And within weeks we had an abundance of people reaching 9 bars of reputation.Originally Posted by SK
FO SHO
NAW
And within weeks we had an abundance of people reaching 9 bars of reputation.
LaZie made this...a long time ago.
"It was a very depressing time in my life, since I had no money I was unable to screw the rules" -Kaiba
I still don't like the rep system since it seriously discourages new members from posting anything. Plus, you make one screwup, your rep goes negative, and then people jump on the bandwagon...
Hey so i've been a member of these forums for a little bit and i've just found out what those little green boxes were (i was wondering why mine was black). Anyway I think i can help you to figure out a function that would make this better (but a lot more involved).
Since people are complaining about how it could be potentially unfair since someone can get neg-reped repeatedly by a group of people for a single post, why don't you limit the neg-reping to a constant (i.e 1, 2, 3...) per post (that way someone can't be neg-reped like crazy for posting 1 bad comment.
This is kinda an off-shoot of the previous idea. You have said that you want to encourage people to post so have the constant a little higher for pos-reping.
I think that the age of a person posting here should be weighted less than the amount of posts someone has. (if you disagree please just disregard this paragraph and move onward). I think that an active forum is based on active users (people who actually post). Someone who has been here for years but has only posted a handful should not be more powerful than someone who has been here for a few weeks but already has a boatload of quality posts.
As for being able to successfully provide an upper limit to these posts, it would be easier to do so using a logarithmic or natural logarithmic function. That way you can newer members achieve power much quicker than with a square-root function (i graphed a ln(3.5x) function and compared it to a sqrt(x/40) function. They ended up in near the same place after x=3000, but the ln(3.5x) achieved a much higher value at the start and stayed above the square-root function.
I used ln(3.5x) rather than ln(x) because ln(x) = 10 when x = >22000 whilst ln(3.5x) = 10 when x = 6300 (around). This would be useful especially for forum posts. Although both of these functions have no upper limit, it is much harder getting to a value of 11 with the logarithmic function (at 17106) than with the square-root function (at 4840).
I can't really put anything else i wanted to put because i just remembered my physics homework is due at 10 pm today. Please feel free to comment on what i've just said. If you like the idea's I could help you figure out possible equations for each function.
i saved a unicorn
Fun facts: 88 posters (2% of everyone who's ever posted) are responsible for roughly 53% of the posts currently in the database.
663 users (15% of posters) are responsible for 90% of the posts. To be in the bottom of that 663, you'd need 50 posts.
224 people have given reputation. 9445 rep hits have been given. the top 10% of reppers have generated 68% of the hits. The top 20% have generated 84%.
That's just to make this a little more interesting. It's pretty irrelevant, I just thought I'd share.
Now on to business.
Would require significant code mods. I am trying to keep the code as close to stock as I can. Patching 6 lines in a well-defined function is easy. Patching 40 or 50 lines across 5 or so functions in 4 or so files is substantially messier to carry around with me.
Also, I don't like it. People rep-swarming a poster isn't really a huge problem. Annoying, but not huge.
This would be even more annoying to implement, and implementing it in a sane way would make every forum page view dramatically (roughly an order of magnitude) more expensive on the database side. And if I've gotta implement something halfassed, I'd prefer to leave it unimplemented if possible. I'm sort of a perfectionist like that.This is kinda an off-shoot of the previous idea. You have said that you want to encourage people to post so have the constant a little higher for pos-reping.
Implementing it halfassedly would be fairly easy to do, given that the first code mod was already done. But it's not, and it won't be. No dice.
I disagree. Someone who's coming back regularly enough to remember the place in a year deserves their power for coming back. Consider it a retention initiative.I think that the age of a person posting here should be weighted less than the amount of posts someone has. (if you disagree please just disregard this paragraph and move onward). I think that an active forum is based on active users (people who actually post). Someone who has been here for years but has only posted a handful should not be more powerful than someone who has been here for a few weeks but already has a boatload of quality posts.
I considered using a logarithmic function, but decided against it for exactly the reasons you're advocating it: (a) I'd rather have newer or lighter posters NOT have significant power compared to older heavier posters, and (b) I still want the posts that old users make to count for something. Using a logarithmic function means that a person has to ^(base) their post count before they get another point. Square rooting means they've just got to get to the next square, which is probably going to be quite a bit closer than x^base.As for being able to successfully provide an upper limit to these posts, it would be easier to do so using a logarithmic or natural logarithmic function. That way you can newer members achieve power much quicker than with a square-root function (i graphed a ln(3.5x) function and compared it to a sqrt(x/40) function. They ended up in near the same place after x=3000, but the ln(3.5x) achieved a much higher value at the start and stayed above the square-root function.
For the people who are new, I want them to have a voice. But I don't want them to have much of one, until they earn it. Using a logarithmic function gives you precisely that ... an immediate jump, then tapering off to complete irrelevance.
Physics homework ... those were the days. I miss doing hard science... those heady bygone deterministic-universe days of my youth. Concrete values, not subject to big-o or big-theta (just to uncertainty), that's what it was all about. Now every time I write a number it's either the result of a select statement, or it's an element of the set {a,b,c,i,j,k,m,n,w,x,y,z}.I can't really put anything else i wanted to put because i just remembered my physics homework is due at 10 pm today. Please feel free to comment on what i've just said. If you like the idea's I could help you figure out possible equations for each function.
this man deserves a delightfully cold beverage, or some kind of delicious baked good! well said man, well said.
Humans are different from animals. We must die for a reason. Now is the time for us to regulate ourselves and reclaim our dignity. The one who holds endless potential and displays his strength and kindness to the world. Only mankind has God, a power that allows us to go above and beyond what we are now, a God that we call "possibility".
I hope this wasn't Terra, else I'm going to snap his neck.Introduce Yourself! 02-07-2007 07:56 PM you make me smile
@ complich8: Sorry if i misinterpreted your 2nd post but it seemed like you wanted to reward the newer members and give them a decent amount of power. Upon retrospect and upon review of your statistical evidence (they weren't just put there for fun facts...i'm on to you!) it seems unfair to let the huge amount newcomers achieve a decent rep whilst there are so few who actually are the heart and soul of these forums.
It seems like you are striving for more of a retention attribute to these rep scales than one of allure, which is by all means understandable when you view it alongside the data.
as for your implementation - i am the same way. If it can't be done right, don't do it unless its absolutely necessary. There is no point in doing something half-assed especially if you are going to hate its very existence. However, i do think that a lot of people are worried about people swarming them with neg-reps. I've read through this entire thread and i've seen that issue stated quite a bit which is why i feel that it should be addressed.
Would it be more reasonable to limit the neg-reping per set period? Keep in mind that i've only coded in C++ during HS for 2 years so i'm not familiar with what would have to be implemented to do this. I'm just trying to shoot out ideas that might assuage the fears of the members of this online community. I'm tired right now so I'll definitely inform you of any other ideas i might come up with.
I'm getting neg-reped for expressing my views of an anime (w/o any cursing, lewdness, or flaming)...i thought expressing one's viewpoint of an anime was the exact point of these forums.
I just got an idea. How about an appeals process. METHOD 1: If you think you've been unfairly neg-reped, you can post you're exact post in the Appeals thread. There you have two days since the inception of your appeals post to convince people (by a gen. pub vote or by an appeals committee) to discard your neg-rep. METHOD 2: you can have a reply to comment (for the neg-reps) which will send a comment to the anonymous user who neg-reped you to ask/explain your behavior. If he/she is convinced, he/she will be able to rescind their neg-rep. If he/she is completely sure of your guiltiness, he/she could have a END DISCUSSION button to stop the replies.
Once again plz tell me if these are feasible or not or if they display some attribute that you do not want to have at all due to some ill-fated precedent or just due to your beliefs.
Last edited by Danad_corps; Thu, 02-08-2007 at 02:40 AM.
i saved a unicorn
As much as we wish that the reputation system were perfect, and people were only repped 'legitimately', it won't ever work that way in practice. Here are the main reasons people give out rep:
1. They like/don't like you or your opinion.
2. They thought you wrote something intelligent/poor.
3. They're feeling generous/cruel that day.
4. They have to rep a number of random people in order to be able to rep the person they wanted to originally.
It's impossible to place restrictions on reasons for giving rep. So, say you got negative repped for reason 4, then an appeal won't change anything because there was no logic there in the first place. There have been cases of people abusing the rep system. If you are repeatedly getting negative reps that seem like personal attacks, and you think they are all coming from the same person, you're encouraged to talk to complich8 and we can do something about that.
Otherwise, rep is somewhat of a popularity contest, and shouldn't be taken too seriously. The system was implemented as a fun idea to try, and isn't the be all and end all of the forum experience.
kk i think i've gotten the idea behind this whole rep thing then. I had thought it was only to be used if you think someone has broken the rules and/or did/said something you thought to be valuable to the conversation at hand.
Just wondering...is # 4 true?? Why can't you just rep the person you wanted to in the first place?
i saved a unicorn
You have to rep 20 other people before you can rep the same person again.
It's a tool to try to spread out the pool a little bit. Otherwise you get someone re-repping the same person over and over and over again.
As it stands, there's both that spread factor, and a time interval factor. The spread's a bit lower, it's 16 people, but you can only give 15 rep hits per day. Thus, at most, you can only give one rep hit to any given person in a day.
This is largely to avoid cliques and curtail abuse.
I say it's GENIUS
i dont like that persons name... or their avatar or their lack of avatar... i think i will give them negative rep points ^^ WOOOT!!!
neg rep should be reserved for only select douche bags and haters.. and if you find yourself neg repping every day... you probably fall into one of those two categories.
Last edited by itadakimasu; Sat, 04-07-2007 at 09:34 PM.
you do need to be more careful with the forum rules... and it's probably not a good idea to complain too much about Negative Reps if you, like you say, don't care about them... I used to Neg Rep anyone who seemd to make such a complaint...
just learn to let things slide. Rather, maybe these comments aren't helpful, but you could still look at some of those posts and manage to figure out how to improve your arguing and writing. Some neg reps are done out of sheer spite and assholeness, but others have a legit rationale behind them, even if it's not evident from the rep comment.
Humans are different from animals. We must die for a reason. Now is the time for us to regulate ourselves and reclaim our dignity. The one who holds endless potential and displays his strength and kindness to the world. Only mankind has God, a power that allows us to go above and beyond what we are now, a God that we call "possibility".
I don't understand the whole anonymity thing... Why not attach names to reps?
Mainly to prevent the phenomenon known as the "Circle Jerk".
Well, it helps what I call the neg rep stalkers. They like to stalk people's posts to neg rep.
To us, that's the lesser of the two evils... there's also some other reasons why it's done this way. If you feel you're constantly getting neg repped unnecessarily and it bothers you, simply disable the function.
I also get neg repped sometimes it seems, maybe I should get an Avatar :P Seems as the people with teh pictures! get positive rep. I also feel that if people disagree with eachother, one of them is bound to neg rep someone just out of Spite.
This whole things is bullshit to me anyways :P
There are several members with ridiculously low reputation. The current leader is Animeniax.
I'm going to try to overtake him. Everyone neg rep me as much as possible and see if I can discover the depths of the rep system. Is it doable in one month? We'll find out.
I will keep a daily record of how many +/- reps I get. There will always be Animeniax fans +repping me. Bastards.
Merged this thread with the one in Announcements, since they essentially cover the same kind of stuff. Renamed the thread to more accurately reflect the contents...
Sorry BoC, but I did keep the poll up.
masa
Last edited by masamuneehs; Fri, 04-06-2007 at 01:47 PM.
Posting Permissions
