Rep re-set?

**David Bailey** · 29th-November-2005, 08:39 PM

OK, as instructed (well, bribed) by Dee

I've been informed that rep levels have been re-set before, back in the dim and distant past of, I dunno, last year sometime, because "people's reps were getting into the thousands" - dunno how much of that was hyperbole, but that's what I heard.

Now, despite my best tart-y efforts, I can't see "thousands" happening to anyone, any time soon

On the other hand, the system is clearly inflationary, in that power levels increase with more rep, and rep points given depend on the power levels of the giver. So at some point it'll clearly be at silly levels, we'll all have power 10, repping 100 points / day (or in MartinHarper's case, -ve repping 50 points / day), and the numbers will get to silly levels. So maybe we should take them down...

My preferred option (I believe ESG suggested it originally, but hell, I'll take the credit), is to have a "rep decay" rate of, say, 1% per week. But that's apparently seriously difficult to implement.

So I'm wondering whether it's a good idea to reset everyone's rep to 10 at the end of each year; presumably this is relatively easy, and means people can start the new year fresh - bit like the Premiership really...

Any thoughts?

Jazz_Shoes (Ash) · 29th-November-2005, 10:16 PM

I think you're thinking about this far too much. I think we should just keep it as it is, I can't say that iv'e ever thought about it myself. Beisides i'm just starting to build up my rep...

STOP SPENDING SO MUCH TIME ON THE FORUM DAVIDJAMES!!!!!

**El Salsero Gringo** · 29th-November-2005, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidJames

My preferred option (I believe ESG suggested it originally, but hell, I'll take the credit), is to have a "rep decay" rate of, say, 1% per week. But that's apparently seriously difficult to implement.

Actually, from a coding point of view, it would be pretty trivial.

David Franklin · 29th-November-2005, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo

Actually, from a coding point of view, it would be pretty trivial.

I think the technical term is a small matter of programming. Very kind of you to volunteer, anyhow...

**David Bailey** · 29th-November-2005, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo

Actually, from a coding point of view, it would be pretty trivial.

Maybe it's just me, but whenever I hear one of our developers at work say that, it scares the hell out of me. It's almost as scary as my boss telling me "it's just a 5-minute job".

(Oh yes, and don't think I don't know who voted for the "Reset DavidJames only" option, Mr Ass...

)

Anyway, yes, if it could be done fairly simply, I think a decay would be ideal. 1% a month gives c. 50% a year degradation, which seems fairly reasonable to me. And hopefully that'd avoid any further need for tweakage on Franck's part.

David Franklin · 29th-November-2005, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidJames

Maybe it's just me, but whenever I hear one of our developers at work say that, it scares the hell out of me. It's almost as scary as my boss telling me "it's just a 5-minute job".

But quite a lot less scary than when the engineer says "Oops... That doesn't look good..."

Quote:

Anyway, yes, if it could be done fairly simply, I think a decay would be ideal. 1% a month gives c. 50% a year degradation, which seems fairly reasonable to me.

In point of fact, 1% a month is slightly less than 12% a year. Did you mean 1% a week (~40% a year)?

**El Salsero Gringo** · 29th-November-2005, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Franklin

I think the technical term is a small matter of programming. Very kind of you to volunteer, anyhow...

OK. I'll take up the challenge, if the architecture of vBulletin allows it. I don't know if Franck would implement it, though.

**David Bailey** · 29th-November-2005, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Franklin

In point of fact, 1% a month is slightly less than 12% a year. Did you mean 1% a week (~40% a year)?

Err, possibly...

(This illustrates why I'm the Ideas Man, not the Details Man)

David Franklin · 29th-November-2005, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidJames

Err, possibly...

(This illustrates why I'm the Ideas Man, not the Details Man)

Funny, I'd heard you were the "Oh dear" Man...

**Zebra Woman** · 29th-November-2005, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Franklin

Funny, I'd heard you were the "Oh dear" Man...

So very witty

**Gadget** · 29th-November-2005, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidJames

My preferred option (I believe ESG suggested it originally, but hell, I'll take the credit), is to have a "rep decay" rate of, say, 1% per week. But that's apparently seriously difficult to implement.

As I said when it was initially suggested: is something written a year ago not worth repping? Does time decay it's relevance, the ideas within, the touching sentiment, the heart-felt posting or the witty repartee?

I agree that the power thing is a bit bias: I don't think that your current rep should be taken into account in working out your 'power': Number of posts and longevity of membership are valid, but including your current rep is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I don't think that they should be re-set in their entirety: perhaps some sort of "pips" awarded for every hundred rep points before the counter is re-set again? Or just reduce the rep by a percentge (eg 80%)

Ghost · 30th-November-2005, 12:06 AM

Could go the other route - re-set to 1,000 for everyone on 1st Jan.

The difference between a rep of 1,085 and 1,736 looks a lot less than the difference between 85 and 736. Set all neg rep to a max value of 1 so people would be encouraged to send it and people would be less bothered receiving it. "I went from 1,004 to 1,003" is less traumatic than "I went from 4 to 3!"

Plus it goes well with the philosophy that everyone is wonderful and it's up to each individual to prove otherwise.

Take care,
Christopher

PS Yes I know there's flaws in my concepts. Please fix them rather than just point them out

**ducasi** · 30th-November-2005, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El Salsero Gringo

OK. I'll take up the challenge, if the architecture of vBulletin allows it. I don't know if Franck would implement it, though.

It's got a new pluggable architecture that should make it a doddle. You can even set up tasks for it to run on a regular basis.

You'll probably have to buy your own copy of it to do this though...

**ducasi** · 30th-November-2005, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidJames

(Oh yes, and don't think I don't know who voted for the "Reset DavidJames only" option, Mr Ass...

)

I think you don't know...

**El Salsero Gringo** · 30th-November-2005, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gadget

Or just reduce the rep by a percentge (eg 80%)

That's a good idea. We could even make it happen regularly...

How about 1%, once a week?

**El Salsero Gringo** · 30th-November-2005, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ducasi

I think you don't know...

He does now.

**ducasi** · 30th-November-2005, 12:37 AM

I guess my last post might have given the clue that I don't think a reset is needed. As it's a meaningless number, what does it matter if it's 245,432 or 10?

The rep-decay isn't such a bad idea, but one simple change that could be made now is to remove the "time served" aspect of the rep power score, and base it purely on number of posts and reputation. That way people who are actually active will have power, rather than folks who signed up years ago but hardly ever read or post.

**Gadget** · 30th-November-2005, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ducasi

The rep-decay isn't such a bad idea, but one simple change that could be made now is to remove the "time served" aspect of the rep power score, and base it purely on number of posts and reputation. That way people who are actually active will have power, rather than folks who signed up years ago but hardly ever read or post.

Again: why? There is much wisdom from the likes of DavidB, LillyB, Franck, Rachel, Gus, Lounge Lizard, ... and a host of others that deserve rep. Rep is not a method of seeing who is most prolific: you have the number of posts for that. It's who's posts you are more likley to pay attention to and respect - what you have contributed to the forum.

Re-setting is like saying "yea, you contributed in the past, but

View Poll Results: Rep re-set?
Yes: back to 10 for everyone, effective Jan 1st	3	9.09%
No: it's fine as it is, and Franck's got enough on his plate already	14	42.42%
Don't care: you spend too much time worrying about this	7	21.21%
Yes: re-set DavidJames' rep only, see how he likes it	7	21.21%
Clicky-clicky, me likey...	2	6.06%
Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll \| Withdraw Vote

29th-November-2005, 08:39 PM	#1 (permalink)
David Bailey Formerly known as DavidJames Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Norf Lundin Posts: 14,344 Status: Yes Blog Entries: 1 Rep Power: 8 Rep.: 3872	Rep re-set? OK, as instructed (well, bribed) by Dee I've been informed that rep levels have been re-set before, back in the dim and distant past of, I dunno, last year sometime, because "people's reps were getting into the thousands" - dunno how much of that was hyperbole, but that's what I heard. Now, despite my best tart-y efforts, I can't see "thousands" happening to anyone, any time soon On the other hand, the system is clearly inflationary, in that power levels increase with more rep, and rep points given depend on the power levels of the giver. So at some point it'll clearly be at silly levels, we'll all have power 10, repping 100 points / day (or in MartinHarper's case, -ve repping 50 points / day), and the numbers will get to silly levels. So maybe we should take them down... My preferred option (I believe ESG suggested it originally, but hell, I'll take the credit), is to have a "rep decay" rate of, say, 1% per week. But that's apparently seriously difficult to implement. So I'm wondering whether it's a good idea to reset everyone's rep to 10 at the end of each year; presumably this is relatively easy, and means people can start the new year fresh - bit like the Premiership really... Any thoughts? __________________ Jivetango Godfather Inventor of the Masterclass Baboon-worrier extraordinaire

29th-November-2005, 10:16 PM	#2 (permalink)
Jazz_Shoes (Ash) Little Miss Jazz Shoes Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Glasvegas Posts: 926 Status: No Status Rep Power: 2 Rep.: 324	Re: Rep re-set? I think you're thinking about this far too much. I think we should just keep it as it is, I can't say that iv'e ever thought about it myself. Beisides i'm just starting to build up my rep... STOP SPENDING SO MUCH TIME ON THE FORUM DAVIDJAMES!!!!!

30th-November-2005, 12:06 AM	#12 (permalink)
Ghost Registered User Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Astral Posts: 3,162 Status: No Status Rep Power: 2 Rep.: 1175	Re: Rep re-set? Could go the other route - re-set to 1,000 for everyone on 1st Jan. The difference between a rep of 1,085 and 1,736 looks a lot less than the difference between 85 and 736. Set all neg rep to a max value of 1 so people would be encouraged to send it and people would be less bothered receiving it. "I went from 1,004 to 1,003" is less traumatic than "I went from 4 to 3!" Plus it goes well with the philosophy that everyone is wonderful and it's up to each individual to prove otherwise. Take care, Christopher PS Yes I know there's flaws in my concepts. Please fix them rather than just point them out

30th-November-2005, 12:37 AM	#17 (permalink)
ducasi Lovely Moderator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Glasgow Posts: 9,653 Status: Looking forward to driving to Dundee! Blog Entries: 1 Rep Power: 6 Rep.: 3290	Re: Rep re-set? I guess my last post might have given the clue that I don't think a reset is needed. As it's a meaningless number, what does it matter if it's 245,432 or 10? The rep-decay isn't such a bad idea, but one simple change that could be made now is to remove the "time served" aspect of the rep power score, and base it purely on number of posts and reputation. That way people who are actually active will have power, rather than folks who signed up years ago but hardly ever read or post. __________________ Let your mind go and your body will follow. – Steve Martin, LA Story