wu :: forums - Print Page


    
      
        wu :: forums
        (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
      

        riddles >> suggestions, help, and FAQ >> [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
        
(Message started by: william wu on Sep 9^th, 2002, 2:24am)

Title: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by william wu on Sep 9^th, 2002, 2:24am

FAQ: member ratings and stars?

so some people have been asking me what determines how many stars get placed next to your name in the forum. stars are determined solely based on how many posts you make. it's a pavlovian system that came with YaBB that i didn't design. you need to register as a member so the forum software can keep track of how many posts you make. the ranking thresholds are as follows:

15 - junior member
40 - full member
75 - senior riddler
125 - uberpuzzler

these threshholds have been recently slashed from their original values of (50, 100, 250, 500). i think this reduction is appropriate considering the nature of this forum. compared to most other forums on the net, it's relatively difficult to post here. we talk about very complex problems. you might spend many hours on writing just a couple paragraphs. plus there's always some worry about looking stupid -- which i think is actually a good thing, but that's another story. i was reading thoughtful posts by the prolific forum regulars, and it didn't seem right to see labels like "junior member" next to someone who had written 70 or so well thought posts.

btw, if anyone has better ideas for the member ranking names, i'm open to suggestions. riddle freak? puzzle god? :)

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by Eric Yeh on Sep 9^th, 2002, 6:49am

Will,

I am fascinated by my instantaneous leap from three stars to five without a single post!!! ;) Imagine, going to sleep a mere Full Member and waking up an Uberpuzzler!!!

on 09/09/02 at 02:24:19, william wu wrote:

FAQ: member ratings and stars?
these threshholds have been recently slashed from their original values of (50, 100, 250, 500). i think this reduction is appropriate considering the nature of this forum. compared to most other forums on the net, it's relatively difficult to post here. we talk about very complex problems. you might spend many hours on writing just a couple paragraphs. plus there's always some worry about looking stupid -- which i think is actually a good thing, but that's another story. i was reading thoughtful posts by the prolific forum regulars, and it didn't seem right to see labels like "junior member" next to someone who had written 70 or so well thought posts.

I definitely agree with this! I had the same thought when I was a newbie at 30 posts!!!!!

on 09/09/02 at 02:24:19, william wu wrote:

FAQ: member ratings and stars?
btw, if anyone has better ideas for the member ranking names, i'm open to suggestions. riddle freak? puzzle god? :)

I think they're pretty good overall, Will -- I was certainly intrigued to see my new "position"! :D If anything, "god" sounds better to me than "freak", but I think it's tough to fit into the current hierarchy of names (all of which seem fairly appropriate).

Two questions:

1) Can you extend the system beyond 5 stars? Otherwise what reason do Uberpuzzlers have to live??! ;) Seriously, though, I would anticipate the possibility of a crunch at the top at some point in time, unless you decide to re-up the limits. ;)
2) Why don't the positions show up in the membership list?

Best,
Eric

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by AlexH on Sep 9^th, 2002, 7:07pm

I have to agree with Eric ... while I wasn't looking the bell rang me up to uberpuzzler and I didn't get a chance to salivate, how can I carry on?

In keeping with the spirit of the forum it might be interesting to have the titles come according to some unknown pattern so we can collectively determine the thresholds and try to solve the pattern.

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by Eric Yeh on Sep 9^th, 2002, 7:16pm

Although let me be quick to add (before some horrible fate overtakes us) that I am not at all willing to give up my uberpuzzler status at this point ;) ;) :D

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by william wu on Sep 13^th, 2002, 8:19am

Quote:

In keeping with the spirit of the forum it might be interesting to have the titles come according to some unknown pattern so we can collectively determine the thresholds and try to solve the pattern.

That is a GREAT idea! You guys are so clever. OK I'll see if I can extend the titles further.

Eric: The members list positions column refers to things like "admin" or "moderator", it doesn't show member ratings. I'll look into getting the ratings listed if possible.

For Eric's sake I'll leave the uberpuzzler title around for a little while :D

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by Eric Yeh on Sep 20^th, 2002, 6:30am

Will,

The strange thing is that if you click into someone's profile, you will see that they do define Position as the name of the rating. The rest of the data from the profile is copied straight into the members list, so the asymmetry seems quite strange to me.

More on naming: After some thought, I decided that I believe "Junior Member" and "Full Member" to be "wastes" of titles in soem sense. You are throwing away the option to make two categories that are more colorful! My suggestion would be to change at least one to "Junior Riddler". Possibly:

Newbie - JR - R - SR - UP

but even that seems wasteful; maybe:

N - JR - SR - UP - PG,

although I am loathe to give up UP, and it would also outdate my Puzzle Forum narrative!!!!! Perhaps it would be better for the long run, though...

Of course, if you can extend it to beyond 5, that would be far far superior!!!!!

And just to clarify your statment about the changing titles etc.: The titles themselves will never change after a point, right? They should at most be changing in cutoff. (As I mentioned before, I think the cutoffs may currently be slightly low -- for the long term.)

Best,
Eric

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by TimMann on Oct 12^th, 2002, 2:55pm

Hmm, colorful names...

I like Uberpuzzler and Senior Riddler, and we wouldn't want to mess up Eric's Puzzle Form puzzle, so I'd say to keep those.

How about:

Newbie - Junior Solver - Enigmatist - Senior Riddler - Uberpuzzler

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by TimMann on Oct 12^th, 2002, 2:59pm

... or if you really like Enigmatist (I do!), you could do

Newbie - Junior Riddler - Senior Riddler - Enigmatist - Uberpuzzler

OK, I'll stop now.

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by Eric Yeh on Oct 12^th, 2002, 4:13pm

Tim,

I agree that there's no doubt Enigmatist sounds cool. My problem with it is that it sounds difficut to place, not knowing anything about it. Your second post illustrates this point exactly: is E>SR, or E<SR?? Hard to say what should be, unlike N<JR, UP<PG, etc.

I agree it is something to be thought about, though!

I also don't like the asymmetry btwn "jr solver" and "sr riddler" -- I'm not sure if that was just a typo, though.

Best,
Eric

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by Lupin on Jul 17^th, 2003, 10:00am

Maybe these:

Novice
Apprentice
Solver
Riddler
Master Riddler

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by Eric Yeh on Jul 24^th, 2003, 3:37pm

novice sounds all right v newbie, tho it would change lore a bit ;) but i think uberpuzzler is still far and away best for top honors! (plus, some of those others sound a bit similar to me...)

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by Eric Yeh on Aug 12^th, 2003, 1:07pm

eh. i got downgraded. whats up w that??!

hahaha jk.

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by mistysakura on Aug 12^th, 2003, 10:56pm

Yeah, people are being "degraded" - I seem to remember Speaker and myself as Senior Riddlers, for instance. What happened? People with 300 posts are meant to be uberpuzzlers...

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by towr on Aug 13^th, 2003, 1:56am

interesting how this is leaving everyone puzzled..

But the reason the thresholds where lowered in the first place is because william didn't think people would post as much as they do.. But, since they do, the thresholds can be set higher (though I suppose one could also invent new intermediate ranks)
On the other hand one could dispose of rank alltogether, that why it won't be an issue..

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by william wu on Aug 13^th, 2003, 3:18am

hehe ... don't worry guys ... once i figure out how to hack this forum properly and insert intermediate ranks, we'll have plenty of grandiloquent titles and crypto-encoded post threshholds for everyone :)

let me try to get this math symbol / smiley hack working properly first ... :)

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by Eric Yeh on Aug 13^th, 2003, 5:48am

no worries; i know ive been gone for ages. im still not sure why after a year ppl suddenly started writing to [several different ones of] my watch threads again!! o well :P

and no, i was never "puzzled" towr, haha. just joking around. as you can see from my original posts to this board (starting from #2), i always thought the thresholds should be higher too. and its good that im finally given a chance to moonlight as a senior puzzler, since ive never been one before!!! hahahahaha ;)

and will, my only humble suggestion is that you are very careful to preserve "sensibility" if you insert many new titles.
as may be evident again from my earlier posts to this very thread, i find it really funny when a title structure encompasses levels which are not clearly different from one another. in the current scheme i think it is easy to see which title is "better" for any two titles... i hope it will remain that way!!

o -- and ive also always thought that contributors should get something distinguishing too ;) but i know i know, thats getting greedy hahaha.

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by william wu on Aug 29^th, 2003, 3:12am

on 09/09/02 at 06:49:38, Eric Yeh wrote:

2) Why don't the positions show up in the membership list?

update: membership list has been revamped. members are now ordered from greatest number of posts to least. also displayed are ranks, country flags, bar graphs, registration dates, e-mail addresses, homepages, and links to four different instant messaging screennames (forum IM, ICQ, YIM, AIM) :)

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by Icarus on Sep 1^st, 2003, 2:09pm

I assumed when you changed the scales again that you had changed them back to the defaults (50, 100, 250, 500). But I see that Maryl has over 500 posts but is still listed as a Senior Riddler.

What are the new cutoffs?

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by william wu on Sep 1^st, 2003, 10:29pm

I shifted it to 50, 150, 300, 600. This was intended to be a temporary threshold sequence until the forum is modified to have additional membergroups (ranks). However, adding ranks turned out to be more difficult than I expected due to boring technical issues (recent modifications affecting intended modifications, incompatibilties with the version of YaBB we're running, etc). I'll try again.

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by Icarus on Sep 2^nd, 2003, 4:25pm

It's no skin off my nose, obviously. I was just curious. :)

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by SWF on Sep 2^nd, 2003, 7:58pm

That is easy for you to say, Icarus. You weren't demoted from Uberpuzzler down two levels to Fool Member, like me. :'(

I just need to be more prolific to improve my status.

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by Sir Col on Sep 3^rd, 2003, 1:30am

Don't you dare, SWF; no one could produce posts to your standard in abundance, without sacrificing quality. In the words of Gauss, pauca sed matura, which means, "few, but ripe". 8)

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by Icarus on Sep 3^rd, 2003, 3:32pm

on 09/03/03 at 01:30:37, Sir Col wrote:

Don't you dare, SWF; no one could produce posts to your standard in abundance, without sacrificing quality. In the words of Gauss, pauca sed matura, which means, "few, but ripe". 8)

Ahh! So this shows what you think of James', Towr's, and my posts! ;)

I guess the words me would be "many, and overipe!" :D

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by Sir Col on Sep 3^rd, 2003, 3:53pm

multi et super matura :P

To dig myself out of the hole, I need to point out that one of my heroes, Leonhard Euler, was both prolific and profound in his mathematics. Did you know that, of all the science produced in the 18th century, Euler produced one-third of it? I kid you not.

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by maryl on Sep 3^rd, 2003, 5:03pm

on 09/01/03 at 22:29:48, william wu wrote:

Actually, I think these numbers make more sense; oh I don't mind sweating a little longer-it always makes you appreciate things more.

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by wowbagger on Sep 4^th, 2003, 2:36am

on 09/03/03 at 15:53:30, Sir Col wrote:

Did you know that, of all the science produced in the 18th century, Euler produced one-third of it?

No, I didn't.

on 09/03/03 at 17:03:30, maryl wrote:

I don't mind sweating a little longer-it always makes you appreciate things more.

That's right. If it weren't for those poor newbies, one could up the thresholds every once in a while. Although more ranks would be the right track, I think.

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by Icarus on Sep 4^th, 2003, 3:46pm

on 09/03/03 at 15:53:30, Sir Col wrote:

multi et super matura :P

Thanks! I needed a new signature!

Quote:

To dig myself out of the hole, I need to point out that one of my heroes, Leonhard Euler, was both prolific and profound in his mathematics. Did you know that, of all the science produced in the 18th century, Euler produced one-third of it? I kid you not.

I didn't know that particular number, but I knew that he was far and again the most prolific researcher of all time. Also, last I heard not all of his work has yet been published. There is a committee dedicated to publishing it.

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by SWF on Sep 4^th, 2003, 6:44pm

on 09/03/03 at 15:53:30, Sir Col wrote:

Did you know that, of all the science produced in the 18th century, Euler produced one-third of it? I kid you not.

One-third!? Not even Icarus has that high percentage of the posts in this forum. Actually, I think this statement about Euler is a slight exaggeration. I was able to find several links on Euler with this statement:

Quote:

His 866 books and articles represent about one third of the entire body of research on mathematics, theoretical physics, and engineering mechanics published between 1726 and 1800.

That does not cover all the sciences or the whole 18th century. In that century there were plenty of important discoveries in chemistry, for example.

Not that I have anything against Euler. His achievements are remarkable, and he has been my favorite mathematician/scientist/engineer for some time. Favorite mathematicians may be a good topic of discussion for another thread, since Euler does not have enough posts to qualify as a one-star Newbie.

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by Sir Col on Oct 27^th, 2003, 8:49am

I just noticed my post count, 559, as I post, and I was thinking how silly it is that I will be an Uberpuzzler in 41, or so, posts. When I compare my puzzle solving skills with the experts on this site it hardly seems right that a post count should determine the rank; after all, I rarely advance beyond the 'Easy' puzzle section, and my attempts at many of the 'Medium' and 'Hard' puzzles are, at best, brave. And, no moderators, please don't start deleting my posts to 'fix' the problem! :P

So I have a suggestion for the members' rating system, albeit rather contentious. The moderators award ranks over time to promising members. It should be partly related to post count, as it would be equally unfair to promote a member if they only solves one puzzle a week; even though their solution is earth-shattering.

It is certainly true that the moderators are regular visitors and get to know other regular visitors. The ranking system, although it does appeal to the ego on one level, should be as a guide to newbies and casual visitors, to give them some indication of the puzzle solving skill of the member they're interacting with. Over time, and to regulars, there is little doubt who are the experts, but imagine walking into a lecture room with a question, and addressing the janitor just because he's standing at the front.

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by Icarus on Oct 27^th, 2003, 6:02pm

Now, don't be fooling with things like that! I'm ahead of towr and James the way things are now, so don't be messing with it! >:(

Besides, didn't you ever watch "Good Will Hunting"? That janitor might be just the guy you need!

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by towr on Oct 28^th, 2003, 12:36am

on 10/27/03 at 08:49:39, Sir Col wrote:

When I compare my puzzle solving skills with the experts on this site it hardly seems right that a post count should determine the rank;

I often have the same feeling (about my own rank ;))
Pretty much in every field we touch on in this forum there's someone vastly more skilled than me.. Though I guess I'm pretty well-rounded.

Quote:

So I have a suggestion for the members' rating system, albeit rather contentious. The moderators award ranks over time to promising members. It should be partly related to post count, as it would be equally unfair to promote a member if they only solves one puzzle a week; even though their solution is earth-shattering.

That also depends a little on how long they've been coming every week. There are a few 'regulars' that don't show up here often, but are nonetheless exceptional puzzlers..
Some people do have a life, after all ;)
I don't think I would be too comfortable handing out ranks though, enivitably you'll get people wondering 'why did he/she get a rank, but not me?'. If it's automatic than there's no such problem.

Quote:

It is certainly true that the moderators are regular visitors and get to know other regular visitors. The ranking system, although it does appeal to the ego on one level, should be as a guide to newbies and casual visitors, to give them some indication of the puzzle solving skill of the member they're interacting with.

If rank is to give some indication of puzzle-solving skill, then it should probably also reflect what kind of puzzles someone is skilled in.
Maybe we could just try to implement William's massively multiplayer online puzzle roleplaying game ;)

Quote:

Over time, and to regulars, there is little doubt who are the experts, but imagine walking into a lecture room with a question, and addressing the janitor just because he's standing at the front.

If nothing else he could give direction to how can answer the question..
I don't really think it's much of a problem here though, if someone has a question they just post it, and some experts will usually swarm to it like flies to a rotting carcas (maybe not the best analogy ;))

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by srn347 on Sep 19^th, 2007, 10:43pm

Who keeps shifting them and is it related to the robots attacking the server?

Title: Re: [ FAQ: member ratings and stars? ]
Post by towr on Sep 20^th, 2007, 1:06am

*Sigh* again with the gravedigging. Why can't you leave multiple-year-old threads to rest in peace; especially when you don't contribute to them in the slightest.

on 09/19/07 at 22:43:12, srn347 wrote:

Who keeps shifting them and is it related to the robots attacking the server?

It has nothing to do with bots.
The ranks are attributed automatically by the forum, and the thresholds are set by the admin.