It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# Karma Score???

page: 1
3
share:

posted on May, 11 2016 @ 03:19 PM
Hey guys,

As I'm now trying to find my ATS "Legs", just a quick question. What is the "Oddly calculated Karma Score"? Does it mean Im either utterly insane, or does it mean that the MIB are gonna start knocking my door in? :-) Just seemed like an odd thing to have on my profile.

Many thanks,

K

posted on May, 11 2016 @ 03:22 PM
It's some kind of score thats worked out from your stats. It actually means nothing in the grand scheme of things, so wouldn't worry to much about it.
Personally don't even see the poimt of that and the wats score.
edit on 11/5/16 by Misterlondon because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 11 2016 @ 03:23 PM
an average of your post to star/flags ratio, higher means you get many of those per post

posted on May, 11 2016 @ 03:26 PM

To borrow from schuler

W = (posts / 600) + (flags / 80) + (stars / 170) Example: W = (4074 posts / 600) + (524 flags / 80) + (7619 stars / 170) W = 6.79 + 6.55 + 44.81 W = 58.15 rounded to 58.

The bang for the buck here is in flags which has the smallest denominator of 80. The LEAST bang for the buck is in posts which has the largest denominator of 600. Stars, with a denominator of 170, are worth a little less than half what flags are (.46). It is NOT about quantity, but about starting threads.

Mere posts in this equation do not earn you much at all relative to the other two metrics. If you earn no stars or flags, your WATS score is relatively low in the scheme of things. Quantity is a factor, but it is the least relevant factor of them all. This, by the way, is precisely what Skeptic Overlord has said about the matter in previous posts.

He didn't give us the formula that I recall, but he did say that WATS was a way of rewarding thread starters in his "User provided content" theme of ATS.

Now, K = Karma K = (stars * 15) + ((flags + applause) * 10) / posts Example: 7619 stars * 15 = 114285 (524 flags + 92 applauses) * 10 = 6160 114285 + 6160 = 120445 120445 / 4074 posts = 29.5643103 rounded to 30 Note that here quantity can hurt you if you don't also get stars and flags.

If you had 10,000 posts here instead of 4,074, your karma score would be 12 instead of 30. If you had 2,000 posts your score would be 60. In other words, pithy posts that earn stars and/or flags are worth than toss-off posts with no value.

Note that Points don't appear to count here at all. You EARN points through getting applause, posting a single post, or by people responding to your threads, and points are SUBTRACTED when you've been a bad person and get an "Extreme Content Warning" but points by themselves don't do anything to you K or W scores.

ATS may use points for other things, but we don't know what they are.It seems a bit odd that one applause can earn you 500 points, but it only counts the same as a single flag for the Karma score and not at all for the WATS score.

Hope that helps

Cody

posted on May, 11 2016 @ 03:30 PM
I would learn the search function before worrying about your Karma. In the future It will save you from posting a question that has been answered a dozens of times. Good luck.

posted on May, 11 2016 @ 03:34 PM

But what's the point in all the effort, when you can just look at someones post to star and flag ratio.. It just seems over engineered.

posted on May, 11 2016 @ 03:34 PM

originally posted by: cody599

To borrow from schuler

W = (posts / 600) + (flags / 80) + (stars / 170) Example: W = (4074 posts / 600) + (524 flags / 80) + (7619 stars / 170) W = 6.79 + 6.55 + 44.81 W = 58.15 rounded to 58.

The bang for the buck here is in flags which has the smallest denominator of 80. The LEAST bang for the buck is in posts which has the largest denominator of 600. Stars, with a denominator of 170, are worth a little less than half what flags are (.46). It is NOT about quantity, but about starting threads.

Mere posts in this equation do not earn you much at all relative to the other two metrics. If you earn no stars or flags, your WATS score is relatively low in the scheme of things. Quantity is a factor, but it is the least relevant factor of them all. This, by the way, is precisely what Skeptic Overlord has said about the matter in previous posts.

He didn't give us the formula that I recall, but he did say that WATS was a way of rewarding thread starters in his "User provided content" theme of ATS.

Now, K = Karma K = (stars * 15) + ((flags + applause) * 10) / posts Example: 7619 stars * 15 = 114285 (524 flags + 92 applauses) * 10 = 6160 114285 + 6160 = 120445 120445 / 4074 posts = 29.5643103 rounded to 30 Note that here quantity can hurt you if you don't also get stars and flags.

Hope that helps

Cody

Yup!
though I did wonder for a millisecond who the signee of the mouseover message was....it doesn't seem like Cap'n Birdseye's work.
edit on 11-5-2016 by smurfy because: Words, etc.

posted on May, 11 2016 @ 03:37 PM
The approximate difference between the WATS score and the Karma score is that the first is designed to measure approval of your threads (via stars and flags), while the second is designed to measure approval of your individual posts.

One crucial difference between the two formulas is that Karma has a "divide by the number of posts" somewhere in the calculation. So while WATS gradually accumulates, anyone who posts a lot will be pulling his Karma down, unless he receives compensating stars while doing it.
Every new member starts with a Karma of 20, but 20 posts may rapidly reduce that to 1. My own Karma has only just recently climbed back to 20, and I'm not expecting it to get much higher.

posted on May, 11 2016 @ 03:39 PM

No such thing as a dumb question, and no need to be abrasive.

It's harder to help than criticize, you should try it. If you have the answer then why not post it ?

Helping newbies is a valuable part of being a member IMO, of course the search function is helpful, but you could also explain how to use it.

Cody

posted on May, 11 2016 @ 03:42 PM

originally posted by: Misterlondon

But what's the point in all the effort, when you can just look at someones post to star and flag ratio.. It just seems over engineered.

I just posted the maths

I know a mod who's stats don't reflect the quality of the posts and the ratio is far off kilter.

Cody

posted on May, 11 2016 @ 03:49 PM

originally posted by: cody599

I know a mod who's stats don't reflect the quality of the posts and the ratio is far off kilter.

Cody

That might be something to do with those stars, stars awarded in a post don't always equate to the recorded total which will be the lesser of the two. Don't ask me how that is...I don't know, but it happens.
edit on 11-5-2016 by smurfy because: Text.

posted on May, 11 2016 @ 03:49 PM

smurfy

Long time no see

Must be karma

Cody

posted on May, 11 2016 @ 04:22 PM

Ah, that explains it. I was wondering about that too !

Is it a contest? Do I win something?

edit on 11-5-2016 by Onesmartdog because: Added a few questions.

posted on May, 11 2016 @ 04:59 PM
My original thread on this topic is here. The whole issue is probably moot at this point. There are several problems with the system, and the owners have made no attempt to fix them. It's probably expensive to do so and "fixing" something in software often causes more problems than it fixes. Also, for some people, such as myself, there is some sort of "glitch in the matrix" that throws the whole scoring thing off under certain circumstances. I have not "earned" anywhere near the number of stars it says. Some peculiar combination of factors has managed to throw the whole thing off so that my scores are useless.

ATS has trended from complex to simple over the years. You should have seen it originally, when you "spent points" to "buy" different colored backgrounds and such. With every iteration of the ATS software suite, things have gotten simpler. About all that is left are the green, silver, and gold borders that show relative contributions.

The usual sentiment around here is that such things mean nothing because "everyone puts their pants on the same way" and all that. And the number of stars can be a popularity contest and not truly indicative of quality. Yeah, yeah. I've heard that all before. "Everybody's equal!" "Don't you dare judge me!" and on and on. Okay. I get that, but you know what? When I see someone with a high karma and Wats, with a high post count, and numerous stars, that tells me the person is well-respected in the community and has been around awhile.

Does that mean someone who just joined has nothing to contribute? Of course not. Everyone has to start some time, but when I see a low count of posts and no attempt at all to add an avatar or clean up a presentation, I know that's where trolls come from, people who join up just to cause trouble. We've seen it over and over again. People with a cause get themselves banned, then show right back up as a new user and have another go. Like anywhere else, you earn a reputation over time. If someone HAS been here a long time and contributed, you can tell that pretty readily from the scores. Overall I will pay closer attention to someone who has spent some serious time here contributing.

So obsessing over they system is probably not worthwhile. If it means something to you, fine. If it doesn't mean anything to you at all, fine. Concentrating on making useful posts and refraining from "I agree!" posts is probably your best bet in the long run.

posted on May, 11 2016 @ 06:09 PM
I don't know, but mine is crazy high and I don't even have an avatar!

posted on May, 11 2016 @ 06:29 PM

originally posted by: Battlefresh
I don't know, but mine is crazy high and I don't even have an avatar!

Yup! You've experienced "the glitch." Something triggers the star count to go awry, but it doesn't happen to everyone or at the same time. You have 170 posts and no threads, for example, yet it "glitched" on you fairly early. Once the star count screws up, Karma and Wats go crazy as a result. It's a mystery. Avatars don't count for anything in the scores.
edit on 5/11/2016 by schuyler because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 11 2016 @ 06:33 PM

originally posted by: Battlefresh
I don't know, but mine is crazy high and I don't even have an avatar!

You're a rock solid contributer battlefresh, that's why

new topics

3