Topic: Activity & new membergroup limits - page 64. (Read 242485 times)
I like how Matthew is trying to get rid of his tag with complaining in combination with this change. You earned this tag Matthew , fair and square. Was it worth the effort yet?
I like it, the old way provided incentive for people to spam, and spammers can be difficult to moderate, and time consuming.
Why is this so hard to understand... it doesn't prevent spammers at all. Now all you do is create 10 accounts, log in to each one once a week, reply to 14 topics. Wait a while, oh look boom 10 hero accounts which are much harder to identify as fakes, without the need to spam.
Problem?
It isn't about preventing spammers, it's about removing the incentive for people to spam in the first place. Now there's less reason for people to make new accounts and spam their way to a thousand posts in a week or two. Also results in less need for moderation, which is a good thing for everyone.
We can't stop people from making fake accounts in order to scam, but we can stop them from spamming hundrends/thousands of posts for status.
I like it, the old way provided incentive for people to spam, and spammers can be difficult to moderate, and time consuming.
Why is this so hard to understand... it doesn't prevent spammers at all. Now all you do is create 10 accounts, log in to each one once a week, reply to 14 topics. Wait a while, oh look boom 10 hero accounts which are much harder to identify as fakes, without the need to spam.
Problem?
If your that dedicated then you deserve to spam, waiting 14 months to scam people, is insane.
10 Portable Pirates
I like it, the old way provided incentive for people to spam, and spammers can be difficult to moderate, and time consuming.
Why is this so hard to understand... it doesn't prevent spammers at all. Now all you do is create 10 accounts, log in to each one once a week, reply to 14 topics. Wait a while, oh look boom 10 hero accounts which are much harder to identify as fakes, without the need to spam.
Problem?
If your that dedicated then you deserve to spam, waiting 14 months to scam people, is insane.
I like it, the old way provided incentive for people to spam, and spammers can be difficult to moderate, and time consuming.
Why is this so hard to understand... it doesn't prevent spammers at all. Now all you do is create 10 accounts, log in to each one once a week, reply to 14 topics. Wait a while, oh look boom 10 hero accounts which are much harder to identify as fakes, without the need to spam.
Problem?
I think a better way to do this and avoid all complaints is to make it so that nearly everyone ended up with a higher ranking. Just create new ranks.
It's like how the council here undervalues your land by ~15%, but increases the rate per $ of land value by 17.6%. You still pay the same amount, but nobody complains that their land is overvalued.
It's like how the council here undervalues your land by ~15%, but increases the rate per $ of land value by 17.6%. You still pay the same amount, but nobody complains that their land is overvalued.
I like it, the old way provided incentive for people to spam, and spammers can be difficult to moderate, and time consuming.
Thank you
So now you need to be active for:
-more than a year to be hero 7 Months
-more than six months to be senior 3.5 Months
- more than one month to be full member
I really like that
So now you need to be active for:
-
-
- more than one month to be full member
I really like that
Fixed.
...Need 400 points for hero. So min 400 posts and 28.6 time periods. Each time period is TWO weeks, so it is ~14 months for hero.
At this rate in 14 months I'll have 4-5k posts.
this formula makes little sense
activity = min(time * 14, posts)?
activity = min(time * 14, posts), what does the , mean in there
it looks like a = min(t*14,p)
could you be a little more explicit in the maths formula
activity = min(time * 14, posts)?
activity = min(time * 14, posts), what does the , mean in there
it looks like a = min(t*14,p)
could you be a little more explicit in the maths formula
min= minimum
time= time logged in
post= total post you made
but what is the ","? is it t*14/p, t*14*p, t*4 + g(p)?, min( t*14 || p)
I think he means min (t*14||p) to say z = g(x,y) is a 3 dimensional function
the logical "or" || should be used not ","
if(t*14
else
{cout>>p;}
also, I think the ignore needs some attention, as it breeds too much normative behavior by the sanction of the longest here which is death to vitality.
this formula makes little sense
activity = min(time * 14, posts)?
activity = min(time * 14, posts), what does the , mean in there
it looks like a = min(t*14,p)
could you be a little more explicit in the maths formula
activity = min(time * 14, posts)?
activity = min(time * 14, posts), what does the , mean in there
it looks like a = min(t*14,p)
could you be a little more explicit in the maths formula
min= minimum
time= time logged in
post= total post you made
I also noticed we can see the Trust ratings of users who left you trust feedback or users you've trust-rated from the detailed trust page. Nice touch!
min= minimum
time=time logged in two weeks periods where you made at least one post
post= total post you made
FTFY
time=
post= total post you made
FTFY
Maybe I'll add a new group between Jr. Member and Full member. What should it be called?
51%'er
Swollen Member.
That's close to what I was thinking. Stiff Member.
Goldmember
Anyway, I like the activity ranking. A good improvement.
this formula makes little sense
activity = min(time * 14, posts)?
activity = min(time * 14, posts), what does the , mean in there
it looks like a = min(t*14,p)
could you be a little more explicit in the maths formula
activity = min(time * 14, posts)?
activity = min(time * 14, posts), what does the , mean in there
it looks like a = min(t*14,p)
could you be a little more explicit in the maths formula
You should be able to rate the helpfulness of other posts and put the average there as well.
That sounds fair maybe a balanced componentAge / Helpfulness / Some other measures to make a total activity score
That turns into a popularity contest.
So what's wrong with that? Isn't that Reddit?
LMAO cause people vote with emotion, rather than knowledge.
I don't know, I like the way Reddit works. I even like the format. Besides this place is a fireball of emotion but also a seat of knowledge IF you are talking to the right person. You don't actually believe most of the dumbasses here that are Hero members actually know what they are talking about concerning Bitcoin do you? You still have the same group of carpet posters that you did before like Phin that just posts to post.
My favorite example of all these different tags was terrytibbs. He was a great very knowledgeable guy and wore a scammer tag for ages. You can't trust all these different fixes but you can fake out newbies into thinking they can trust them.
This forum is suppose to foster debates and decisions with everyone on the same level. Instead of having a upvote button which makes it too easy for people to push it, without fully thinking. I like when people write that they disagree, it allows one to defend or the disagreeing party to write out the reasoning making it that much better.
Like bitcoind I trust no one with out the proper research, but I also don't judge people by the tags they have, just judge by how they contribute to the community. Which has been working for me so far. Like I said before hitting a button is just too easy for some people.
Yeah, I guess your right. It wouldn't work here.
BTW: Here is the perfect example of what friging Hero members are doing right now: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2516638
I hear you on that, chalk it up to emotion.
You should be able to rate the helpfulness of other posts and put the average there as well.
That sounds fair maybe a balanced componentAge / Helpfulness / Some other measures to make a total activity score
That turns into a popularity contest.
So what's wrong with that? Isn't that Reddit?
LMAO cause people vote with emotion, rather than knowledge.
I don't know, I like the way Reddit works. I even like the format. Besides this place is a fireball of emotion but also a seat of knowledge IF you are talking to the right person. You don't actually believe most of the dumbasses here that are Hero members actually know what they are talking about concerning Bitcoin do you? You still have the same group of carpet posters that you did before like Phin that just posts to post.
My favorite example of all these different tags was terrytibbs. He was a great very knowledgeable guy and wore a scammer tag for ages. You can't trust all these different fixes but you can fake out newbies into thinking they can trust them.
This forum is suppose to foster debates and decisions with everyone on the same level. Instead of having a upvote button which makes it too easy for people to push it, without fully thinking. I like when people write that they disagree, it allows one to defend or the disagreeing party to write out the reasoning making it that much better.
Like bitcoind I trust no one with out the proper research, but I also don't judge people by the tags they have, just judge by how they contribute to the community. Which has been working for me so far. Like I said before hitting a button is just too easy for some people.
Yeah, I guess your right. It wouldn't work here.
BTW: Here is the perfect example of what friging Hero members are doing right now: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2516638
You should be able to rate the helpfulness of other posts and put the average there as well.
That sounds fair maybe a balanced componentAge / Helpfulness / Some other measures to make a total activity score
That turns into a popularity contest.
So what's wrong with that? Isn't that Reddit?
LMAO cause people vote with emotion, rather than knowledge.
I don't know, I like the way Reddit works. I even like the format. Besides this place is a fireball of emotion but also a seat of knowledge IF you are talking to the right person. You don't actually believe most of the dumbasses here that are Hero members actually know what they are talking about concerning Bitcoin do you? You still have the same group of carpet posters that you did before like Phin that just posts to post.
My favorite example of all these different tags was terrytibbs. He was a great very knowledgeable guy and wore a scammer tag for ages. You can't trust all these different fixes but you can fake out newbies into thinking they can trust them.
This forum is suppose to foster debates and decisions with everyone on the same level. Instead of having a upvote button which makes it too easy for people to push it, without fully thinking. I like when people write that they disagree, it allows one to defend or the disagreeing party to write out the reasoning making it that much better.
Like bitcoind I trust no one with out the proper research, but I also don't judge people by the tags they have, just judge by how they contribute to the community. Which has been working for me so far. Like I said before hitting a button is just too easy for some people.
Seems smart but now I lost my three coins.
ChK!
unfortunately, this system is flawed in that it protects "status" but really does nothing with regards to separating spammers from people that actually contribute something. Even some that hold that status right now are probably trolling doorknobs.
Instead when you get time, add this : a simple voting system like we use for trust to up a persons status based on how they contribute to the community and how they've helped out. For security you could say a profile must be x months old and have x amounts of posts to vote.
Your current system supports the 'old gang' of which we ain't seen any of them in a while or got a worthwhile contribution, even helping a noob get on his feet is a small contribution.
The system i suggest balances and mostly checks it's self out. I for one have a problem with a spammer, i could vote him down for that, if he helps someone, they vote him up. After a while, the spamming will stop since the guy won't want any more negative votes os he can get more "respect" from "status". IMHO that is a more sure fire way of dealing with multiple accounts and spammers.
Instead when you get time, add this : a simple voting system like we use for trust to up a persons status based on how they contribute to the community and how they've helped out. For security you could say a profile must be x months old and have x amounts of posts to vote.
Your current system supports the 'old gang' of which we ain't seen any of them in a while or got a worthwhile contribution, even helping a noob get on his feet is a small contribution.
The system i suggest balances and mostly checks it's self out. I for one have a problem with a spammer, i could vote him down for that, if he helps someone, they vote him up. After a while, the spamming will stop since the guy won't want any more negative votes os he can get more "respect" from "status". IMHO that is a more sure fire way of dealing with multiple accounts and spammers.
Jump to: