New calculation of Reputation
 

Since I guess it won't go away, we need to do it right!
I think when you click on reputation and sort people by names, they need to be sorted by [REPUTATION/POSTS] reputation devided by number of posts
So it ACCURATLY organizes people with reputation, and because I really like Karthik. And it's the right thing to do!

Re: New calculation of Reputation
 

This has come up several times before, and the general argument is that we shouldn't change reputation because it doesn't really matter.

See:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=38971
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=29490

But here is my question: What is the intent of the reputation system? If it is intended to let people know who on this forum is experienced and knows what they are talking about, we definately don't want artificial bonuses for new posters. Should someone with 3 rep and one post really be higher than someone with 1500 rep and 750 posts? If anything, they should be listed by posts times rep.

Re: New calculation of Reputation
 

actually I just thought about that,and then read your post. My answer is simple. It's pretty easy to code. Have a minimal break point ~~100 posts. But then a problem comes up, what to do with all the other people below 100 posts. My answer to that is,
If posts >= 100 then stack that list above the
if posts < 100 lay that list below
so basically the person with the lowest rep over 100 posts is above the highest rep'd person with fewer than 100 posts. This could create more posts from people new to CD, and it ACCURATLY groups the serious member. heck even if I had 3000 posts my rep would be all green.. but that's not accurate- bc there are other members that give amazing help every day LIKE KARTHIK!!
so I think this should be looked at.

Re: New calculation of Reputation
 

I think the people who are on here every day and give out the most useful advice are already at the top of the list.

The only thing this would help would be to move up people like Jason Morrella for example, who post nothing but insightful material, but with far less frequency than others, thus leaving him farther from the top.

You provide Karthik as an example. He has the 5th highest rep, so clearly rep has worked in his case.

Re: New calculation of Reputation
 

No matter how easy it is to code, I'm not going to waste my time modifying the vBulletin code to fix something that doesn't really matter. I'd rather spend my time on other things like CD-Media, the Attendance thing, and the imminent server performance problems come January 8th.

I stand by my previous statement: They're just dots.

Re: New calculation of Reputation
 

Its little colored boxes, why does it mean so much to everbody. Leave it as it is, Brandon has enough to do as it is.

Re: New calculation of Reputation
 

Amen to that.

Re: New calculation of Reputation
 

WOO!!
39th in reputation! 11th in posts!!!111
I am the bestest!!!1!!111! (After some other people)

Brandon, I had forgotten all about the attendance thing and had to look it up. I like that more then a rep change. :)

Wetzel

Re: New calculation of Reputation
 

Because it's there. That's why people care about it (though for the record, not me; I adblocked the rep images and axed the rep screen in the usercp a long time ago, so I have no clue what mine or anybody elses rep is). It's the same with post count (which is why I'm a fan of removing them both).

Re: New calculation of Reputation
 

Ignoring that it's patently absurd to worry about those dots in the slightest, I certainly wouldn't want to waste anyone's time implementing the system suggested here. It's a bad idea.

What's the purpose in measuring relative usefulness as based on reputation points? If someone makes 1000 good posts in 10000 overall posts, that does not mean that the other 9000 are bad posts. Someone with 1000 positive contributions deserves more green dots than someone with 1 positive post, irrespective of how many posts they each have in total, for whatever that's worth.

Re: New calculation of Reputation
 

It is true that the more rep you have the more you give so I think there should be a scale-like thing when one gives rep so that if you approve you can slide the scale from anywhere like 1 mato x where x is the x rep one can give another.

I think that if rep were given by number of posts, some people would abuse it and then there are those few who might have nagative rep but a lot of posts. If they were give the negative rep for a valid reason and were given positive rep because of their number of posts it would not be seen as a way to encourage them to, for lack of a better term, post better

Re: New calculation of Reputation
 

Of course the reputation system could be modified, improved, or fiddled with from here to Tuesday.

However, as the saying goes, there comes a time to shoot the engineer and build the thing. The engineer has been shot, the thing has been built, and it still functions half-decently.

If you really are worried about whether someone's rep is wrong, there's a simple solution: give rep appropriately. Over time, folks will settle to about where they should be.

Re: New calculation of Reputation
 

Exactly. I have a good example. Kevin Watson. The man has done as much for FIRSTer's as almost anyone I know, but because he only posts when he can help, he isn't as visible. Now, don't be a sheep because I told you to, but all you programmers and anyone else out there, think about about how Kevin has helped you, and act accordingly. Thats how rep. should work: if you think someone honestly deserves a rep. point, then good! Take care of it!

Another example. I recently recieved some rep. that I simply did not deserve. I didn't do anything for it. However, it didn't move my rep. visible, which is good. if I find it moves my rep. inappropriately, I will contact Brandon to see if he can remove it. And thats where it starts: if you're not honest with yourself, the system falls at it's knees.

Actually Brandon, is there a way i can remove rep. short of drawing a red point?

Re: New calculation of Reputation
 

Or...we could let Brandon spend his time doing useful things that would actually improve this website.

Re: New calculation of Reputation
 

Remove rep. that you've given? No. You can contact me (with a direct link to the POST) or just give the person two positive rep's when you are able to, to make up for the negative.