I want a recount!

January 16, 2014 at 21:59:31
Specs: Windows XP SP 3, P-III 550/384
How did my (alleged) 'expert ranking' go from 6 to 5 to 13 all in two days? Previously it's taken months for even a 1 point change and it's never gone down.

(If it matters, I'm sorry I made fun of the steamboat topic.)


See More: I want a recount!

Report •

#1
January 17, 2014 at 03:10:47
Yeah, noticed the same thing myself. Went from 109 to 47 overnight. Not complaining, but is there now a "new formula" for calculating ranks?

"Channeling the spirit of jboy..."

message edited by T-R-A


Report •

#2
January 17, 2014 at 05:33:28
DAVEINCAPS,

You are correct that we did make a change in the way Expert Ranks are calculated yesterday. There were two major problems with Expert Rank:

First, as you outlined, for really high users, they basically never changed. The reason for this goes into the second problem.

Second, when they were calculated, they were calculated using all data on the site at the time. Since then, as you know, we performed a large purge of really old data. This resulted in a weird situation where a person like "wawadave" who hadn't been active on the site since before the purge was active in 0 postings but had a really high Expert Rank. Also, since the site received a lot more activity (mostly of lower quality) many years ago than today, people with high Expert Ranks were competing against users who had built up so many answers, it was pretty much impossible to move up. The site just doesn't receive that many questions anymore.

What we did yesterday was recalculate the ranks based on current data on the site, excluding data that has been purged. It should have resulted in most of the active users now seeing their ranking go up. I think yours may have gone down just because, at that super "Elite" level of say the top 20 or 30, they almost don't make any difference between 1-20 or 30. That level represents the highest achievable.

I'm sorry yours went down, but, I think what you will find is that, with the new system, you will be able to move higher faster. You won't be competing all the old data from 99-05 in order to gain. That data doesn't even exist anymore, so competing against it is a little odd and unfair.

Does that make sense?

Thanks!
Justin


Report •

#3
January 17, 2014 at 07:23:39
If it makes you feel better, I went from 295 to 87 in less than a week, and I am pretty sure I didn't deserve that one. :)

::mike


Report •

Related Solutions

#4
January 17, 2014 at 08:29:45
mikelinus,

Like I said, that makes sense. I was expecting most of the currently active users to see big increases. I'm actually surprised DAVEINCAPS went down.

Justin


Report •

#5
January 17, 2014 at 16:53:46
Mine dropped too DAVE, just the way the numbers game works it seems. Anyway I prefer to get £8 a week rather than £3 (or maybe it is dollars).

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks


Report •

#6
January 17, 2014 at 18:41:00
"...we performed a large purge of really old data..."

"since the site received a lot more activity (mostly of lower quality) many years ago than today, people with high Expert Ranks were competing against users who had built up so many answers, it was pretty much impossible to move up..."

Ok, that makes sense, but is there somewhere a user (or moderator) can view the top to bottom list of, say, top 100/250/500 posters? I suspect that a lot of them are inactive, even before the purge. Shouldn't their rank be adjusted (eliminated) if they haven't posted since before the purge? (i.e.---shouldn't really good and frequent posters be ranked higher than really good and gone ones?)

"Channeling the spirit of jboy..."


Report •

#7
January 17, 2014 at 19:03:27
Well, I guess that explains why I (overnight) went from ~6,000 to 1241 ATM. LOL

But yeah, I agree with T-R-A totally...

message edited by NT56erbx


Report •

#8
January 17, 2014 at 19:25:44
"mostly of lower quality"

Dunno about that. In the dim and distant days there were some darned good posters, who had to dig much deeper than today because of the more basic nature of the technology. A solid knowledge of the basics was essential and many more people built their own rigs.

I can well remember replacement system files whizzing around via email, working out correct versions and so forth. There are far more fixing aids built into Windows now too.

We are into the throw away society with computers now, which is probably the main reason why the number of posts on here has diminished.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks

message edited by Derek


Report •

#9
January 17, 2014 at 20:07:21
I suppose it's human nature to frown on changes that negativelly affect you and I've previously expressed frustration about the old threads being removed. (If it had to be I wish it had been done more selectively--keeping the ones with useful, hard to find information and not go just by date.) But that's been hashed out already and what's done is done.

I don't know if I agree with changing the status of users who haven't posted in a while or who rarely post any more but who otherwise have a high score. They shouldn't just fade away. Maybe they could have an emeritus status.

Well, it'll work out.


Report •

#10
January 18, 2014 at 06:18:09
T-R-A,

I could get you that list if you'd like it. There's no way to view it on the site.

However, what you are saying is exactly what was done. Expert Rank is calculated based on replies. Since I recalculated it with the current data on the site (after the purge), users who didn't post since the purge were completely eliminated. Here is a good example:

http://www.computing.net/userinfo/4245

You can see he has over 10k points and two gold medals, but his expert rank fell all the way to 5k (from like 10 before the purge). People can get in the top 5-10k on the site by answering only a few questions.

Derek,

I think you misunderstand me. There were lots and lots of high quality postings back then. However, the reason, I think, there were SO many more postings in say the year 2000 than there were last year is because there were also a ton of low quality ones. I don't really mean the answers, I mean the questions, and, hence, the answers on those questions. The main reason was most likely because I didn't take moderation very seriously back then. The problem then becomes, is there anyway to separate the hundreds of thousands of low quality postings from the tens of thousands of good ones. We really couldn't find a good way to do that. That's why we purged it.

Justin


Report •

#11
January 18, 2014 at 08:36:13
Justin

OK, thanks, looks like I did misunderstood you. However I do think that the "throw away society" is also a factor. Nobody would think of trying to fix an iPhone for example, only button pressing and changing batteries. Same is now happening to laptops - if they get too difficult (software or hardware) then bin them and get a nice new one with all the latest gizmo's. Win 8's unpopularity has probably slowed this down, resulting in folk clinging on to Win 7 and even XP.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks

message edited by Derek


Report •

#12
January 18, 2014 at 13:16:08
Having returned here a few months ago - after a gap of a couple of years (filial and other duties impinged…) I discovered there had been a clear/clean out and some of us who had been moderators - weren't anymore… Good to see some of those I remembered from days of yore were/are still here though.

And of course the system of ratings had been introduced (top chaps/chapesses for the week…); which almost creates/promotes a form of competition in some minds…

Somehow I am at 49 in the listings… Not sure what it really means though or what it actually says…

Is it really essential to have a ratings system?

Certainly the nature of questions (CFH - Call for Help) has changed… Many could be simply resolved if the user simply read the manual; a notional google trawl/search; some of which might well bring the user here. But with the throw away aspect very common, if it can't be fixed in moment or three - many are too ready to dump and buy new… The repair tools in current operating systems; and recovery discs have allowed many quick fixes… so what Derek (and many others - myself included) used to do (offer) to help is not so much seen these days… I can recall some very detailed how to responses I (and others) posted here in the dark days of 9x, NT/W2K and early XP; and discussions that often arose between one or two of us here as to how/why something worked - or might work. Those discussion seem less so nowadays; and if they do occur some seem to take on a more competitive style - rather than maintain the neutral/mutual style sharing of knowledge etc.


Report •

#13
January 18, 2014 at 14:07:15
I went from #19 to #32. Imagine it's not worth shooting myself...

Skip
Audares Juvo


Report •

#14
January 18, 2014 at 14:14:50
not with the price of lead and gun powder to consider...

Report •

#15
January 18, 2014 at 15:59:08
Derek,

I see. That very well may be the case as to the reduction in questions over the years.

SkipCox,

I'm sorry you went down as well. To everyone who went down in rankings, that definitely isn't what I intended. I really only thought users who were no longer active would go down. Please bear with it though, because, I think, you'll find that you can recover your ranking much faster than before. Going forward, it should give you an opportunity to grow even higher. With the old system, it was extremely hard for top users to move up. I'm fairly certain, under the new system, it will be easier. Give it a couple of months, and we should see if I'm right.

Either way, like I was saying, anyone in the top 20 or 30 is really about as elite as it gets. I don't think the difference between those rankings is anywhere near as great as the differences between say the rankings of 2000 vs. 1000, or something like that.

Thanks for the understanding!
Justin


Report •

#16
January 18, 2014 at 17:42:24
For that matter (as hinted at obtusely in my #5 here) I dropped from 3 to 8. Two that took higher places were Jefro and Sabertooth. Although they are no longer posting I have enormous respect for their inputs in the past and regard it as an honour to even be put in the same broad cluster.

I would have thought it very odd if I had suddenly shot down to 800 or 8000, but generally I just see all this as a numbers game. To my mind the forum neither seems better nor worse for any of these statistics. Helping others is what gives the kicks and I'm sure that applies to everyone who responds on these forums.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks

message edited by Derek


Report •

#17
January 18, 2014 at 18:03:05
We do here what we do for the benefit of others. And in a way perhaps repay a little the debts we owe to those who helped us in the past; and still do on occasion in the present. The "reward" - if any be needed - is a resolution achieved, or at the least some assistance in achieving that. Seva (aka service to/for others) - as is called in some circles - is an end and a reward in itself...?

And I doubt there are any here who can say they know it all; that occasionally they don't learn something new from others here...


Report •

Ask Question