Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Joshua May
I'm not so sure on the idea of dividing rep by people's number of posts, because I think there is an inherint skew. Looking at the reputation charts, I see that many of those with high rep have made many posts (JVN, Baker, Brandon, DJ, etc), so perhaps they have posted good information alot of times. However, there are also members at the top of the list who have not made a miraculous number of posts (Karthik, Paul Copioli, Kris Fultz, Ken Patton), so perhaps these members have made very good, information posts not-so-many times. But by taking post number into consideration, people like JVN would have much higher reps than people like Paul, who is definitely just as contributive to the FIRST community.
|
I think you need to check your math:
High reputation / high posts < high reputation / low posts
Those you listed with high reputation and few posts would
increase their ranking. I think if reputation were to be useful at all, this would be the way to go. (Disclosure: by this system, I'd have lower ranking. I seem to have annoyed some people...)