Ratings

[Rainer]

< 25 = 1 star
> 25 . < 50 = 2 stars
> 50 . < 100 = 3 stars
> 100 = 4 stars (Well c)

actually I dont think thats right either. I'm on 74 posts and still only two stars. I quite peeved about the whole star factor because I've been around longer than most(since the days of insidetheweb and then the failed delphi) and although I dont post often, I still think I deserve a better ranking. bah who cares. the people that count respect me. (you know who you are).

[Solar]

Exactly. Unless you want to invent some kind of peer-voting rating (which would open the doors for another kind of exploiting the system), and unless someone spends the time removing the relevant PHP code pieces completely, we're stuck with a rating that

a) is based on # of posts, and

b) is completely irrelevant for all practical purposes.

Just ignore 'em, and judge a poster by his posts.

[mystran]

Here comes a wonderful peer-voting system that is practically impossible to exploit.. it works like this:

Each one has "xp", which defaults to one.
You can then vote someone, in which case nothing happens, until that someone votes you, at which point happens the following:
A and B voted each other, let xpA and xpB be their xp ratings respectively.

Let xpA' = xpA + (xpA+xpB)/2 be the new xp of A.
Let xpB' = xpB + (xpA+xpB)/2 be the new xp of B.

After this the votes between A and B are cleared, and they can proceed to do whatever they wish, including but not limited to voting each other again.

Fundamental truths about this system:

1. If A and B always vote each other but nobody else, then they will always have the same xp rating.

2. From 1, [(xpA+xpB)/2 = xpA = xpB] it follows that if X(n) is the xp-value of A and B, and n is the number of times A and B have voted each other, then we can define X(n) as:

X(0) = 1
X(n+1) = X(n) + X(n) = 2*X(n)

from which it is relatively straight forward to see that
X(n) = 2^n

If the two users have a different XP rating when starting the vote system the calculation becomes relatively more involved, but the growth characteristics remain essentially the same.

The "Fundamental Law" of this voting scheme is that it becomes trivial to spot idiots, while the rest of us can continue to concern ourselves with other "more important" subjects. Those users whose xp-rating is higher than their post-count can also be removed (automatically) if there is a shortage of database storage.

[Solar]

Since you can create an unlimited number of different user accounts, you can still build up a user with any rating you want.

I really don't get it. This forum works just fine, doesn't it? It has one of the best signal / noise ratios I've ever encountered in a public forum. It has a very knowledgeable "core staff", and newcomers don't have any problem fitting in, as far as I can see.

I've yet to see one convincing reason why a ranking would at all be needed.

I hereby volunteer to look into the PHP code once the forum has moved, and to remove the ranking system completely.

[distantvoices]

Interresting times are approaching, it seems.

Solar, you are adventurous. Daring.

BTW: Currently I m working on a book. "Binary Trees" is the working title. *gg*

[mystran]

Since you can create an unlimited number of different user accounts, you can still build up a user with any rating you want.

Re-read the description. You got it wrong.

You need exactly 2 accounts to get any magnitude you want (for exact rating you might need more ofcourse).

[AGI1122]

It's very easy to remove the rating system, I already know what file it's in and which chunk of code it is.

Infact df removed it before, but when he upgraded the forum to a newer version he never reremoved it.

[Solar]

Problem solved. ;D

[mystran]

More fun than removing the stars alltogether would be randomizing them so that the number of stars that is displayed for some user can vary from page-view to page-view, or even between different posts of the very same person within the same thread.

[AGI1122]

Well that would be a good april fools day joke. >:D

[Candy]

Well that would be a good april fools day joke. >:D

Inverting the stars would be quite a nice one

swapping 1star with admin, 2star with global mod, 3star with mod, 4star with 5star

Think it'd make me wonder... seeing a lot of 4-star people and a few admins/global mods in between... seeing myself as 3-star occasionally

[Curufir]

I'd be in favour of replacing it with the date someone joined.

I don't pay too much attention to the stars, but if someone asks something obvious, or just plain dumb, then I definitely tend to look at the stars before replying, as a guide to how new they are to the board. It often means the difference between me writing a long explanation or giving a single sentence answer. Of course it's still a coin toss as to whether or not my advice is worthwhile ;D.

However trying to have an actual rating system is pretty pointless IMHO.

[distantvoices]

I 'm more concerned about how a question is asked than about how much stars one has. They reflect just the quantity of posts but not the quality, so --- *shrugs*.

[Calum]

I'm just amazed that people can find the time to post 1000-and-something items! As has been said before, stars shouldn't give any indication of how good you are or anything... What if you have just joined and haven't posted thousands of items? It's a pretty stupid system if you ask me...

[Kon-Tiki]

Those 1000 posts and more're over a time period of three years or so, so it's not exactly like we're spamming to get that many