I think you're thinking about this far too much. I think we should just keep it as it is, I can't say that iv'e ever thought about it myself. Beisides i'm just starting to build up my rep...
STOP SPENDING SO MUCH TIME ON THE FORUM DAVIDJAMES!!!!!
Yes: back to 10 for everyone, effective Jan 1st
No: it's fine as it is, and Franck's got enough on his plate already
Don't care: you spend too much time worrying about this
Yes: re-set DavidJames' rep only, see how he likes it
Clicky-clicky, me likey...
OK, as instructed (well, bribed) by Dee
I've been informed that rep levels have been re-set before, back in the dim and distant past of, I dunno, last year sometime, because "people's reps were getting into the thousands" - dunno how much of that was hyperbole, but that's what I heard.
Now, despite my best tart-y efforts, I can't see "thousands" happening to anyone, any time soon
On the other hand, the system is clearly inflationary, in that power levels increase with more rep, and rep points given depend on the power levels of the giver. So at some point it'll clearly be at silly levels, we'll all have power 10, repping 100 points / day (or in MartinHarper's case, -ve repping 50 points / day), and the numbers will get to silly levels. So maybe we should take them down...
My preferred option (I believe ESG suggested it originally, but hell, I'll take the credit), is to have a "rep decay" rate of, say, 1% per week. But that's apparently seriously difficult to implement.
So I'm wondering whether it's a good idea to reset everyone's rep to 10 at the end of each year; presumably this is relatively easy, and means people can start the new year fresh - bit like the Premiership really...
Any thoughts?
I think you're thinking about this far too much. I think we should just keep it as it is, I can't say that iv'e ever thought about it myself. Beisides i'm just starting to build up my rep...
STOP SPENDING SO MUCH TIME ON THE FORUM DAVIDJAMES!!!!!
Actually, from a coding point of view, it would be pretty trivial.Originally Posted by DavidJames
I think the technical term is a small matter of programming. Very kind of you to volunteer, anyhow...Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
Maybe it's just me, but whenever I hear one of our developers at work say that, it scares the hell out of me. It's almost as scary as my boss telling me "it's just a 5-minute job".Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
(Oh yes, and don't think I don't know who voted for the "Reset DavidJames only" option, Mr Ass... )
Anyway, yes, if it could be done fairly simply, I think a decay would be ideal. 1% a month gives c. 50% a year degradation, which seems fairly reasonable to me. And hopefully that'd avoid any further need for tweakage on Franck's part.
But quite a lot less scary than when the engineer says "Oops... That doesn't look good..."Originally Posted by DavidJames
In point of fact, 1% a month is slightly less than 12% a year. Did you mean 1% a week (~40% a year)?Anyway, yes, if it could be done fairly simply, I think a decay would be ideal. 1% a month gives c. 50% a year degradation, which seems fairly reasonable to me.
OK. I'll take up the challenge, if the architecture of vBulletin allows it. I don't know if Franck would implement it, though.Originally Posted by David Franklin
Err, possibly...Originally Posted by David Franklin
(This illustrates why I'm the Ideas Man, not the Details Man)
Funny, I'd heard you were the "Oh dear" Man...Originally Posted by DavidJames
So very wittyOriginally Posted by David Franklin
As I said when it was initially suggested: is something written a year ago not worth repping? Does time decay it's relevance, the ideas within, the touching sentiment, the heart-felt posting or the witty repartee?Originally Posted by DavidJames
I agree that the power thing is a bit bias: I don't think that your current rep should be taken into account in working out your 'power': Number of posts and longevity of membership are valid, but including your current rep is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I don't think that they should be re-set in their entirety: perhaps some sort of "pips" awarded for every hundred rep points before the counter is re-set again? Or just reduce the rep by a percentge (eg 80%)
Could go the other route - re-set to 1,000 for everyone on 1st Jan. The difference between a rep of 1,085 and 1,736 looks a lot less than the difference between 85 and 736. Set all neg rep to a max value of 1 so people would be encouraged to send it and people would be less bothered receiving it. "I went from 1,004 to 1,003" is less traumatic than "I went from 4 to 3!"
Plus it goes well with the philosophy that everyone is wonderful and it's up to each individual to prove otherwise.
Take care,
Christopher
PS Yes I know there's flaws in my concepts. Please fix them rather than just point them out
It's got a new pluggable architecture that should make it a doddle. You can even set up tasks for it to run on a regular basis.Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo
You'll probably have to buy your own copy of it to do this though...
Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story
I think you don't know...Originally Posted by DavidJames
Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story
That's a good idea. We could even make it happen regularly...Originally Posted by Gadget
How about 1%, once a week?
He does now.Originally Posted by ducasi
I guess my last post might have given the clue that I don't think a reset is needed. As it's a meaningless number, what does it matter if it's 245,432 or 10?
The rep-decay isn't such a bad idea, but one simple change that could be made now is to remove the "time served" aspect of the rep power score, and base it purely on number of posts and reputation. That way people who are actually active will have power, rather than folks who signed up years ago but hardly ever read or post.
Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story
Again: why? There is much wisdom from the likes of DavidB, LillyB, Franck, Rachel, Gus, Lounge Lizard, ... and a host of others that deserve rep. Rep is not a method of seeing who is most prolific: you have the number of posts for that. It's who's posts you are more likley to pay attention to and respect - what you have contributed to the forum.Originally Posted by ducasi
Re-setting is like saying "yea, you contributed in the past, but that's all meaningless now and has no relevance. I don't care how much you might have contributed to the forum." What does it matter if they are currently active or not?
Gadget... I'm arguing against reset here, but the thing that decay does is provide the balancing negative rep that is missing from our forum. There needs to be some force to equalise us.
At the moment it is the prolific that have the rep – more posts, more chances of being repped. This needs balanced.
My point I was trying to make in the text you quoted is that someone who joined the forum at the same time as you, but has maybe only visited half a dozen times, maybe posted no more than a dozen times, has a rep power of 4. Why?
Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story
Don't you dare re-set the rep I've for whatever reason been doing alright and would feel cheated at a re-set.
Who needs promotion and relegation anyway.
Long live dictatorship. ESG will be able to destroy anyone who disagrees with him soon anyway.
All powerfull ESG. Heavenly ESG I think I love you and your babies and all your women
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks