|
Re: PM Leveling Guide.
by jeffa (Bishop) on Mar 02, 2015 at 21:44 UTC
|
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
Re: PM Leveling Guide.
by AppleFritter (Vicar) on Mar 02, 2015 at 22:14 UTC
|
You do, of course, realize that the Monastery is not a game, right? It's a site where people - monks, as it were - congregate to discuss all things Perl, to get Perl-related news, to chat with others of a Perlish persuasion, and (above all) ask questions, receive and provide answers. XP and levels are merely there to reward those who provide quality content.
And that, in a nutshell, is precisely how you gain XP and level up: post good stuff - useful answers, good questions -, and you'll soon advance through the ranks.
(And just for the record, spamming the Monastery with below-par content wouldn't help you much; you won't get as many upvotes, and in fact you may get downvotes, which can make you lose XP, too.)
| [reply] |
|
|
You say "the Monastery is not a game", but then you link to Levels of Monks, which clearly trumpets:
Remember: It's all just a game. But if you play it right, it's a game of learning, and helping others. That makes it a game worth playing.
Are you being sarcastic?
(I also refer the reader to the faqlet Why did I get downvoted?, which advises: "[XP] is really just a game we play to make life at the Monastery more interesting.")
I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies .
| [reply] |
|
|
Interesting game, Professor; the only winning move is not to play.
The point of "it is just a game" is to discourage people from taking the points too seriously. When somebody is talking about gaming the system just for the sake of points, then that is precisely missing the point.
So, yes, the XP part is just a side game. And, yes, it is also a big mistake to treat the site as just a game (though doing so usually also leads to losing the game, thankfully).
I'll upgrade my admonition to "Just remember: You can't treat PerlMonks XP too much like a game".
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
That's what I was not clear on. I was under the impression that any node addition would gain "Experience Points." How can I gain lose XP
As far as PM not being a game, it's been made into a game with the concept of stating a player and then working to gain experience, leveling up unlocks new spells. It's more about perception, how you look at things, then it is about wether or not PM is a game. From a certain PoV it is a game, while at the same time looking at it another way it is not. Neither viewpoint is entirely correct or incorrect, they "both simply exist."
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
Re: PM Leveling Guide.
by ambrus (Abbot) on Mar 04, 2015 at 10:43 UTC
|
Here's how you gain lots of XP. Reply to questions quickly and get upvoted.
As long as you don't write total nonsense, it doesn't matter what quality your answers are, because people will upvote moderately good answers the same as very good answers. There are no double or triple upvotes.
On the other hand, it does help a lot to reply quickly, because many people will check out most questions only once, and will visit only very few questions again, the ones they have found interesting or relevant to them. Thus, your answer gets a chance to be seen by many people only if you answer fast, before other people visit the same question. The scale is a few hours during the American workday, when most monks visit the site, or up to two days during a weekend.
Further, if a question get multiple replies, they are by default displayed in increasing order of posting time, and the readers may get bored before reading all replies. Due to this, if you expect that a question is easy and will get multiple replies quickly, it may even be worth to cheat by creating your reply first, then filling it with most of the content later, so that it appears above other replies even if you can't write very fast. This is, of course, risky, because if monks see your unfinished reply they might downvote.
You can write questions or other root notes too, with good titles so that people check them out. I've just found that more difficult than writing answers.
Make your writeups easy to understand, not deeply meaningful, because the internet is like television, most of the readers have a short attention span and won't think deeply on the meaning of your nodes. (This doesn't mean you shouldn't post writeups that are well thought out and deep, it's just that they're not the easy way to gain XP.)
When you notice a question such that some older question or reply of yours may be relevant, post a reply linking to those older threads. This way, you direct readers to read and vote on older threads that they would otherwise never see, and get upvotes from them. Notice questions that occurr frequently in Seekers of Perl Wisdom, give an answer to one instance, and then in each following instance, give a link to all older questions asking the same. If you just gave the right answer to a repeating question, you'd get only one upvote. If you link to multiple older questions where you have given the right answer, you'll probably get multiple upvotes, regardless of whether you copy your answer.
| [reply] |
|
|
> As long as you don't write total nonsense, it doesn't matter what quality your answers are, because people will upvote moderately good answers the same as very goos answers. There are no double or triple upvotes.
Exactly this lack of double or triple upvotes makes the system favoring mediocre posts.
In the first 4 years here I restricted my votes to nodes I considered excellent. The system punished me b/c I didn't exhaust my quota.
But today even after I started to upvote even moderately good answers I mostly finish the day with 20 votes left. I know that others (e.g. choroba) have similar problems.
I would love to have the opportunity to give 5 upvotes for excellent elaborated posts even if I lost XP in exchange.
| [reply] |
|
|
The system punished me b/c I didn't exhaust my quota.
Hm. I seriously doubt there has been a single day when I have exhausted all votes in 7/8/9/10 years. Most days I vote 3 or 4 times at most. (I can't prove that; but a God could verify it if they chose to.)
I guess I've been doing it wrong all these years.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
| [reply] |
|
|
I'm convinced you could spend a lifetime reading
PerlMonks and still not have read "all the documentation."
-- Mike Mestnik
| [reply]
[d/l] |
|
|
|
|
|
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
|
|
|
Shush, quiet! Don't give away all secrets... ;-)
| [reply] |
|
|
they are by default displayed in increasing order of posting time, and the readers may get bored before reading all replies.
If you do come late, reply to the first post (making some comment about it so it seems like its in the right place) and add something intelligent. This puts your post higher up and more likely to be seen.
OTOH, if people don't check how many votes they use versus how many they have, PM scores bottom post first so the top votes may not be counted. So, the later posts in more recent threads may have a better chance of being hit by Votebots.
| [reply] |
|
|
And avoid "Re^4" or deeper replies because,
with PM defaults, you have
to click again to see them
and many people are too lazy to do that.
To illustrate, notice that this reply is "Re^3"
and so may receive
stray up-votes from those who "blanket vote" all
replies to a node in a single go, without the
bother of having to click
again to see deeply nested replies.
BTW, avoiding deeply nested replies appears to be a
speciality of sundialsvc4.
| [reply] |
|
|
That could work perhaps. If your reply isn't clearly related to its parent, people may assume you've replied to the wrong node by mistake (newbies keep doing that because they can't find the big "Comment on" link for the post, only the small "reply" link next to replies), and then the janitors might reparent it. The reply might still stay in its place long enough for this trick to work.
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
Re: PM Leveling Guide.
by Old_Gray_Bear (Bishop) on Mar 03, 2015 at 01:37 UTC
|
Consider Khayos as an example of a Monk who voted daily. Note the number of write-ups.
----
I Go Back to Sleep, Now.
OGB
| [reply] |
|
|
Khayos was active for 10 years and collected 3654 XPs
In my rough calculations he would have over 20,000 10000 for exhausting his votes daily.
(actually even more b/c I took his actual rank Level 13: Curate with maximum 24 votes as basis, but with 10.000 XPs he'd have a higher rank)
I can already see the new challenge to write a simulation program for voting 3650 days long and calculating the average XP ... ;-)
update
Corrected estimation, had 50% not 25% chance in mind.
Rules are here
update
take RavingGoat
Experience: 6416
Level: Vicar (15)
Writeups: 4
He was only 5 years active and certainly collected less than 80 XP with his 4 write-ups.
He must have spend practically every single of his votes. | [reply] |
|
|
I created the following table, based on the assumptions:
0,5XP/day for login; 0,25*votes/day for (up)voting; 0,17XP/day for using all votes (till lvl5 only).
Seems you need a lot of grinding if you want to max your level this way. It is probably much easier (and more fun!) to write lots of valuable nodes ;-)
Rata
| Level | XP | Votes | Title | days to next level | days total |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | Initiate | 40,0 | 40 |
| 2 | 20 | 2 | Novice | 25,7 | 65,7 |
| 3 | 50 | 4 | Acolyte | 24,0 | 89,7 |
| 4 | 90 | 6 | Sexton | 27,7 | 117,4 |
| 5 | 150 | 8 | Beadle | 37,5 | 154,9 |
| 6 | 250 | 10 | Scribe | 50,0 | 204,9 |
| 7 | 400 | 12 | Monk | 57,1 | 262,0 |
| 8 | 600 | 14 | Pilgrim | 75,0 | 337,0 |
| 9 | 900 | 16 | Friar | 88,9 | 425,9 |
| 10 | 1300 | 18 | Hermit | 100,0 | 525,9 |
| 11 | 1800 | 20 | Chaplain | 109,1 | 635,0 |
| 12 | 2400 | 22 | Deacon | 100,0 | 735,0 |
| 13 | 3000 | 24 | Curate | 153,8 | 888,9 |
| 14 | 4000 | 26 | Priest | 200,0 | 1088,9 |
| 15 | 5400 | 28 | Vicar | 213,3 | 1302,2 |
| 16 | 7000 | 30 | Parson | 250,0 | 1552,2 |
| 17 | 9000 | 32 | Prior | 352,9 | 1905,1 |
| 18 | 12000 | 34 | Monsignor | 444,4 | 2349,6 |
| 19 | 16000 | 36 | Abbot | 631,6 | 2981,2 |
| 20 | 22000 | 38 | Canon | 800,0 | 3781,2 |
| 21 | 30000 | 40 | Chancellor | 952,4 | 4733,6 |
| 22 | 40000 | 42 | Bishop | 909,1 | 5642,6 |
| 23 | 50000 | 44 | Archbishop | 869,6 | 6512,2 |
| 24 | 60000 | 46 | Cardinal | 833,3 | 7345,5 |
| 25 | 70000 | 48 | Sage | 800,0 | 8145,5 |
| 26 | 80000 | 50 | Saint | 769,2 | 8914,8 |
| 27 | 90000 | 52 | Apostle | 740,7 | 9655,5 |
| 28 | 100000 | 54 | Pope | | |
| [reply] |
|
|
Re: PM Leveling Guide.
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 06, 2015 at 14:32 UTC
|
Monks are not AI in a game. "Playing the system" is fine for the website, but what effect do you think it'll have on the people on that site? Why not just expend the effort in being genuinely helpful instead?
Since we're being candid in this thread: I answer plenty of questions where I don't know the answer off the top of my head. I just know how to research and test quickly. (Which has the advantage of having links and tested code at the ready.) The "game" I play on this website is "keeping myself sharp and helping people".
| [reply] |
Re: PM Leveling Guide.
by cheako (Beadle) on Mar 02, 2015 at 21:41 UTC
|
Reaching level 2.
- Visit the site every day. %25 for 2XP.
- Simply asking questions and responding to answers or responding to other questions and answers is not sufficient.
- One must obtain upvotes under certain conditions to gain experience points!
- Post when the norm is low.
Once you reach level 2 start voting, while grinding to lvl2 take note on nodes to vote on.
This is good to level 6, then it looks like the only way to level is by getting more votes. It should be simple at this time to bring several bots to level 2 so they can begin voting.
| [reply] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
To be taken seriously is new for me, but thanks!
| [reply] |
Re: PM Leveling Guide.
by sundialsvc4 (Abbot) on Mar 03, 2015 at 05:12 UTC
|
Sage(?) advice from someone who ... these days ... loses more “XP Points” on a typical day than he gains . . .
“Fuhgeddabout XP™!! . . . instead, participate!!”
That’s it: participate. Try, as best you can, to leave the situation of “the Next Monk Who Will Follow You” perhaps a little better than your own situation was, when you trod that selfsame path.
Do so, not for the vain aim of “accumulating (or losing ...) XP points,” but because (aye, tho’ others vehemently(?) disagree with you ...) you actually imagined that you had something useful to say. . . Speak to “your former self.” Throw him/her a rope, with a floation-device attached and “no strings attached.”
. . . in other words, “something that you, had the situation been reversed, would have been mighty-glad to have read, long-about-now” . . .
. . . be-cause ... somewhere out there, there is Another Monk, for whom “the situation is reversed!”
Address your posts “to that person” and you will not go wrong. (Whether XP-tallies confirm or deny your actions are ... well ... who cares?)
Instead of, shall we say, “participating with an ulterior motive in mind,” participate! (Got something to say? Speak up! No? Then, shaddup!) And then, let The Peanut Gallery™ cast its votes as it may.
In this way, regardless of how the XP-votes may or may not land, you will have earned them all (or not, who cares ...) in good conscience. And thus, one way or the other, you will have, in your own way, “contributed to PerlMonks.Com.”
| |
|
|
from someone who ... these days ... loses
more “XP Points” on a typical day than he gains . . .
Though that sounds plausible,
I doubt it is correct.
On Jan 15 2015 you had accumulated 16,251 XP
while today I see you have 16,441 XP.
So you have been gaining XP at an average
rate of 3.9 per day
over the past 49 days (your
domination of Worst Nodes notwithstanding).
Update: See also:
| [reply] |
|
|
I wouldn’t know. I don’t know anything about the XP-statistics that you mention, because XP really doesn’t matter to me.
“The bottom line™” about this oughta be real simple: participate, as long as you think you have something meaningful to say in a particular conversation, and don’t fixate on XP. If you really like a post, be sure that you’re logged-in as yourself and “shower it with blessings.” And if you don’t, I suggest, don’t say or vote anything at all. (“Speak well of him, or speak not of him.”)
It is unfortunate – most unfortunate, in my humble – that PM does not appear to tally upvotes and downvotes separately, and that it does not allow you to Super Search using that criteria at all. As I’ve vainly suggested before, it would be very helpful to me to filter posts that, say, at least 2 people thought were beneficial, and no matter how many naysayers there were or weren’t who disagreed with that opinion. I’d consider it more likely that those posts were ones that I should read first, if I’m looking for a particular obscurity. Unfortunately, AFAIK, this criteria cannot be used in filtering. So to speak, it feels good (or not), but it doesn’t do any good.
| |
|
|
|
|
