more influence over others' reputation), and even if it didn't contribute towards member status (although I would suggest that it did).

And aside from motivating people to make quality posts, it's a bit of fun, like a serious forum game, and it helps newer members determine who is probably trustworthy.


I guessed that the reason IP made negative feedback have a recoil effect was to discourage people from giving "hate karma" simply because they don't like a person. I thought that was ok, and couldn't think of anything better, so I left it in.

It's still true to say, I think, that members wouldn't have to keep track of their karma effects, and that it'd be all handled by code. The advantage in making the effect proportional to your karma is that it provides even more incentive to have high karma yourself.

But I'm not really fussed about that, since the number of posts you can rate grows with reputation, giving you more influence anyway; and an admin wouldn't always want to give out 10 ratings points at a time anyway. What do you think of the system if ratings are given with your rules instead (1 point per person per post per day)?

I was thinking that with the extra base reputation given to staff, the high rating that you would expect them to have anyway, and the extra power to warn people, staff wouldn't need an extra rating for themselves. How about giving staff unlimited available ratings points a day (but still working within the rest of the rules)? I think, though, that the 20% penalty for a warning is a pretty powerful staff influence already.

The HT forum will NEVER use formulas of any sort.

The way DT is making it seems to be more competitive... the 412 guy isn't as good as the 89 guy. The way I see this system is, not so much a rating. So much as something that will give you something over time, but be balanced if you do bad things. Sure, through my way someone like me can have a 1800 rating, and that's fine. My point of view is that the system shouldn't have the purpose of telling who is better than someone else.

Having any sort of number at all will probably prompt some people to be competitive. I'm sure a few members at SEN view post count or posts per day competitively, although probably most simply see them as measures of age or activity.

If you don't want competition to be a problem, the safest thing I can think of is to integrate karma into your minerals: instead of giving people karma points for posts, they get 5 minerals or something. Because there will be lots of things to do with your minerals, (i) there will be still an incentive to make good posts, and (ii) a higher number of minerals doesn't necessarily imply "better".

Or perhaps we should simply use the old karma system. I don't think it would be too hard to think of ways to fix exploits, if you think there will be a problem with that.

With the 'seniority' concept, is it simply a measure of number of visits to SEN? Making everyone click a button every time they come to SEN is a bit cumbersome and annoying, I think. Would it be possible to write something that will give you seniority automatically? Something along the lines of: When you visit the SEN home page, if you haven't been given a seniority point today, then add one seniority?

I see the purpose of these system as letting people earn privileges when they deserve them, not to compare them to each other.

Moose, where do you see comparisions?

As far as magic numbers go, you could have post count be a "magic number" to see if people are can be regulars/elites... just by not telling them that it is indeed based on post count.
Hmmmm... it's not a serious matter that I need some super advanced equation to determine.


The karma system:
Giving out x posts per day... 1 member, 2 regular, 3 elite would also work I guess. It would be easier for yourself to keep track of.
The rather high requirements for actually giving out reputation is to cut down on abuse from alters. It works in 2 ways, one isn't visible... and won't be because it's a secret weapon .


In response:
Senority is based off if you post or not. Simply posting in a new day would add 1 to your senority rating.

DTBK:
I really don't see why inactive days should be in the equation. I'm assuming it hurts their rating. Just because you aren't online everyday doesn't mean your rating should suffer.


My equation is mostly based of senority and reputation / ppd slightly affect the number. I imagine actually getting 200% reputation wouldn't be no easy chore. I wasn't really planning on through reputation into the equation... so why not just. The effects of PPD are incredibly small with no negative affect because of the +1. To be a regular, in my eyes, you have to be active over a long period of time. Senority is just that.

What if posts were added to the equation.

s[(0.007d)[sup]0.5[/sup]+1](c[sup]0.1[/sup])(p[sup]0.1[/sup])
c = cummative posts
p = total posts

Total posts is made partially made up of cummantive posts so it helps out twice.

I'm all for anything that has to do with seniority and post count

Not too fond of reputation though

I wonder why...