http://www.perlmonks.org?node_id=352938

Update: Sorry to put this at the top, but the comments below mean I'm not making myself plain. The following post is an excercise in statistics and not in XP whoring. It's a comment on an observation.

I've begun to notice something, I'm sure there's many who've noticed it in the past as they're way higher up the XP ladder than I am.

Most days when I log into PerlMonks I have gained a few XP. In the beginning I'd post and then giggle with glee that people appreciated my post and my XP would go up. However, now that I've been here a while and have posted many times I don't get the same thrill. Which is a pity because it's now going up automatically.

It seems that there's a point beyond which you do not need to post to get an increase in XP. People find your old nodes and give them a vote so once you have enough old posts (cwalitee posts) your XP will rise automatically.

So where is this level?

First I thought OK, my XP is at about 1100 so that must be about the 'balance' level after which your XP will just automatically increase. Then I realised that if I had 2000 posts to get the 1100 XP then my posts mustn't be quality posts and I can't really expect an easy increase.

So maybe its because I've written 85 posts (this is 86). Once you have 86 posts, people will find the old ones and XP will automatically increase.

Of couse this also is untrue. It has to be a combination of both.

Given:

$XP = 1100; $posts = 86; $delta = 1.5; # (My XP is going up at about 1.5 per day) $days = 1108; # days since joining Perl Monks $average_per_post = $XP / $posts; # 12.7
We must deduce that a straight 12.7 $average_per_post doesn't work because my average would have been over that immediately after one of my more popular posts.

Therefore, the number of posts is either still individually relevent, not just as a factor of $average_per_post or that time is also a deciding factor.

Not being a mathematical genius, I can't get the next step. All I can deduce is that there is a function of these figures that will result in my $delta figure. Any geniuses reading this?

"Get real! This is a discussion group, not a helpdesk. You post something, we discuss its implications. If the discussion happens to answer a question you've asked, that's incidental." -- nobull@mail.com in clpm