W = (posts / 600) + (flags / 80) + (stars / 170)
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
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.
edit on 4/1/2012 by schuyler because: (no