Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Welcome to the Monastery
 
PerlMonks  

The Good Ol' Days

by Ovid (Cardinal)
on Jun 15, 2000 at 21:48 UTC ( #18342=monkdiscuss: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

Shift, Pop, Unshift and Push with Impunity!, by lhoward, is arguably one of the finest posts to be seen here and is clearly the sort of posts we would love to see more of.

What's going to happen a year or two from now if|when this site gets really huge? I can see several thousand monks voting every day and posts getting scores of +/- 300 points. A few Monks who were around during the "Good Ol' Days" may remember lhoward's article, but it may only have a measly reputation of 51 (as of this writing) compared to poorer quality posts in the future who may get a rep of 150 just for saying thanks!

Okay, I know it's not fair for me to gripe without trying to take a stab at a solution. How about some system where reputation is compared to the number of monks (and perhaps weighting the votes of higher level monks heavier) is developed? I really can't think of a totally fair system as this is just off the top of my head, but I suspect that the aforementioned article will likely do well for a long time if we compare votes received to the number of monks.

What would be a fair way of addressing this and how should it be implemented?

Cheers!
Curtis

P.S. On a related note, the current XP system may not hold up with 10 times the number of monks. Can you just see someone logging in for the first time, making an interesting post, and shooting up to level 4 in one day because so many monks enjoyed their post?

Comment on The Good Ol' Days
RE: The Good Ol' Days
by Corion (Pope) on Jun 15, 2000 at 21:57 UTC

    Of course, inflation on Perlmonks is inevitable with the current system.

    A possible solution I see would be to make the XP system relative to the potential of votes, but that would mean many nasty adjustments as the population rises. Another solution would be to manually review the levels every month, and if the bar just got raised before you got your new level, tough luck.

    I welcome any discussion of how we could actually make the XP system relative to the total available XP per day (which roughly equals the number of votes divided by 4).

      Corion, good point about the "many nasty adjustments." Whatever system is developed, it should be simple enough that a newbie can looks at it and say "oh, yeah." There are many different factors that can be taken into account:
      • Votes received
      • Votes possible
      • Total number of Monks
      • Total number of Monks logged in at time/day of vote
      • Level of Monk that voted you +/-
      • Whether or not vroom likes you ;)
      I'm sure there are others and I don't think that we should take all of these into account. But how do we consider these without making the XP algorithm a candidate for the Obfuscated Perl Contest?

      Perhaps we should acknowledge the the algorithm will be complicated, but keep the XP system? People would understand a simple XP system, and might accept that the allocation of XP is a mysterious thing (anyone remember their gaming days?). The algorithm can be there for them to delve into if they're really curious (and any true Monk would be).

        Somehow I like the idea of black-box-XP, but the problem still remains, there must be a way, obvious, public or cryptic and hidden, to distribute XP.

        Maybe a system based on the potential votes would work indeed. Let's keep the XP as they are, and you still get XP for logging in. No XP just for creating a node. XP are then given via the ratio of votes for this post out of the total votes for each day. That would mean, if a post gets (say) 1% of all positive (resp. negative) votes on a day, the user gets 1 XP (resp. loses 1 XP).
        This system would be untouched by the number of posts/votes, and the only anomalies would be on really lazy days, where a post that gets one vote already gets 1 XP, but the number of idle days should diminish with the number of active monks.

        Good point.

        Some further points:

        • We should make votes from higher monks more weighty, and if a monk is above a certain level (monk, for instance), they should be able to see a post and the score of the post before voting to ensure that the post is not getting inflated uneccesarily.
        • If the XP based levels ever need to be changed, vroom should probably change the XP for each level by a set percentage, and then increase each existing monk's XP by that same percentage.
        • Questions, depending on the level of the monk posting, should be limited to a certain reputation, but higher level monks can vote on a node regardless of reputation of the node.
        • Posts in the Snippets, Code, Craft, and Obfuscation nodes should have more bearing on the XP of the poster than questions.

        Any other ideas?

        J. J. Horner
        Linux, Perl, Apache, Stronghold, Unix
        jhorner@knoxlug.org http://www.knoxlug.org/
        
RE: The Good Ol' Days
by redmist (Deacon) on Jun 17, 2000 at 17:44 UTC
    On a much smaller level, this already happens. I may make an interesting post, but it doesn't mean that I am a Acolyte...I may (in reality) just be an Initiate.

    I, however, can definetley see your point and am also concerned (not losing any sleep yet). Perhaps we could make XP points grow in proportion to time...or maybe we could have the XP points of a classic post in a ratio to the currently (I am speaking as if it is the future already) highest ranking post.

    Excuse me if I am not making sense, I haven't slept for a long time.

    redmist

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://18342]
Approved by root
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others taking refuge in the Monastery: (21)
As of 2014-10-30 14:36 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    For retirement, I am banking on:










    Results (208 votes), past polls