LQ should come up with a smarter way of ranking users
LQ Suggestions & FeedbackDo 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.
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
LQ should come up with a smarter way of ranking users
I have looked at how LQ ranks its users. I was astonished to notice that users are simply ranked by the number of posts they have. While this is a good way of recognising long time members, I find that misleading to especially new users. Of great concern is the title "Guru" that is given when someone reaches 5000 posts. I would have OKed it if only 'Addict' was used.
Most new users (even old users, and indeed everyone) know and believe that 'Gurus' are well knowledgeable, experienced professionals, and their posts are ususally treated as such. On the contrary, these 'gurus' could be merely 'addicts' or 'spammers' who will post any one line useless replies to any new post that comes. Some could even offer misleading, trivial, vague and 'no new information' help and it can unfortunately be a case of churning out posts to reach a certain status.
While I believe that most Linux users are smart people who are very responsible, I understand that in every establishment, there are always those that want to misuse facilities or opportunities.
As a group of 'smart people' i believe linux users should come up with a 'smart' 'weighted' and balanced way or ranking users if they want to include title like 'Gurus' otherwise, it will be best to use titles which are not misleading only, like (newbie, member, senior memember(elder) and addict, and DROP out guru)
Some members that I well respect, as I have realised, have been only replying to posts with subject they are actually very much knowledgeable in, and they have done great job in offering accurate, spot-on and well informing help and answers. Since these are the true GURUs, they tend not to have much time to spam posts (due to their busy consultancy work etc.) so they will probably take 10 years to reach 1000 posts. The current ranking system purely ignores this fact. It doesnt take into account the quality of posts. I know smart pple out there can suggest something better. Thats my opinion.
The difficulty lies in automating the process of determining a quality post. I don't think there is a system which can yet discriminate between a post that was good with respect to the question and one which was utterly useless.
I think the recently implemented Thanks system goes some way to addressing this problem; those users who regularly post useful answers will (may?) receive more Thanks from the people they were responding to.
If you know of a different way, I'm sure Jeremy would be all ears.
Also, I've asked the mods to move this to LQ Suggestions and Feedback.
It (hopefully) may not surprise you to learn you're not the first to express such opinions. Try the search button.
I have cajoled jeremy consistently about this - my advice, ignore all the rankings. Judge posts (and posters) by the intrinsic quality (or otherwise) of posts.
I guess the problem with the choice of 'guru' or 'addict' is that even if someone doesn't want the title 'guru' for ego reasons, 'addict' has negative connotations, so people will choose guru to avoid that. I doubt that many people really give much consideration to the rank of the poster though when reading a post.
I don't let post counts affect my judgment of how smart I think someone is on a message board. Any advice given here should be researched and tested before being used by the person needing help. Once you've been around a message board long enough you know the people who's advice is of a "guru" quality, versus someone who is speaking out of their ass.
some members go as far as posting rhetoric questions just to buff up their posts, even in this particular forum, just check some of the threads you will notice.
My suggestion is: (posts/(thanks+1))/months_as_member
If your score is above 8, --> Learner
If your score is less than 8, --> User
If your score is less than 2, --> Advanced User
If your score is less than 1, --> Expert
If your score is less than 0.8, --> Guru
Then all users whose accounts are 3 months old or less --> LQ Newbies
Rounding to three decimal places only!
3 years as member
(6000/100)/36 = 1.667 --> Advanced User (season user, has been around for long, managed to learn and offer some useful help)
3 years as member
(6000/10)/36 = 16.67 --> Learner (takes ages to learn)
2 years as member
(1000/10)/24 = 4.167 --> User (has been around, but largely seeking help)
8 months as member
(200/30)/8 = 0.833 --> Expert (relatively new, but has offered spot-on advice)
1 years as member
(100/10)/12 = 1.2 --> Advanced User (few posts, but is 10% of them really helped others, the he knows what he is doing)
6 months as member
(280/30)/7 = 1.333 --> Advanced User (a knowledgeable person, who offered tremendous help, but still very new to LQ for us to classify as guru, hence adv user status)
12 months as member
(280/30)/13 = 0.718 --> Guru (a knowledgeable person, having been around for some time now, can now qualify)
Note that the lats 2 examples differ only in the period spent as member. This illustrates The following:
It fends off newbies who just rush to offer (although good) help with the aim to reach guru status in a short time.
Although the last example easily attained Guru after 12 months, you will notice that the assumption was no further posts were made, and no futher thanks were awarded. If however, more posts were submitted with no increase in thanks, you will find it will be difficult to attain Guru status.
The whole point of ranking becomes interesting now!! just my opinion
Last edited by rob124; 05-29-2009 at 11:52 AM.
Reason: corrected maths
8 years as member
(6000/100)/32 = 1.875 --> Advanced User....
Sorry, I have corrected my math. surely a member for 8 years would have deserved more, having been around for such a long time eg.
8 years as member
(6000/100)/96 = 0.625 --> Guru
(but also note tthat he is at the uper end of that scale, close to 0.8)
Would people who genuinely ask and answer questions to the best of their ability be penalised by your system?
My System doesnt punish those who ask and answer genuinely, because it can recognise someone as an expert with only 12 posts, imagine!!!!
That would make me an expert, but I don't consider myself one, I'm still learning, and there's a lot to learn.
From my calculation, your score is 1.714, which DOESNT qualify to be an expert!!!! but an Advanced User.
Still you have been labelled a 'Senior Member' do you consider yourself 'Senior'? In what respect? If you can agree with that title, then for sure you should be able to accept being labelled 'Advanced User' of some sort, especially with 15 thanks, noone can deny that you at least know what you are doing.
Nobody ever said experts dont learn anyway. Most of them in real life are 'consultants' who 'LEARN' with each and every case that a 'Client' brings.
ABOVE ALL, my system primary gaol is to add FUN to the whole thing
The other problem with the proposed math is that the "thanks" system hasn't been around all that long. Long time members with thousands of posts didn't have a chance to be "thanked" for their fair percentage before the "thanks" system was in place. You'd have to separate out number of posts since the system was implemented and possibly extropolate into the past for the rest of them... so
x=(posts since thanks implemented/(thanks+1))/(months_as_member since thanks implemented)
and then you might want to reward people for longevity somehow too..
score=x*months as member
It all sounds too complicated and hardly worth the bother. It's pretty easy to see whose advice is worthwhile after a little experience reading. Mine is mostlyharmless.
Yes, that's true, the thanking system is quite new,
My understanding of the thanking system is:
If a New user searches for an answer to their problem in the forum, and find the solution in someone else's post, IRREGARDLESS of the age of that post, the newbie can still award thanks to that post!!!
and I have done just that, in the past when I joined and was searching for a solution. I was actually impressed by the solutions that were given to my exactly similar problem.