LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > LinuxQuestions.org > LQ Suggestions & Feedback
User Name
Password
LQ Suggestions & Feedback Do you have a suggestion for this site or an idea that will make the site better? This forum is for you.
PLEASE READ THIS FORUM - Information and status updates will also be posted here.

Notices



Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 08-30-2010, 04:17 PM   #1
Berhanie
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Location: phnom penh
Distribution: Fedora
Posts: 1,625

Rep: Reputation: 165Reputation: 165
LQ reputation as a percentage


This regards the LQ reputation system, still being debated here. At least two people have suggested that using a percentage-based rather than a point-based scoring system for reputation (see here and here). The idea being that a percentage score gives an absolute measure of a person's reputation, similar to the way in which a seller's reputation is used on ebay: a person with a 100% reputation is one that can be trusted absolutely and one with a 0% is utterly untrustworthy. This may be more meaningful than a score based on points.

This post is meant to stimulate further discussion, but my submission is that reputation be calculated as follows:
Code:
reputation = ( num_helpful_posts/(num_helpful_posts + num_unhelpful_posts) ) * 100
To make this formula effective in its purpose of measuring reputation, it would require a change in the LQ culture, namely, that readers of posts would need to become more active in leaving feedback, either positive or negative.

Comments?
 
Old 08-30-2010, 04:21 PM   #2
jeremy
root
 
Registered: Jun 2000
Distribution: Debian, Red Hat, Slackware, Fedora, Ubuntu
Posts: 10,623

Rep: Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657
To reiterate what I said in the linked thread, I would see this more as an improvement to the current helpful system as opposed to impacting the reputation system in any way... but I'm open to feedback on the topic.

--jeremy
 
Old 08-30-2010, 04:27 PM   #3
Berhanie
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Location: phnom penh
Distribution: Fedora
Posts: 1,625

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 165Reputation: 165
Is there a need for two parallel systems? Intuitively speaking, there should be a lot (if not complete) overlap between the two.
 
Old 08-30-2010, 04:35 PM   #4
MTK358
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,443
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 714Reputation: 714Reputation: 714Reputation: 714Reputation: 714Reputation: 714Reputation: 714
+1 for a percentage system.
 
Old 08-30-2010, 04:38 PM   #5
xeleema
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2005
Location: D.i.t.h.o, Texas
Distribution: Slackware 13.x, rhel3/5, Solaris 8-10(sparc), HP-UX 11.x (pa-risc)
Posts: 987
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 252Reputation: 252Reputation: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berhanie View Post
At least two people have suggested that using a percentage-based rather than a point-based scoring system for reputation ...The idea being that a percentage score gives an absolute measure of a person's reputation, similar to the way in which a seller's reputation is used on ebay: a person with a 100% reputation is one that can be trusted absolutely and one with a 0% is utterly untrustworthy....
Code:
reputation = ( num_helpful_posts/(num_helpful_posts + num_unhelpful_posts) ) * 100
Although the idea is an interesting one, I'm not at all for it.
Percentages calculated out of an average (or a mean) fail to show the whole picture. For example; grades (in my region) are typically doled-out as X of Y points (Y = an arbitrary number, typically 70). This usually results in a "bell curve" (unintentionally). The temptation to "adjust" the bell curve usually sets in.

A "percentage of trustworthiness" requires there to be a yard stick of some sort in the first place. This would require a cap.

Forgive me for being blunt, but to stick with the D&D analogies previously used in this topic;
Level Caps suck.

The current Reputation system, as it stands does not have a (permanent) cap. This is a Good Thing(tm).

On a side note, the formula you cited (understandibly a raw outline) would be *very* easy to "Game". Attempts to correct any exploits would typically be to adjust the "Cap". Shifting everyone's "Trustworthiness" in the process.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berhanie View Post
To make this formula effective in its purpose of measuring reputation, it would require a change in the LQ culture, namely, that readers of posts would need to become more active in leaving feedback, either positive or negative.
Even the slightest change to a shoreline requires a massive effort.
I don't forsee that happening overnight, nor in the near future.
Quite honestly I see that as counter-intuitive to most human nature, as we don't innately desire to rate every. single. thing. we. see.
Especially if we're in a hurry.

The less we require/ask someone to learn about our community prior to participating, the easier it will be.

For Example; Imagine if the "Reply to Thread" ran a spell/grammar checker prior to submitting a post, then simply returned "You have an error" when it came across something disagreeable.

I know I would quickly grow frustrated at such a dramatic shift of "Standard Operating Procedure".

Just my $0.02 USD.

Good Luck!


EDIT: Also, "trustwothiness" would probably not be the best discription. How about "technical accuracy", "Guru-ness", or "Geekification"?
After all, I know most would not suggest someone "rm -rf /" to solve their problem...well, at least not seriously.

Last edited by xeleema; 08-30-2010 at 04:43 PM.
 
Old 08-30-2010, 04:45 PM   #6
jeremy
root
 
Registered: Jun 2000
Distribution: Debian, Red Hat, Slackware, Fedora, Ubuntu
Posts: 10,623

Rep: Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Berhanie View Post
Is there a need for two parallel systems? Intuitively speaking, there should be a lot (if not complete) overlap between the two.
They're more complimentary then parallel. They serve two different functions and are useful independently, but I think in conjunction we can get more out of them together than the sum of the parts. I can say that replacing the reputation system with what you've outlined isn't going to happen. Within the framework of the helpful system however, having some kind of helpful quotient could be useful (and when viewed in addition to a members reputation has some interesting potential I think).

--jeremy
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-30-2010, 05:40 PM   #7
slakmagik
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 4,113

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Hm. Part of what I said regarding the help/rep systems on the original thread should have probably been moved here.

jeremy - you may have done so (perhaps numerous times ) already, but could you say what the different functions are? It seems to me a persons rep should be built on helpful posts and helpful posts should lead to positive rep. So I'm not sure I'm seeing the distinction or need for the dual (or complimentary) systems.
 
Old 08-30-2010, 08:16 PM   #8
MTK358
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,443
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 714Reputation: 714Reputation: 714Reputation: 714Reputation: 714Reputation: 714Reputation: 714
I'm not sure about the idea of helpful vs. unhelpful, I think that helpful vs. all would be better because I save voting someone as unhelpful for when they said something bad, not when it was just neutral.

Maybe something like this:
Attached Images
File Type: png examplemember.png (10.4 KB, 14 views)
 
Old 09-01-2010, 01:24 PM   #9
jeremy
root
 
Registered: Jun 2000
Distribution: Debian, Red Hat, Slackware, Fedora, Ubuntu
Posts: 10,623

Rep: Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657
Using "all" is going to end up being punitive to the vast majority of LQ members who have many posts before the system was implemented.

Just to get an idea what a "Helpful Quotient" would look like for some existing members, I've randomly selected a few that have participated in the ongoing rep thread, and here is what their HQ would like like (with the denominator in parenthesis):

jeremy - 87 (46)
Berhanie - 100 (1)
xeleema - 95 (20)
slakmagik - 100 (6)
anishakaul - 90 (21)
MTK358 - 100 (5)
JZL240I-U - 100 (1)
XavierP - 89 (9)
damgar - 91 (11)

With some real world examples out there now, I'd be interested in some further feedback.

--jeremy
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 09-05-2010, 11:55 AM   #10
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269
Well, I would say that such a system seems to produce lower scores for people that have been here longer ... is that good ?

I still don't get exactly how these are supposed to be calculated, can someone provide a full example calculation and where the numbers are coming from ?
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 09-05-2010, 12:18 PM   #11
xeleema
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2005
Location: D.i.t.h.o, Texas
Distribution: Slackware 13.x, rhel3/5, Solaris 8-10(sparc), HP-UX 11.x (pa-risc)
Posts: 987
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 252Reputation: 252Reputation: 252
(Paraphrased & emphasis added)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy View Post
...Just to get an idea what a "Helpful Quotient" would look like...(with the denominator in parenthesis):

jeremy - 87 (46)
Berhanie - 100 (1)
xeleema - 95 (20)
slakmagik - 100 (6)
anishakaul - 90 (21)
MTK358 - 100 (5)
JZL240I-U - 100 (1)
XavierP - 89 (9)
damgar - 91 (11)

With some real world examples out there now, I'd be interested in some further feedback.

--jeremy
Um. No, not cool. I know I see XavierP as being way more helpful than myself. However I'm guessing that wasn't always the case and is skewed because of the longer timeline for XavierP.

I'm in love with the little green bags bars!
(/queue Reservoir Dogs theme song)


P.S: Level Caps Suck. With the current system, we don't know what the cap is, which is just fine by me. But 100 is too low a number, and doesn't reflect the diversity of our community.

Member A has 25 posts and all are helpful = 100% HP
Member B has 'Over9,000' posts and every one of them helpful = 100% HP?? That's just not cool, man, not cool!

Last edited by xeleema; 09-05-2010 at 12:22 PM.
 
Old 09-05-2010, 01:53 PM   #12
H_TeXMeX_H
Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269Reputation: 1269
So, here's what I don't get:

# xeleema's Posts have been rated good 25 out of 27 times.

reputation = ( num_helpful_posts/(num_helpful_posts + num_unhelpful_posts) ) * 100

reputation = ( 25/(25 + 2) ) * 100 = 92.6
or just 25/27*100

So, why: xeleema - 95 (20) ?

I'm obviously using the wrong numbers, right ?

Anyway, I don't see a problem with a non capped system, like it currently is. I think it is more fair than a percentage system, so my vote is against a percentage system.
 
Old 09-05-2010, 01:56 PM   #13
MTK358
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,443
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 714Reputation: 714Reputation: 714Reputation: 714Reputation: 714Reputation: 714Reputation: 714
Quote:
Originally Posted by xeleema View Post
Member A has 25 posts and all are helpful = 100% HP
Member B has 'Over9,000' posts and every one of them helpful = 100% HP?? That's just not cool, man, not cool!
Haven't thought of it that way.
 
Old 09-05-2010, 02:03 PM   #14
XavierP
Moderator
 
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Kent, England
Distribution: Lubuntu
Posts: 19,176
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 430Reputation: 430Reputation: 430Reputation: 430Reputation: 430
Quote:
Originally Posted by xeleema View Post
Um. No, not cool. I know I see XavierP as being way more helpful than myself. However I'm guessing that wasn't always the case and is skewed because of the longer timeline for XavierP.
To be honest, I'm a terrible person to be compared against - I've been here forever, most of my actions these days are mod actions and to cap it all, I'm not terribly fussed about my scores Be happy that you have a decent number and don't let the scores affect your time at LQ.
 
Old 09-05-2010, 02:07 PM   #15
jeremy
root
 
Registered: Jun 2000
Distribution: Debian, Red Hat, Slackware, Fedora, Ubuntu
Posts: 10,623

Rep: Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657Reputation: 2657
Quote:
Originally Posted by H_TeXMeX_H View Post
So, here's what I don't get:

# xeleema's Posts have been rated good 25 out of 27 times.

reputation = ( num_helpful_posts/(num_helpful_posts + num_unhelpful_posts) ) * 100

reputation = ( 25/(25 + 2) ) * 100 = 92.6
or just 25/27*100

So, why: xeleema - 95 (20) ?

I'm obviously using the wrong numbers, right ?
You're using numbers from many days after I gave my example, so will get a different end result.

--jeremy
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LQ Reputation System jeremy LQ Suggestions & Feedback 1086 03-27-2011 02:31 PM
Email reputation mrlinux2000 Linux - Server 4 11-10-2009 07:42 AM
LQ User Reputation System jeremy LQ Suggestions & Feedback 55 12-10-2008 09:06 AM
Reputation System cs-cam LQ Suggestions & Feedback 45 01-07-2006 11:47 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:36 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration