Timeline for Reputation vs. value
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 13, 2013 at 5:30 | comment | added | Kevin Fegan | @Everett - As has been pointed out, the average score can be affected (one could say 'corrupted') by many things that have little to do with the quality of answers (popularity .vs. quality for example). I'm not saying that's the case for you specifically, but generally. Perhaps what would address your point more directly, is: for the purpose of determining privileges (or perhaps some privileges), use a value for reputation points calculated from reputation + bounties paid (i.e. recalc of reputation before deducting all paid-out bounties)... actual reputation remains the same as now. | |
| Nov 27, 2012 at 7:58 | comment | added | Everett | nhinkle - I value your input on this. I'm trying to point out that there needs to be two qualifiers for any given... privilege? One can be quantitative, and one should be qualitative. We just need to find the qualitative component to add to the system. | |
| Nov 27, 2012 at 7:56 | comment | added | Everett | slhck, you're missing my point. All I'm saying is the VALUE of the answers I give equals or exceeds the VALUE of an accepted answer. And I do that with lots of 0 vote accepted answers. My point is VALUE. | |
| Nov 27, 2012 at 7:54 | comment | added | nhinkle Mod | To make a long, tumultuous history of changes in the reputation system short... @Everett makes good points about some of the deficiencies of the current system, but the changes proposed would add yet another level of complexity, and the reputation system is complicated enough as it is. That's not to say it's an invalid proposal, but I think that the benefit it would bring would not outweigh the complexity and confusion it would add. | |
| Nov 27, 2012 at 7:49 | comment | added | slhck Mod | Overall, this would be a really complicated system to maintain. You'd fear to lose privileges based on a very slowly moving average that is compared to an arbitrary threshold that depends on so many factors, with every new answer you post to a question that starts off with a zero score, of course. This is intransparent at best and confusing, even disturbing at worst. | |
| Nov 27, 2012 at 7:48 | comment | added | slhck Mod | You're mixing up two concepts here. Accepted answers and how many votes you had per answer – those are two entirely different things. You're definitely not "likely to post the accepted answer" simply because you have more than 15 rep on a post. There might be a correlation between the score of a post and whether it's accepted or not, but this doesn't imply causation. | |
| Nov 27, 2012 at 7:41 | comment | added | Everett | So saying an average of 16 means I'm likely to post the accepted answer... 50 of my answers are accepted answers. 11 of my accepted answers have a 0 score, and 54 of my answers (total) have no score. In 48 of those 0 score questions, my answer is the only one given. Yes, I have the Tenacious badge... | |
| Nov 27, 2012 at 7:40 | comment | added | Everett | I'll add a few more things on "average." When looking to answer questions, I go to the last page in unanswered and work my way forward. This means several things: I'm not likely to get credit for many of my answers. The asker may never show up again with how long they've waited for an answer. Next, I'm not looking to fight for scores (I'm not answering answered questions). I'm looking for questions that need something posted as an answer. | |
| Nov 27, 2012 at 7:13 | comment | added | Everett | That's why I wasn't recommending that you base privileges on averages. Just maintaining the privilege. I'd even go so far as to say that once you have achieved "established user," there has to be cause for you to loose it. If you are found doing something damaging, that's one thing (anyone can loose an account at anytime for that...). But becoming an established user... That should maybe be something that takes more than 5 days to earn... | |
| Nov 27, 2012 at 7:09 | comment | added | Everett | "Why would someone with less reputation than you have more privileges? Oh, because they placed a few bounties two years ago? Right, that figures." About as much as someone that has bettered the community with one of the privileges they've earned having it taken away because they provided a member of the community an opportunity with a bounty. "but in my opinion it shouldn't be the new standard to base privileges on. The average as a statistical measure is just not stable enough." | |
| Nov 27, 2012 at 7:08 | comment | added | Everett | Thanks for your time. I'll respond to several things: First, it sounds like you understand my point. I'm just saying that maybe there is some validity to mean (or median, since you mention it). "Please don't take this the wrong way, but concluding this from a mere 16 reputation per post seems a little presumptuous." Why? An accepted answer gives someone 15 points. If my average puts me above the accepted answer value, then the things that I say are equal to or greater than the value of an accepted answer. I've an answer elsewhere that got 11 upvotes. The accepted answer got 3 upvotes. | |
| Nov 27, 2012 at 6:55 | history | answered | slhckMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |