So The Top 50 All-Time Contributors List is Up! I am Shocked!

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

You know what...let's call a spade a spade. I am not going to be afraid to speak up. This system is geared towards contributions, not quality, and hence commercialism. There, I said it so you don't have to. And it's frankly just sad. But nothing personal, mind you, it's just business.

You called the spade exactly for what it is, reliant on quantity and not quality. I think the current points/WATS/whatever-else system is really hurting the website, just look at the last week with all the doomsday prediction threads which have made the homepage, they speak enough. Not that I'm complaining or anything, I understand how online business works, but it comes as unsettling for a site which is meant to be espousing the 'deny ignorance' ideology at its core.

reply to post by MemoryShock


thank you for that thoughtful reply makes sense I guess,

I was only joking though

been a long day & my humor is pretty dry, hard to detect without the emoticons I forgot to add....like this one

Congrats again dynamic top 50 (see that covers any future changes to the line up....I'm lazy)

maybe one day I might make this list.......one can dream

reply to post by B.Morrison


As long as you put effort into your work you can make the top 50. But you must either contribute alot with good effort or some with huge effort, either way if/when you make the top 50 you will rightfully deserve it.

What would be really cool, is if we could take from our own stock of stars and flags, to give to someone else for a good post or thread (maybe even only to double our contribution of a start or flag). However, make it like a 2 for 1 trade, so it really has to be worth it. Some threads or posts are truly outstanding, yet recieve little attention simply because most people may not agree with it. I have seen a few threads (some that go against my own personal worl-view) that are outstanding and I would easily trade 2 of my flags or stars to contribut an extra to them, for that particular post. Maybe even buy extra flags or stars for that post with points, since points seem to have little practicallity now anyway.


--airspoon

Too bad a lot of my stuff was prior to these stars and flags, hehe...

Oh well, I'm just happy if folks enjoy reading anything I wrote.

Congrats to those in the top!

Originally posted by serbsta

Originally posted by TrueAmerican

You know what...let's call a spade a spade. I am not going to be afraid to speak up. This system is geared towards contributions, not quality, and hence commercialism. There, I said it so you don't have to. And it's frankly just sad. But nothing personal, mind you, it's just business.

You called the spade exactly for what it is, reliant on quantity and not quality.

I have to disagree. There may be 10 members with more threads than me and NO ONE is coming close to my post count. Just check my panel. Nd I'm at 26. Nothing to do with "quantity over quality". Nothing wrong with the way this is set up.

I don't think there should be any 'top 50' posters.
Just have the point count and the post count and be done with it.
As I said before ... I miss those green lines we used to have under our names.
Flags don't necessarily = smart post
Stars just mean people agree with you and not necessarily that the post is right or 'smart'.

It's all too complicated.
Or maybe I'm just too freak'n old and grumpy.

reply to post by intrepid


Well, this is why I think we really need some measure of the TOTAL ATS EXPERIENCE, otherwise known from here forward as your TAE. I figure let the members decide which figure carries more weight, TAE or WATS, but display both.

Here is what that would look like comparing your profile to mine for example, and you can see the formula, done in Excel:



I figure that is about right. As you can see, you kick my ass in TAE.

Anyone else like me to plug your numbers in?

ETA...Also, the replies figure (which has been removed) should also be included...


Also, just so ya know FlyersFan, your TAE = 77,706. You're kickin my butt too.


Another option of course would be to multiply TAE by WATS for one number...and then maybe divide by 10,000 or so to reduce the final number size down.

reply to post by TrueAmerican

Hey, TA:

I've been reading this thread for sometime, and honestly, I've felt conflicted about whether to participate in the discussion. Doing so risks appearing vain or biased, or worse...and I have no wish for that outcome.

But what the hell, let me throw caution to the wind...

First, I'm of course pleased to have made the original list, and it's always nice to receive recognition for one's efforts. But even while that is true, upon reflection, it isn't really the primary reason I'm here.

I'm sure the same if true for you.

I love the notion of flagging and starring content, because for me, they serve as useful navigation tools for where I can spend my limited time and focus. But ranking members is not something I've ever been fully comfortable with.

I suppose any system that is devised will likely be flawed to some extent. I think part of the answer lies with what the real purpose of ranking members is? Is it to recognize quality? Popularity? Quantity? All of the above?

The current method calculates WATS = ((FLAGS*5))STARS/1,000,000. This method clearly focuses on popularity, which one can argue in some respects is a proxy for the other qualities I mentioned. But I have to admit, it surprises me applause are not factored in the calculation.

Your suggested method:

TAE = (POINTS/100)+(FLAGS*5)+(STARS*2)+THREADS+POSTS+(APPLAUSE*100).

It too has some issues. Since points are largely a function of threads, posts and replies, there is some inherent redundancy to what is included in your formula. Moreover, a score in the tens of thousands range seems a bit much- even cosmetically.

Just for fun, here's my crack at this:

First, I looked at the top most threads and worked backwards into an approach. That seemed logical to me. Here is what I came up with...

WATS = (FLAGS+(STARS*0.2)+(THREADS*0.1)+(POSTS*0.01)+(APPLAUSE*10)) / 100

Breaking this down, then:

- One APPLAUSE has ten times the value of one FLAG.

- One STAR has 20% of the value of one FLAG.

- One THREAD has 10% of the value of one FLAG.

- One POST has 1% of the value as one THREAD.

So this is what it would look like when applied to the top most FLAGGED thread on this site: PARA: Untersberg - The Mystery Mountain. It has 586 flags and 170 stars in the first post. Assuming a value of one each for the thread, post and applause, the WATS score for that thread would be 6.3 or simply 6.

Looking at it another way:

One (1) WATS = 50 FLAGS, 200 STARS, 1 THREAD, 1 POST & 1 APPLAUSE.

The current system requires as one possible combination:

One (1) WATS = 50 FLAGS & 2000 STARS.

That's my $0.02 on the matter.

One final note:

I'm just grateful some people read my stuff and like it at all.

It's always nice to know you're appreciated.

Thanks to folks for that.

EDIT:

Almost forgot, my new WATS score would be 81 under the system I propose. TA, yours would be 88.

First, congratulations to those who've made the top 50 - well done!

___________________________________

Second, with regards to the system itself, my opinion is this: If there must be an ATS evaluation of member participation/contribution and the (current WATS would indicate there is) then it should be all-inclusive, to be most accurate.

p.s. Are the blue flag bars coming back? Anyone know?

reply to post by TrueAmerican


TAE = 29,517
WATS = 67

TAE * WATS = / 10,000 = 198

Wow, both of you have far more experience than I.

Some clarifications...

"Applause" is not part of the calculation because, as always, we prefer these matters be judged completely by members through their actions in stars and flags. We are, and have always been, a venue that places a high-priority on the opinions of our members -- even to the extent that it's very difficult for me, the one who coded everything here, to modify an errant thread that would appear on the home page (a recently locked [HOAX] thread, for example). In my opinion, factoring in applause would place too much influence on the opinion of a very-select minority of ATS users.

However... keep in mind that when a staffer applauds a member, they get two stars if it's for a reply, and two stars plus a flag if it's an opening post. So applause from a staffer does indeed influence the numbers.

While perhaps not absolutely perfect, I think the current calculation does a very good job of ranking members based on what other members think/do. And that's the whole point.

No offense guys (gals too?), as I like your entusiasm, but it seems to be getting far too complicated. I think the formula currently used is as good as it gets. Whatever happened to doing our best to construct threads or reply to the same and hoping for a wide audience to read and possibly appreciate our hard work? Whatever happened to the entertainment value of the same? Is not everything else just simply an addition or side note?

When we start to worry about who comes in first, last or doesn't rank at all, we are only taking our eye off the ball and the forest can't be discerned from the trees. I'm guilty of it too, however if we just focus on putting together outstanding threads and posts (as people both on and off the list seem to do anyway), then everything else is just a bonus.

You guys put together some outstanding threads and your WATS score doesn't add or subtract from that in anyway what so ever. I think most people would agree. With that being said, I often find myself coming to the WATS page to see the latest outstanding threads from the members most often flagged. It's really as simple as that. I'm not limiting my ATS exploration simply to these members, just using it as one additional navigation tool to some of the best content the internet has to offer. I don't see it as anything other than what it is really.

Anything other than that is, well, far too complicated and distracting to the subject matter at hand. Keep up the excellent work guys, regardless and irrespective of your WATS score.


--airspoon

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
We are, and have always been, a venue that places a high-priority on the opinions of our members...In my opinion, factoring in applause would place too much influence on the opinion of a very-select minority of ATS users.

I think that is an excellent point. I understand that view perfectly.

Thanks for commenting.

That point should have been obvious to me from the start. There's 30 minutes of my life I'm never getting back

I'm not one to usually miss the forest for the trees. I must be getting old.

reply to post by loam


Well, under my formula your TAE = 76,148, again, kicking my butt.

And frankly, anyone with 346 applauses SHOULD be kicking my butt. Under your system I had an edge. Shouldn't be.

Let's be real here. Applauses, as SO said, do indeed affect things anyway. So what's the beef? My formula takes into account ALL. Divide the final number down further to reduce size, but it's all there. No one can bitch that ANY FACET of their experience here has been left out (except for views and replies possibly). And further thinking about it, I think TAE SHOULD be multiplied by WATS, then reduced down to produce ONE number in the 4-digit range. That would definitely be the ONE number that encompasses EVERY LAST MEASURE OF A MEMBER'S experience here, under the TAE-proposed system.

And just about the time I get godlike (today) you yank it.... grrr....

reply to post by TrueAmerican


Two points.

Looking at star count you obviously impress the masses. I on the other hand appear to be an acquired taste of the aristocracy....(or I could confess I've purchased all my applause with cold hard cash. )

Concerning the GODLIKE WISDOM label, you are free to borrow mine. I got it on the cheep. Only took a few Twinkies.

(Something tells me I shall never get another applause again. )





I think I better move on....

reply to post by loam


Well I can tell you this much. The whole reason I started this thread is because I was indeed shocked to be #7 on the list. I shouldn't be there. Not in the face of some others who would be on top of that list quickly if we went with TAE*WATS/10,000. Anyone want to see what that list would look like?

I can't believe some of the more experienced older members, even mods, are not speaking up on this. It is geared towards you. To include you, that are not on the list.

reply to post by TrueAmerican


I understand.

But don't sell yourself too short. You've been a great contributor.

Personally, I don't care too much what score I or others receive. I focus on my content and treat each individual flag, star and applause as a gift of appreciation. That is usually more than enough for me.

See you on the boards!

Nah, actually TAE/1000 is my final proposal, all things considered. It will put the wisest ones on top, no bones about it. It solves the inequity problem, encourages more contributions, encourages light competition, will increase posts, threads and quality, and ultimately benefits the site the most overall. If you guys can't see that, then I am done. Nothing else to say. See yas on the boards.

Originally posted by intrepid

I have to disagree. There may be 10 members with more threads than me and NO ONE is coming close to my post count. Just check my panel. Nd I'm at 26. Nothing to do with "quantity over quality". Nothing wrong with the way this is set up.

Sure, I understand buddy.

But, I was thinking in the sense of the general idea behind actually ranking people. It is the ranking which encourages quantity and this may at times be perceived to be more valuable than quality, in effect, hurting the site not only from the perspective of those within but also from the perspective of those peering in from the outside. Ranking is silly and unnecessary; I'm not complaining or anything, I couldn't care less who ranks where, but just thought it an interesting discussion and wanted to share my 0.02.

Regards.