In the PM system, posts have not been replaced with activity yet. Is this intended?
Fixed. |
|
|
|
|
Good, thanks for checking.
|
|
|
|
|
Come to Wisconsin. People were still ice fishing in May.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't understand why people attempt this.
|
|
|
|
how come I got whacked from being a Hero? I've been here for 2 yrs I think (6/5/2011)
I guess I don't get this system
You must have had long stretches of inactivity. |
|
|
|
|
Bu bir anket yoluyla karar olmayacaktır. Fikrimi telafi etmek için tartışmalar okuyacağım.
Türk bölüm oluşturmak istedi o kimdi? Ben hatırlamıyorum.
This won't be decided through a poll. I'll read the discussions to make up my mind.
Who was it who asked me to create the Turkish section? I don't remember.
|
|
|
|
|
There won't be a global scoring system. Such systems are sometimes useful/entertaining, but they're bad for serious discussion. Go to /r/Bitcoin (which I also moderate) if you want that.
Maybe at some point there will be a WoT post scoring system, but as I look at the deficiencies in this semi-WoT Trust system, I'm less inclined to build anything else off of this. A more sophisticated WoT system is probably needed for that.
|
|
|
|
Man you guys are f@#$%d... I didnt realize what was meant by default trust.... f!@# you I dont trust any off you insiders. Especially TradeFortress there are numerous scammer threads about him... He is a lender! I dont trust lenders of coin! I trust who I trust not who you think I should trust. Shit is bullshit.
Then change your trust list. That's the point of this complicated trust network system. |
|
|
|
This is borked now. It will not show untrusted feedback, even when you click the show ratings button.
Does it work now? I changed display:inherit to display:block. |
|
|
|
|
There are many weird features.
|
|
|
|
I think that it should be more of something like this:
time = number of 1-day periods in which you've posted since your registration
activity = min(time, posts)
That'd make people feel paranoid about always getting a post in each day, I think. |
|
|
|
1. It's smoother. Instead of having an arbitrary threshold above which posts cease to count, the output varies continuously in the input of interests.
2. It requires to actually be active throughout the registration method. With your method, someone who has been registered for 104 weeks and posted once per 2 weeks (that is, not very active at all), can jack up his activity from 52 to 728 by spamming 700 posts at once. Whereas with my method there is an upper bound on how much you can boost your score by concentrated posting.
With your method, someone who posts 5 posts per period for 40 weeks has a worse score than someone who posts 100 posts per period for 5 weeks. This is wrong. Slower, more consistent posting is better. A min() somewhere is needed, I think. As you mentioned, the current method doesn't work perfectly in some strange cases because it only looks at two-week periods in aggregate, but this makes the implementation much easier and more efficient. I can do it with one SQL statement: select smf_messages.ID_MEMBER as id, least(count(distinct posterTime div 1210000) * 14,
posts) as activity from smf_messages join smf_members on (smf_messages.ID_MEMBER=smf_members.ID_MEMBER)
group by id; Your method is in principle not significantly less efficient than this, but it will at least make the SQL significantly more complicated, and I might have to create a slower and much larger PHP function. (I know that your method is directly possible in PostgreSQL, but I'm not sure about MySQL.) |
|
|
|
But now I look the same as someone who has posted once every 2 weeks and has 10 posts....
No, they would have an activity score of 10. |
|
|
|
I think I'll hide untrusted feedback by default using Javascript. It'll be like: Trusted feedback
...
Untrusted feedback
Click here to show Untrusted feedback If I do it this way, I'll add an option to always show untrusted feedback in your profile settings. Done. |
|
|
|
The only problem I can see is what if we go away hiking for a few months, All our "credits" will have run out, Effectively making a long term service appear like a new account?
Activity doesn't decrease unless posts are deleted. It's a measure of total activity, not recent activity. |
|
|
|
Maybe just... 'Member'?
OK. I don't like it.
It embodies the assumption that any post above once per day (averaged over two weeks) is not contributing; which I do not agree with.
I look at it more like this: Everyone can easily write one post per day without creating spam, but even two posts per day would IMO start to incentivize people to spam two posts per day in order to inflate their score. It's more important to me that this number be resistant to manipulation, not that it be representative of all of a person's contributions. Time spent logged in will also be useful to include as a component.
That can be manipulated very easily, so it's useless for something like this. And you should consider more sophisticated metrics such as sum of f(x) over all two-week periods, f(x) being x / (1 + sqrt(x/14)) or x / (1 + x/28).
Why is that better? I'm not sure that it can be done very easily/efficiently. |
|
|
|
I hope Theymos only gives some hints but without releasing the exact formula.
That would've been more fun, but it would've taken too long for someone to guess it. |
|
|
|
|
Maybe I'll add a new group between Jr. Member and Full member. What should it be called?
|
|
|
|
The activity number is determined in this way: time = number of two-week periods in which you've posted since your registration activity = min(time * 14, posts) Rough summary of what this means: If you post once per day on average, then you will eventually get the maximum number of activity points that you can get. Posting more than once per day on average is useless for increasing activity. The maximum number of activity points you can get is 1 per day, but your activity score only updates every two weeks. Therefore, it will take about 100 days to get 100 activity if you post once per day on average.Activity is updated every hour. The new membergroup limits work like this: ( Edit: Obsolete, do not use) | Group | Requirement | | Brand New | 0 posts | | Newbie | (none) | | Jr. Member | activity: 30 | | Member | activity: 60 | | Full Member | activity: 120 | | Sr. Member | activity: 240 | | Hero Member | activity: 480 | | Legendary | occurs randomly between 775 and 1030 activity |
I'm not 100% sure that the membergroups work correctly. Tell me if you see any bugs. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
