From: A graveyard of dreams Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 05-14-2004 22:15
Have the ranking system been updated or changed? Suddenly everyone got some roman numerals thrown into the rank name...
_________________________
"There are 10 kinds of people; those who know binary, those who don't and those who start counting at zero"
- the Golden Ratio - Vim Tutorial -
Tyberius Prime
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist with Finglongers
From: Germany Insane since: Sep 2001
posted 05-14-2004 23:15
indeed, it's been (slightly) updated - the ranks have been 'harmonized' (some older posts had a different rank system, leading to confusing), the number of the rank has been added as a roman numeral (making new inmates easily identifable by having rank I or II), and the nomenclatur has been slightly changed from just 'Something' to 'Something Inmate' respective 'Something Mad Scientist'.
The update process for the archived threads is still running - You may bump into some threads that have not been converted yet (provisions have been taken so that the next change, if there'll be one, will be faster).
From: Rochester, New York, USA Insane since: May 2000
posted 05-15-2004 07:22
Wow, confused the hell out of me...
Tyberius Prime
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist with Finglongers
From: Germany Insane since: Sep 2001
posted 05-15-2004 07:42
yeah, - *on average*, an inmates needs 7^(Roman Numeral -1) posts to achive Roman Numeral.
I'm pretty sure it's a poisson distribution - but my calculator is fighting me right now, so I can't tell you within what range 95% of the inmates lie (but it's probably pretty 'small', no more than half to double that number).
(edit: See ->our ranking system for the numbers)
One in 282475249 reaches Paranoid (V) in just five posts. One in 40353607 reaches Bipolar (IV) in 4 posts.
You are pretty safe to assume that any inmate bipolar and above is an old timer, and you can be certain that any neurotic (I) or Obsessive-Compulsive (II) is pretty new around the place.
I don't know I think it makes that bit cluttered - I didn't think the debate was how to make it better I thought it was about haivng post counts back and/or getting rid of this new system?
izzay: that sort of ranking system would require keeping track of a post count. The way the new system is set up, it only has to make a single calculation each time you post to determine if you go up a level or not. I've been told there's a big difference in processing time, but I really wouldn't be able to make a judgment one way or the other.
At any rate, the upshot is that the new ranking system means something in the very beginning (and I mean the very beginning), but quickly becomes pointless. I suppose it's better than running around and slapping newbie markers on all the new inmates, though.
Tyberius Prime
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist with Finglongers
From: Germany Insane since: Sep 2001
posted 05-16-2004 09:36
suho, that's blantly false. It means something in the beginning, and it has also meaning in the end - an inmate of VI has been around quite some time (or posts a hundred posts a day) (there are exceptions - but they're about as likely as the old post count having a hickup and adding 1000 posts to your count one day).
It indeed is no good to differentiate regulars from each other - but such would lead to some competition, which I don't think is good (in this particular context). We all have our strengths and weaknesses, none of which is captured by either the old nor the new system.
I still don't see the point of the roman numerals - if we wanted to check where in the heirarchy a certain ranking is we could check the FAQ - I was in the same boat as eyezaer on the meaning. As I (and others) are still unconvinced by the value of the current ranking system I'm unsure how this helps resolve the underlying issue.
Tyberius Prime
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist with Finglongers
From: Germany Insane since: Sep 2001
posted 05-16-2004 13:09
the roman numerals help newbies you have not found that page in the faq yet.
And the ->our ranking system faq does provide a kind of ballpark figure... people will be around that number of posts when they have the rank.
What features did the old post count provide that the new system does not provide? It seperated between active regulars, and very active regulars - this is something the new system in fact does not do right now - And that's not a bug, it's a feature. It does everything else the post counts did:
-Identifies people new to the asylum.
-differenciates between newer/less active regulars (up to rank V) and older/very active regulars (rank VI or above).
-gives people a sense of accomplishment when reaching a new rank/milestone.
-actually considers faq changes and the like.
Again, I ask, what does it *not* do that the old post count did?
of course, all this confusion and work and explanation could be avoided by a very simply implemented post count.
What does it not do that a post count does? Tell us the post count which, combined with the join date, tells you a good amount of information, quickly and easily without bizarre mathematical formulas or the need to consult a variety of FAQs to figure out what the hell it means.
Plus the fact that all other forums do it and 'user expectation' is a powerful aspect of usability (it explains why the left hand navigation is the leading type despite the fact that right hand navigation makes more 'sense' for most people) - if you are going to break user expectation then at least repalce it with something better.
As we've said before we don't mind it being in the profile (I know plenty of forums that have the settings done so the count doesn't appear alongside the thread but it does appear in the profile).
TP: Quick tip for you: switch to decaf, OK? I was just doing my best to answer izzay's question about the significance (or lack thereof) of the new system. So get off my back.
I'm not sure why you are so religiously set against post counts, but it has long been obvious to me that you are on a crusade. Why this is, I'm not sure. But you do what you have to do. I give up.
I was a little confused about how everything works. However unlikely, it is possible that before hundred posts a user might land the rank of Demented, correct? I was initially under the impression that while the rank system was randomized (which I think is cool), the roman numerals were used to give a more accurate idea of the members post count.
For example:
I = 1<100
II = 100<200
III < 200<300
etc.
After reading the FAQ, I'm under the impression that this is not the case. The roman numeral is just the number the corresponds with the ranking system. So if a member joins and after post 50 they obtain the rank of Demented, they are not Demented (I) but rather Demented (IX), or am I mistaken?
As far as I'm concerned I don't think it makes much of a difference how the ranking system is implimented - or even if its implimented at all. For the most part, everyone knows whos a new member and who has been around since the dawn of time. You're doing a great job TP.
Paranoids are level V, Maniacs are VI and stuff like that. I don't mind the current system, I do visit plenty of places that have no post count at all, nor even rankings, they are just separated by groups (ie: members and mods/staff). I really don't mind current system, as it seems like intermediary between forums with post counts and forums without them. And lets all be honest, the real way to see how frequent/veteran a forumer is is when you see his/her face in plenty of threads, and sometimes more than once. And if it was up to me, I'd even limit the registered date to be shown only on the profile. Note that I am not supporting TP, nor I am agains his ideals.
My only complaint is the formatting, and I am still insist on having one like that i suggested. Not exactly like that, but you get the grasp.
I don't see the point in changing the ranking system at all. TP and everyone else put a lot of work into this forum and I think its obnoxious to ask them to make such a trival change.
Bandwagon American Since 9/11/01
Tyberius Prime
Paranoid (IV) Mad Scientist with Finglongers
From: Germany Insane since: Sep 2001
posted 05-17-2004 08:44
quote:Suho1004 said:
[...] a crusade. [...] I give up.
Does that mean I can start drinking real coffee again ? Hooray! And I am not the one bringing it up again and again...
Yes, the issue does keep getting brought up, and by all kinds of different people.
As Suho suggests, that seems to say something about the issue.
While I think everyone will wholeheartedly agree that everything that went into making this has been both a huge effort and a fantastic job, it is wholly normal for people to have strong feelings about the things that are a standardized part of the user experience.
If you have not noticed already, the issue is brought by around 5 people, most of them IIRC have quite large post counts. *winks* It's not misteriously brought up by forces of destiny.
As far as I remember, of the people who feel that a post count is beneficial, I'm the only one with a particularly large count.
But that is totally besides the point. I won't bother spelling out all the reasons yet again, you can read them in several places by now...
{edit - ah yes, emperor also has a high post count. but he has rarely said anything about the issue other than the above statements...
Just leaving a quick reply between busy final weeks of school life -
I've always been in favour of keeping the post counts as well, although as I thought that Dreamhost still had the db query limitation which they apparently don't have anymore I didn't insist too much while we were building all this.
If the only issue is the time that the submission of a post takes, I don't think people would mind if it meant getting the post counts back - a split second more or less.... Are there any other fundamental problems?
quote:As we've said before we don't mind it being in the profile (I know plenty of forums that have the settings done so the count doesn't appear alongside the thread but it does appear in the profile).
sounds good to me. actually, the controversy over this is just vane babbling to me. post count might help identify someone as a newbie or a seasoned vet or not. take for example someone who changes their nick, for whatever reason. or someone who may be posting under numerous nicks, again for whatever reason (multiple personalities maybe). on the same note, the join date is just as unreliable an indicator of anything as anything else. there is no substitute for just hanging around and getting to know who's who from reading their post content and whatever info you can find on them if you're interested enough to look. and then again, unless you know a person "for real" you can't be too sure of any of this.(and even then it's often questionable) /in(s)ane ramble
Wow. There's an awful lot of people who feel strongly about this business of post-counts.
In the grand scheme of things - is it something to get all lathered-up about?
I think the system seems to make some sense, though I'm alarmed by the rapidity of change in my own rankings, despite my lack of any real contribution.
Not that my lowly rank obligates anybody to care what I think... *sob*
_______________________________ Seek not truth with deceitful intent...
...for that way lies the seed of dissent.[i]
Just out of curiosty.
What was it felt that post count was supposed to represent?
I understand that it was a quailty over quanity setup.
But what exactly are we trying to distinguish?
Perhaps not being a regular at the asylum and just being an on and off visitor for how ever long I've been here, I'm failing to grasp the concept, so excuse any ignorance that may come across.
The ranks show amount of time you've been here..
Post count implyed you'd been here for a long time and there should be 'respected' if High, the issue was then Quailty over Quantity,
Now, As I see it, again excuse any ignorance. The more you post the more chance you have of advancing. To gain that 'next' rank.
So whilst post count isn't recorded and your not acumaleting posts.. The basis of the system is still more on the 'More you the post the higher you rank' but with a bit of randomness in the mix?
So it's all about the 'Rank'
Which to the majorty of us means very little, Yet it seems to be a point of debate.
So.. Whats the diffrence? Whats the point?
Why aren't ranks just abolished?
Now this isn't an attempt to diminsih TP's efforts because The Grail is quite Fantastic. Haveing not hand time untill now to look around and be in aww of it.
its nice to beable to see at a glance if a person is new here or not... A lot of different names come and go, and to be honest, i dont have the time to keep up with them like i used to.
There used to be a sort deal where you could sort by the 50 most active members, to see who they were and to see their webpages... and in reality there are probably only about a hundred people who do post regularly... if that many.
I kinda miss that function...
As far as post count and all that rot... ranks are just for giggles.
so... giggle, and dont let it bother yah too much... or thats what i say to myself... but then... I am the almight 7. so... bah! to quote SB *lades, form a line to my left for makeouts, dudes, form a line to my right for high fives*
one more time. when a newb arrives and makes his first post, we now have a system which does not give a clue that it's his first post. so he is much less likely to be welcomed to the asylum - an old tradition here - and referred to the faq for info about the asylum, where rules, pills, posting, are discussed. yes, we can tell someone is new if we are frequently out of our cells and reading through the forums, but that first referral to the faq introduces newcomers to it's contents.
we *know* that people frequently overlook the faq because of all the referrals made to it when responding to question asked by inmates.
also, as long as a count is being taken (maybe not yet coded), why not just post it where it can be seen rather than in our profiles?
as for the roman numerals, a waste of time and effort. when a rank indicated number of posts, the top rank was lunatic no matter how many posts an inmate made. a lunatic had been around awhile, maybe frequently maybe not. there was some celebration when a new high was made by some inmate, so what? did that indicate some inmates were posting useless nonsense? no. useless nonsense was posted by those with both high and low post counts, but is the occasional laughter (lol, rofl), nods of agreement really useless? does it in fact not add to the conversation? sorry, i seem to have gone off on a tangent here. the roman numerals now do what rank used to do. they tell us if an inmate has been a frequent poster or not. why the redundancy?
only very occasionally have we gotten someone in here who was so eager to raise his rank, he added his comments to *very* old threads that caught his attention. which obviously caught the attention of those who frequent the asylum forums... a little admonition and questioning of motives usually stopped that activity. the suggestion that some people only post to raise their rank holds little water imho.
the roman numerals, a waste of time and effort. when a rank indicated number of posts, the top rank was lunatic no matter how many posts an inmate made. a lunatic had been around awhile, maybe frequently maybe not...
the roman numerals now do what rank used to do. they tell us if an inmate has been active enough to have earned a particular rank. why the redundancy?
posted 05-14-2004 22:15
which, combined with the join date, tells you a good amount of information, quickly and easily without bizarre mathematical formulas or the need to consult a variety of FAQs to figure out what the hell it means.
)
