Activity & new membergroup limits

[Akka]

Since your posts > activity by more than 14, every new two week period where you make a post, your activity will increase by 14.

Does it work like this?

I assumed you get 1 activity point per post, up to a maximum of 14 points per 2 weeks.

Post are not "carried over" from past weeks as long as you make at least 1 Post, are they?

Posts are.

Not sure if just corrected my spelling error or answered my question  


Well, that explains why the activity of most members can be divided by 14, already thought there was a bug.

[theymos]

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:

Code:

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.)

[dogie]

If I post 1 message per fortnight for the next year, I'll get hero. That incentive to contribute.

[Al the Alpaca]

I like the new system.

Apologies for posting off-topic earlier, theymos.

[QuestionAuthority]

Me too.

[justusranvier]

My activity is equal to my post count? Why are others not equal?

Because activity can only increase at a fixed maximum rate per unit time regardless of post volume. Your posting habits are below that maximum rate and other people's are above it.

[BadBear]

If I post 1 message per fortnight for the next year, I'll get hero. That incentive to contribute.

If your only reason for posting is for a title, then you're probably part of the problem.

[Rampion]

If I post 1 message per fortnight for the next year, I'll get hero. That incentive to contribute.

I don't get why some of you are so concerned about ranks. I really don't give a sh*t about them.

Anyhow, I do acknowledge that many members *do* look at ranks, and for them is much better to have this system. Seriously, if you really care about your rank because you conduct business in here, do you think it's fair that a spammer registered 2 weeks ago has the same rank as a member active in these forums for the last 2 years?

I get you are upset because you were "demoted" (LOL) from hero member to a lower rank, but think clearly: if you want to build trust just use the trust system, that's why it's there. You can be a Jr. Member and be trusted because of many successful transactions, so this change shouldn't do any harm to your businesses in here. Now the "ranks" are more accurate, because they represent the seniority of members. And seniority is not achieved by short-term spamming, is achieved by consistent activity over time.

[naphto]

My activity is equal to my post count? Why are others not equal?

Because activity = min(time * 14, posts)
And your time is high. So the minimum is ur postcount.

[dogie]

If I post 1 message per fortnight for the next year, I'll get hero. That incentive to contribute.

If your only reason for posting is for a title, then you're probably part of the problem.

No of course its not, but I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness of the new system; its not representing anything but a random formula that correlates to NOTHING.

If I post 1 message per fortnight for the next year, I'll get hero. That incentive to contribute.

I don't get why some of you are so concerned about ranks. I really don't give a sh*t about them.

Anyhow, I do acknowledge that many members *do* look at ranks, and for them is much better to have this system. Seriously, if you really care about your rank because you conduct business in here, do you think it's fair that a spammer registered 2 weeks ago has the same rank as a member active in these forums for the last 2 years?

I get you are upset because you were "demoted" (LOL) from hero member to a lower rank, but think clearly: if you want to build trust just use the trust system, that's why it's there. You can be a Jr. Member and be trusted because of many successful transactions, so this change shouldn't do any harm to your businesses in here. Now the "ranks" are more accurate, because they represent the seniority of members. And seniority is not achieved by short-term spamming, is achieved by consistent activity over time.

I trade a lot and so its vitally important. And although the trust system should be what is used by buyers, 100% its not. Every time I get "I see you're a hero member, I trust you", NOT because I have +250 risked in trust. No buyer actually cares about trust at the moment.

All this does is give the old members doing escrow more money.

[Rampion]

If I post 1 message per fortnight for the next year, I'll get hero. That incentive to contribute.

If your only reason for posting is for a title, then you're probably part of the problem.

No of course its not, but I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness of the new system; its not representing anything but a random formula that correlates to NOTHING.

If I post 1 message per fortnight for the next year, I'll get hero. That incentive to contribute.

I don't get why some of you are so concerned about ranks. I really don't give a sh*t about them.

Anyhow, I do acknowledge that many members *do* look at ranks, and for them is much better to have this system. Seriously, if you really care about your rank because you conduct business in here, do you think it's fair that a spammer registered 2 weeks ago has the same rank as a member active in these forums for the last 2 years?

I get you are upset because you were "demoted" (LOL) from hero member to a lower rank, but think clearly: if you want to build trust just use the trust system, that's why it's there. You can be a Jr. Member and be trusted because of many successful transactions, so this change shouldn't do any harm to your businesses in here. Now the "ranks" are more accurate, because they represent the seniority of members. And seniority is not achieved by short-term spamming, is achieved by consistent activity over time.

I trade a lot and so its vitally important. And although the trust system should be what is used by buyers, 100% its not. Every time I get "I see you're a hero member, I trust you", NOT because I have +250 risked in trust. No buyer actually cares about trust at the moment.

All this does is give the old members doing escrow more money.

Trust is built with time. People trusting you just for being a "hero" member was a flawed system, and its been addressed. So you think is fair for a spammer registered 2 weeks ago to be able to "avoid" escrow because it has a high post count? That's ridiculous, and BTW you shouldn't base who you trust or not based on their rank, that's ridiculous - and if we want to avoid scams on these forums, nobody should decide who they trust based on post count.

I would say that you are angry because you feel that this change is making your businesses a little more difficult - just look at the big picture, think about the forum as a whole, this will give spammers less incentives to spam, and it will make scammer's life more difficult. It's a good change. People will get used to it and will start using "ranks" for seniority, while they will start to use "trust" for considering who they transact with. Much better IMO.

[minimalB]

I like this new system. It rewards also someone who spends a lot of time reading the forum, but not posting that much. Before those users were left behind in favor of high count posters.

I personally would post so much more (and longer posts) if language barrier wouldn't be so obvious...

[dogie]

If I post 1 message per fortnight for the next year, I'll get hero. That incentive to contribute.

If your only reason for posting is for a title, then you're probably part of the problem.

No of course its not, but I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness of the new system; its not representing anything but a random formula that correlates to NOTHING.

If I post 1 message per fortnight for the next year, I'll get hero. That incentive to contribute.

I don't get why some of you are so concerned about ranks. I really don't give a sh*t about them.

Anyhow, I do acknowledge that many members *do* look at ranks, and for them is much better to have this system. Seriously, if you really care about your rank because you conduct business in here, do you think it's fair that a spammer registered 2 weeks ago has the same rank as a member active in these forums for the last 2 years?

I get you are upset because you were "demoted" (LOL) from hero member to a lower rank, but think clearly: if you want to build trust just use the trust system, that's why it's there. You can be a Jr. Member and be trusted because of many successful transactions, so this change shouldn't do any harm to your businesses in here. Now the "ranks" are more accurate, because they represent the seniority of members. And seniority is not achieved by short-term spamming, is achieved by consistent activity over time.

I trade a lot and so its vitally important. And although the trust system should be what is used by buyers, 100% its not. Every time I get "I see you're a hero member, I trust you", NOT because I have +250 risked in trust. No buyer actually cares about trust at the moment.

All this does is give the old members doing escrow more money.

Trust is built with time. People trusting you just for being a "hero" member was a flawed system, and its been addressed. So you think is fair for a spammer registered 2 weeks ago to be able to "avoid" escrow because it has a high post count? That's ridiculous, and BTW you shouldn't base who you trust or not based on their rank, that's ridiculous - and if we want to avoid scams on these forums, nobody should decide who they trust based on post count.

I would say that you are angry because you feel that this change is making your businesses a little more difficult - just look at the big picture, think about the forum as a whole, this will give spammers less incentives to spam, and it will make scammer's life more difficult. It's a good change. People will get used to it and will start using "ranks" for seniority, while they will start to use "trust" for considering who they transact with. Much better IMO.

No of course its not, but its obvious when someone is spamming for rank. There is another thread in meta with people reporting spammers and them being deleted. I don't decide what buyers use to decide if sellers are trustworthy or not, they do.

This is such a dumb change, you're still not getting it. They've 'solved' the problem of spammers by destroying it for EVERYONE, not just spammers. People won't start using trust otherwise they would have already. Buyers decide what they use.

[Meni Rosenfeld]

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.

No. I purposefully offered two options because I figured you might not like the sqrt version. With the hyperbolic version (x / (1 + x/28)) there's no need for min because there is already an upper bound, asymptotically approached, on the activity gained per period; in your example 5*40 would get the higher score.

Assuming the periods are treated separately and not in aggregate, this is simply a softer, superior version of min.

In any case 28 in the formula is a tunable parameter.

As you mentioned, the current method doesn't work perfectly in some strange cases because it only looks at two-week periods in aggregate,

The idea was to have a system that is difficult to game. The method doesn't work in exactly the case that someone is trying to game it.

but this makes the implementation much easier and more efficient. I can do it with one SQL statement:

Code:

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.)

Would it be possible to have an auxiliary table with the number of posts per user per 2-week period, update it in a batch job every 2 weeks, and have the activity calculation simply sum over values in this table (plus the activity over the current 2-week period which is not yet in the auxiliary table)? It seems to me to be even more efficient than the current method, and is more flexible.

That said, I think the score will be even more representative if instead of looking at disjoint 2-week periods, it will count all 2-week periods (i.e. days 1-14, days 2-15, etc.). But that may be harder to do.

It could have been worse, I could have asked you to integrate over a Gaussian kernel smoother.

[Lethn]

I was wondering what the hell was going on when the number changed beneath my name O_O.

[edd]

I trade a lot and so its vitally important. And although the trust system should be what is used by buyers, 100% its not. Every time I get "I see you're a hero member, I trust you", NOT because I have +250 risked in trust. No buyer actually cares about trust at the moment.

All this does is give the old members doing escrow more money.

You realize you were basically "gaming" the system, right? You registered less than 3 months ago and yet, because of your post count, you earned a Hero tag and newbies were placing more confidence in you than they should have.

The new system may not be the best idea but your arguments are hurting your case more than helping it.

[bernard75]

The next logical step would be to cut the status of people who haven't posted in X time interval.

You can't be a Hero if you've not posted the past week, you can't be Senior if you've not posted the past month. It'd help with the buying/hacking old accounts to prop scams.

1 day old hero accounts are more worrying.

[MagicBit15]

It's interesting enough
Double demotion
But put this with the trust system and activity makes it harder to pull a scam
Well lets see how it works
But I do want to still be able to see my post count if possible just so I sort of know where I'm at

You can still see your post count on your profile page.

It doesn't matter. There should still be a total post count stat next to your avatar. I don't click every single persons profile when I read their name.

So you ignore people it their post count is not high enough?  Seems rather short sighted.

Why are people so ignorant and make such bold assumptions? Have some decency before you say something so moronic and embarass yourself.

I have never ignored anyone because of their post count. It's just ridiculous to not include total posts under your name with this new activity feature. Not 'oh click their profile', no this or no that, it should be displayed. Period. Every forum works like that and it should not have been changed. And if it is changed like it has been, total posts should still be included. It's like hurting all the people that have made all quality posts and not just purely eliminating the noobs and the spam.

End of story.

[Peter Lambert]

You can still see your post count on your profile page.

It doesn't matter. There should still be a total post count stat next to your avatar. I don't click every single persons profile when I read their name.

So you ignore people it their post count is not high enough?  Seems rather short sighted.

Why are people so ignorant and make such bold assumptions? Have some decency before you say something so moronic and embarass yourself.

I have never ignored anyone because of their post count, it is ridiculous to not have total posts part of your name. No clicking profile, no this no that, it should be displayed. Period. Every forum works like that.

End of story.

Why should it matter what their post count is? Your post count is not part of your name. Why is it so important to you to know what their post count is?

[greyhawk]

I know enough forums where postcount is not displayed at all exactly because of people assigning misplaced importance to postcounts.