Reputation to post ratio
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@IRJ said:
Was this a personal attack or just a glitch?
Personal
It's too bad. I thought reputation was a really nice idea compared to an actual ranking. Rankings reward numbers of posts, where reputation rewards quality of posts.
Has anyone ever been banned from Mangolassi (other than bots)?
Posts at least shows a solid, understood quantity. Reputation is more confusing. It is subjective. You get high rankings for being funny, being technical and, still, for shear volume. So there is actually negative value in it as a metric because it doesn't reflect anything specific so the only way to use it is to infer something to the value that doesn't actually exist. So the metric actually is only misleading, and never useful. Better not to have it.
How upvotes on an individual post or thread, totally different. That has value because both there is no real means of gaming that and because people understand what the value is tied to.
Yeah, I agree. Someone who posts mostly in Water Closet and posts funny, relatable pictures (like @scottalanmiller ) may have dozens or hundreds in reputation. That doesn't mean that when that person posts in a technical area that they are more credible. Reputation for people becomes almost a popularity contest. Reputation for posts shows validity and value to the thread.
-
It is not much of a popularity contest, it is really just about volume with a small variation from there. The more you post, the more chances for reputation.
-
Not really. Whether my posts generate interest or strike a chord with other members is not a random thing controlled by the laws of probability. I could write 1000 posts that are just dumb and useless, or I could only write works of pure genius that garner many reputation points. It has nothing to do with the law of averages. It has to do with the nature of what I share and how it is reacted to in th ecommunity.
-
And to be sure, everything I contribute is pure genius, whether any of you dolts get it or not.
-
@art_of_shred said:
And to be sure, everything I contribute is pure genius, whether any of you dolts get it or not.
Keep telling yourself that...
-
there. you've proven my point.
-
@art_of_shred said:
Not really. Whether my posts generate interest or strike a chord with other members is not a random thing controlled by the laws of probability. I could write 1000 posts that are just dumb and useless, or I could only write works of pure genius that garner many reputation points. It has nothing to do with the law of averages. It has to do with the nature of what I share and how it is reacted to in th ecommunity.
One really good posts only gains a handful of points, though. And would not show up in the charts because the charts are volume, not ratio.
-
Yeah, but that's only one piece of the puzzle. It's a function of multiple variables, of which one is volume.
-
@art_of_shred said:
And to be sure, everything I contribute is pure genius, whether any of you dolts get it or not.
I want to Upvote this post +
-
@Joyfano said:
@art_of_shred said:
And to be sure, everything I contribute is pure genius, whether any of you dolts get it or not.
I want to Upvote this post +
Don't encourage him...
-
@thanksaj said:
@Joyfano said:
@art_of_shred said:
And to be sure, everything I contribute is pure genius, whether any of you dolts get it or not.
I want to Upvote this post +
Don't encourage him...
Why not A.J?
-
@Joyfano said:
@thanksaj said:
@Joyfano said:
@art_of_shred said:
And to be sure, everything I contribute is pure genius, whether any of you dolts get it or not.
I want to Upvote this post +
Don't encourage him...
Why not A.J?
Because, Art.
-
I don't require encouragement.
-
@thanksaj said:
@Joyfano said:
@thanksaj said:
@Joyfano said:
@art_of_shred said:
And to be sure, everything I contribute is pure genius, whether any of you dolts get it or not.
I want to Upvote this post +
Don't encourage him...
Why not A.J?
Because, Art.
Oh come on A.J i want to upvote because i just like
-
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Bug report filed...
https://community.nodebb.org/topic/2761/disabling-reputation-disables-the-wrong-thing
I wouldn't look at disabling reputation as disabling post up/down-voting as a bug submission but a feature request.
-
@thanksaj said:
I wouldn't look at disabling reputation as disabling post up/down-voting as a bug submission but a feature request.
It's a bug. The interface says one thing but does another. That's a bug. The feature is listed as already being there but doesn't work.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
I wouldn't look at disabling reputation as disabling post up/down-voting as a bug submission but a feature request.
It's a bug. The interface says one thing but does another. That's a bug. The feature is listed as already being there but doesn't work.
You're supposed to be able to disable one but keep the other?
-
@thanksaj said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
I wouldn't look at disabling reputation as disabling post up/down-voting as a bug submission but a feature request.
It's a bug. The interface says one thing but does another. That's a bug. The feature is listed as already being there but doesn't work.
You're supposed to be able to disable one but keep the other?
The option is to "disable reputation." Which it did not do, it kept that. What it did was disable the voting on which reputation is based (but the two are not the same thing.) Instead of disabling reputation, "disable reputation" disables voting. That's an interface bug. If the option was "make the color green", and it turned red, that would be the same kind of problem.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
I wouldn't look at disabling reputation as disabling post up/down-voting as a bug submission but a feature request.
It's a bug. The interface says one thing but does another. That's a bug. The feature is listed as already being there but doesn't work.
You're supposed to be able to disable one but keep the other?
The option is to "disable reputation." Which it did not do, it kept that. What it did was disable the voting on which reputation is based (but the two are not the same thing.) Instead of disabling reputation, "disable reputation" disables voting. That's an interface bug. If the option was "make the color green", and it turned red, that would be the same kind of problem.
It might be a definition problem. You might define reputation as one thing, but that's not how the developers interpret it.
