|
Yeah, kinda expected that! 
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: No retrospective points have been awarded yet.
Ah, thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the info I mean.
The retrospective points will be interesting!
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: When we do award them you'll get a nice boost.
I just did a quick check. Sneaky way for you to be #1, huh Chris? 
|
|
|
|
|
Gawd, I hope not...
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
|
My eyeball count was ~209k downloads for your articles. That's over 1m points. Neither Nish, nor Sacha, nor JSOP, nor .dan.g. (todo list) can match that, only dan g appears to even come close. Someone else might, but I don't have time to troll cp vanity for all the people who huge article counts to see what their download levels look like.
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
My downloads are right at 9600 by my last count (minus about 130 for the last few days). That would be 48,000 points. I really think 5 points per download is too much, and should be adjusted to 1 point per THOUSAND downloads.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
Ugh. Personally I find that crazy, though if someone like Sacha had been posting articles since 2000 then he'd be up at that level too. But it does show that points can get out of control.
One thing that has been suggested is expiring points. If we set a timeout of, say, 5 years, then that would put me back to a sensible level, at the risk of offending long time authors.
Or I could just reduce downloads to a single point.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: One thing that has been suggested is expiring points. If we set a timeout of, say, 5 years, then that would put me back to a sensible level, at the risk of offending long time authors.
Listing short term rep scores would be interesting as an adjunct to the current system but I wouldn't want to remove the lifetime scores.
Chris Maunder wrote: Or I could just reduce downloads to a single point.
Something like this strikes me as a much better idea. The problem as I see it is that comparing downloads to votes/CP bookmarkings is that you're comparing two very different things. Downloading an attachment doesn't require a user to do anything to explicitly indicate that they thought the article was useful (and it's quite possible that they ended up deciding the opposite), from the standpoint of CP this makes it a passive activity (similar to counting page views). Whereas voting (or bookmarking in CP) requires an active decision by the user to indicate that they think the article is praise worthy. There are also types of article that don't really lend themselves to having a download at all.
I'd suggest that if you decide to give rep points for passive activities, you score them so that the total number of passive points is at most comparable to the size of the total number of active points. As a user I don't think there're any way for me to compare the total number of author points given to the total number of article downloads. On the one hand your 80k author points vs 200k downloads makes me wonder if even one point per download is too high. OTOH, I think Nish and Jsop are closer to 1:1 on points to downloads, and on the gripping hand Sacha's articles have scored far more votes than they have downloads. On the whole though this mostly says a sample size of 4 is statistically useless. Time for you to parse through a decade of server logs to get some more useful aggregate stats.
3x12=36
2x12=24
1x12=12
0x12=18
|
|
|
|
|
I think reducing it even further would be better.
100 downloads = 1 point
1000 views = 1 point
The reason I'm suggesting that is because while downloads and views indicate some level of interest from other users, it doesn't necessarily mean that much because a view/download doesn't mean they are actually using it, or even planning on using it. I see downloading and viewing to be akin to shrink-wrap licenses where you have to agree to something before even opening the product.
This would also keep the points from getting way out of hand all of a sudden.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
I'll probably drop to 8th or 9th (or worse) - and STILL be over 300k points. I was kind of enjoying the excusivity of being one of just four people over 200K points...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
Personally I still think article-views matter as much as downloads do, but Chris does not seem to agree, yet!
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: I still think article-views matter as much as downloads do
So you want 5 points per view? I'm sure your stuff has more views, but my total article views is almost 2.2 million, and that's not counting tips/tricks. That would eman 11 million points. I think 1 point for every 1000 views is reasonable (and I think it should be the same for downloads - 1 point for every thousand downloads). If that were in affect, I'd only get 2177 points for article views, and 9 points for downloads. I think those are much more reasonable numbers than 11 million for views and 48000 for downloads.
If the reward was minimal, it would keep people from gaming the system.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: So you want 5 points per view?
No, more like 1 point per 100 views.
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: If the reward was minimal, it would keep people from gaming the system.
Those that game the system are mostly sub-10,000 newbies and they usually lose interest pretty fast!
|
|
|
|
|
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: I think 1 point for every 1000 views is reasonable (and I think it should be
the same for downloads - 1 point for every thousand downloads). If that were in
affect, I'd only get 2177 points for article views, and 9 points for downloads.
I think 1 point per 100 views and maybe 1 point per download would be more equivalent (between downloads and views I mean).
And Chris stated above that most of the downloads are legitimate (and not spiders).
|
|
|
|
|
dan.g has over 100k downloads for his todo article. I think 1-point per is still too much.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
My message was about the apparent downloading by bots and not by actual human users. I mean seriously - 33 downloads in an hour and a half? That's exactly the number of articles I've posted that have a download available. That's a bot - not a human, and THAT was what I was trying to highlight.
I'd also like to say I think 5 points for a download (given the fact that we can't verify that someone isn't gaming the system) is too much. I was thinking 1 point was adequate.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
|
People just like your zip files, John. 
|
|
|
|
|
With 7.8 million users, do you seriously think that 33 downloads of ALL your posted files is a lot? 
Why can't I be applicable like John? - Me, April 2011
-----
Beidh ceol, caint agus craic againn - Seán Bán Breathnach
-----
Da mihi sis crustum Etruscum cum omnibus in eo!
-----
Just because a thing is new don’t mean that it’s better - Will Rogers, September 4, 1932
|
|
|
|
|
Small request Chris:
IF you do decide to add retrospective points, can they be added at the date the download was actually performed, and the rep graph be recalculated???
That would give a better picture of the development of the rep instead of one massive change on the date they are added...
Why can't I be applicable like John? - Me, April 2011
-----
Beidh ceol, caint agus craic againn - Seán Bán Breathnach
-----
Da mihi sis crustum Etruscum cum omnibus in eo!
-----
Just because a thing is new don’t mean that it’s better - Will Rogers, September 4, 1932
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, this is how it will be done.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Is it possible the article name can be added to the event history e.g.
Object Associated File: Some Article Name
Shown in the same way when an article is upvoted.
Cheers,
|
|
|
|
|
I suggested that last week. Chris is away, so I doubt we'll see movement until he's gotten back from vacation.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
