ATS 2010 Updates Thread - #(UPDATE Nov. 10)#

page: 58
40
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

However, there are lots of members who contribute well, but may not start many threads; the KARMA score is for them. The karma calculation places a high weight on stars, a secondary weight on staff applause, and a tertiary lesser-weight on Flags; then compares all that against the number of posts. So that it is indeed possible for a new member with few threads, but great ideas in lots of replies, to achieve a higher "KARMA" than long-time high-WATS members.


Mmm, I just noticed a member with 39 posts and a 107 karma ... is that the way it is supposed to work?




posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


If those were great posts... Yes, that's exactly how it's supposed to work.
edit on 27-10-2010 by SkepticOverlord because: fixed typos from typing on the iPad



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Hey SO you've only got 10 what's up with that?

Surely you can just give yourself a few 100, i know i would, hehe.

(Did i just say that out loud,doh!)

Hare Krishna, Hare Rama......



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


So in a way our post count history works against long time members



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Kewl, I like it ... it's basically quality in relation to one's contribution level.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 
I've no idea if the system records members starring and flagging, but if there is, it'd be cool if that was recognised.

Like you say, any system is open to abuse. On the other hand, a lot of good threads are lacking stars. In my experience, a thread full of starred posts shows more interaction. It encourages the feelgood factor.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Uh ok, I guess I should feel ok I have about the same Karma, as Skeptic Overlord. Erm..

I feel like I have my own baseball card.. Now we just need batting averages and ERA's..

What am I suppose to do with my Karma? Is it a judgmental thing?



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Im shocked i have lvl 35 karma.

Does that mean im cooler than anyone who has a lower karma rating?


SO: whats the exact formula for this?

I know WATS = (5 x (Number of flags) + (Number of applause * 5) x (Number of stars)) *Or something like that*

Karma =
?



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


Quick question SO.

Is there a top 50 Karma list?



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 


It is kind of odd that SO, one of the all-time top posters, has only 10 Karma.

I guess he needs to venture out of BB&Q and into the rest of ATS-land more often!



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ugie1028
 


Im shocked i have lvl 35 karma.

Does that mean im cooler than anyone who has a lower karma rating?



I have a feeling the higher the number the 'less' karma you have...it's all a sick joke.





posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by schrodingers dog
 


So in a way our post count history works against long time members


In a way I suppose that's right ... there are older members who posted a lot pre-star/flag system, others that have posted thousands of posts in BTS when stars weren't there. But I suspect older members care less about these things so it's little or no skin off of our backs.

What it hopefully achieves is that newer members are encouraged to make every post count so as to keep their K rating high ... I think we can all agree that that's a good thing. Or they'll stop posting all together for fear their rating will drop.


edit on 26 Oct 2010 by schrodingers dog because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
I think the lower the Karma, is the better.. Since many of the big posters have low karma..



Its like a Pitcher's ERA..



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Karma seems to have something to do with the post-to-star ratio. For instance, if you have 10 posts and 10 stars, your karma would be approximately 15. 10 posts, 20 stars is about 30, 10 posts and 30 is about 45, etc. Of course, this isn't factoring in applause.

Also, I appreciate SO making it so that it is a decimal calculation for those with a WATS score of less than 1. At least they won't feel as bad anymore for being on ATS for years and having a score of 0.
edit on 10/26/2010 by SonicInfinity because: Added in WATS comment



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by facelift
 


Ah i see. So the more posts your have, it decreases your karma rating. So i guess you can say its like a reverse WATS system, but for the newbies.

I guess i have to get rid of my Karma now...



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by facelift
 


I noticed your Karma plummeted from a perfect 100 down to 99


schrodingers dog, It's all good.
edit on 26-10-2010 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I noticed your Karma plummeted from a perfect 100 down to 99


I think they looked over my 'friend' list, saw you, and made me pay the price...


Thanks a lot buddy...



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by facelift
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


I noticed your Karma plummeted from a perfect 100 down to 99


I think they looked over my 'friend' list, saw you, and made me pay the price...


Thanks a lot buddy...


Anytime bro....



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bicent76
I think the lower the Karma, is the better.. Since many of the big posters have low karma..


Not quite - read the 3rd paragraph again -



Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
As many have noticed, a new "KARMA" parameter has been added to the mini-profiles... and perhaps because of some of the comments in this thread, I moved-up the integration plan a bit.

First... the "WATS" score. I know many believe there to be some controversy or at the least, unfairness, in the method of calculation for the "Way Above Top Secret" ranking. The concerns/comments/ideas have not been ignored, but since the intent is to apply a heavy statistical weight to those who start threads, I believe the oft-discussed formula serves that purpose well, and is in no need of refinement.

However, there are lots of members who contribute well, but may not start many threads; the KARMA score is for them. The karma calculation places a high weight on stars, a secondary weight on staff applause, and a tertiary lesser-weight on Flags; then compares all that against the number of posts. So that it is indeed possible for a new member with few threads, but great ideas in lots of replies, to achieve a higher "KARMA" than long-time high-WATS members.



Okay... I know what you're thinking, "This can be abused."

Any system can be gamed in one way or another. However, since the new calculation is based on a combination of factors that includes the input of staff applause, it won't be easy.

So enjoy your Karma while it lasts. Tomorrow, a new person may join whose awesomeness whips yer but.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


What are you talking about? It seems to still be at 100 to me.


In all seriousness, I hope people don't start trying to buy ATS stars on Ebay or something. A system like this might give newbies an inflated ego.





new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join