Reputation Index

[Scaredgirl]

Sorry to say this but this index fails in a couple of things.

Biggest issue is definitely the fact that our reputation system is relatively new. Most of the members who have 1000+ posts, acquired those posts during a long period of time when no rep was given out. Unfair advantage goes to the member who joined around the time reputation system was implemented because that member had a chance to gather that extra rep from day one, therefore improve the post count/rep ratio.

Other issue is what is this index supposed to measure? I am assuming the idea is to measure the average quality of posts. This is also a bit unfair because different posts serve different purpose. For example if I post a League match result (that will never get me any rep) is that post somehow low quality? A person who draws nice art but won't do much else, might have insane Reputation Index, whereas a person who posts just as many rep-attracting posts, but also many regular posts (that won't attract any rep), might have very low Reputation Index.

As a summary, this system..
- gives an advantage to newer members
- gives an advantage to members who refrain from posting "regular" posts. (note regular does not equal low quality)


Bottom line is that the name "Reputation Index" doesn't really fit to what you are measuring here. A better name would be post/rep ratio. Reputation Index implies that the person who has high score in that, also has high reputation on the forums. But seeing that it is technically possible to join the forums today, post one post, and have 10 times higher Reputation Index than anyone else here, I would say that the system is somehow flawed.

[suxerz]

IIRC you get more rep from starting topics and even more rep for every reply you get on a topic. So Zanz creates a topic and gets 100 pages of response gets huge reputation for it and as a result have a much higher "reputation index", while those who generally just reply to topics will be closer to 1.

I'm pretty sure that's not true or else users like Amilir and Tstar (who have topics with huge amount of replies - see forum stats) should have noticeably more rep than usual. IIRC, SG manually edited zanz rep because.. well he's ZANZ!


Back to topic; clearly the formula is flawed. To be honest, I don't think a solid formula is possible. Also, I agree with what SG said, "reputation index" is a bit over the board when the fact that you only count the post/rep ratio and I also do not see what is the goal here.

[gumbeh]

Still, it was an interesting idea even if the implementation ended up being flawed. It could have worked, if the forum's Rep system had existed from day 1 (or if the Rep system's introduction had caused a forum reboot).

Further, knowing that the first handful of posts can swing an RI wildly, people with less than X posts wouldn't be counted by the index. This would be done for the same reason that 2 games against an FG doesn't give an accurate or thorough picture of a deck's effectiveness, and isn't considered "normalized".

So if the OP's idea had occurred in a forum with no rep system gaps, and low post counts were ignored, it coulda been decent. Don't burn him for tryin!

[Jocko]

What about using posts per day? Not counting members with less than a month or so.

[Xenocidius]

Posts made before the reputation system was introduced can still gain points, although I can see that older members are still at a disadvantage given that not many people browse through old topics.

Perhaps a more accurate formula would also take into account posts per day, where members who post more per day would gain an RI 'handicap', where their extra, 'normal' posts are accounted for, and for those who post less per day the formula would assume that many of their posts are 'reputation-gaining' posts.

And of course, it would only count members with over, say, 200 posts, possibly more.

Although a perfect formula may be impossible, a decent one could still be a possibility.

[Planplan]

Yeah, don't overuse, sometimes maths could help a lot... But not here...

But if you want to remove post count influence, try something like this :

Code: [Select]

new_reputation = reputation - ((topic_count * 3) + post_count)

[Xenocidius]

Code: [Select]

new_reputation = reputation - ((topic_count * 3) + post_count)

Assuming you gain 1 rep for each post and 3 for each topic, that could work quite well.

[pikachufan2164]

Formula should be

Code: [Select]

Received Reputation = Reputation - 100 - ( ( Topic Count × 3 ) + Post Count - Topic Count ) )The forum stats don't count posts and topics separately (i.e. a topic will also count as a regular post), so the Topic Count needs to be subtracted from the Post Count to get the correct number of +1's.

For example, at the time of posting, I have 1828 posts, started 70 topics, and have 2393 reputation points.

Code: [Select]

Received Reputation = Reputation - 100 - ( ( Topic Count × 3 ) + Post Count - Topic Count ) )
                    = 2393 - 100 - ( ( 70 × 3 ) + 1828 - 70 ) )
                    = 2393 - 100 - ( 210 + 1828 - 70 )
                    = 2393 - 100 - 1968
                    = 325Thus, I've received 325 points of reputation from others.

[Xenocidius]

Yep, I've revised the original post. Interesting results ... I'm still quite high.

You'd better be scared, girl!