[thebiker]

Hi

When one clicks on a forum members name one can see a measure of their "reputation" ie 0 upwards

How is this number arrived at?
No of posts?
No of sensible posts/answers?
Status in the face to face world?
Master Point ranking in the face to face world?

How is it calculated? and by whom?
Note many posters dont supply their real names - so if say Zia Mahmood signed on as "another" would he automatically get a high rating?

thank you in advance for your replies

Brian Keable
alias "thebiker"

[Cthulhu D]

It's a product of the number of upvotes their posts have received alone, so it basically boils down to Post count * percentage of good posts. It's totally useless as a metric for anything.

Masterpoints and 'face to face' status have nothing to do with it. This can easily be seen in action by checking out the relative status of a couple of terrible bridge players (e.g. myself) and, say, Jeffery Allerton (posts under jallerton).

[Antrax]

More or less, though "good posts" can range from an answer others found useful or accurate, to a joke someone thought funny, to practically any post by a new user, so it's dangerous to take this number to mean anything useful.

[1eyedjack]

I suppose it depends in part on the precision that you infer. Someone with a rep of 300 may have had a few "undeserving" votes by the criteria of a particular observer, but even so is likely to be pretty reputable. Someone with a rep of 54 probably does not mean much more than someone with a rep of 2.

[mgoetze]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-May-30, 06:09, said:

it basically boils down to Post count * percentage of good posts.

Where percentage of good posts can be up to around 900%.

Anyway your formula implies that if I know someone's post count and reputation I can calculate their percentage of good posts, but this is far from the truth, because from my point of view upvoting is a relatively new feature, yet still it is not used as much anymore as it was when it was first introduced. In fact the only person who seems to use up their quota of upvotes anymore is Lurpoa, and her upvoting criteria seem about as far removed from mine as "just random". Also there was a very short time when downvoting was also allowed. CHudecek timed his posting spree in the forums just right to be able to accumulate a reputation of -80.

[Antrax]

I'm not sure, because there are no downvotes, there's an inherent inflation of upvotes. So, someone prolific that's been around for a while will likely have a high reputation by sheer strength of numbers.

[Zelandakh]

1eyedjack, on 2012-May-30, 06:41, said:

I suppose it depends in part on the precision that you infer. Someone with a rep of 300 may have had a few "undeserving" votes by the criteria of a particular observer, but even so is likely to be pretty reputable. Someone with a rep of 54 probably does not mean much more than someone with a rep of 2.

If you look at the posters with a Rep of 300 or more: JLOGIC (680), gnasher (620), han (405), gwnn (386), mikeh (336), me (321), Phil (302) they are (apart from me, I got about 100 freebies early on) a decent cross-section of the more prolific and excellent posters. It is certainly harder to argue with the top 5. The posters in the 250-300 range are similar (eg FrancesHinden and awm) except that they tend not to post quite so much. So despite the odd discrepancy (myself included) that misuse of the reputation system has produced I think, in general, it is a pretty good guide. Interestingly, those with high Reputation and low Rating tend to think this and those with high Rating and low Reputation tend to think the opposite. An interesting psychological effect perhaps.

[32519]

Zelandakh, on 2012-May-30, 07:07, said:

If you look at the posters with a Rep of 300 or more: JLOGIC (680), gnasher (620), han (405), gwnn (386), mikeh (336), me (321), Phil (302) they are (apart from me, I got about 100 freebies early on) a decent cross-section of the more prolific and excellent posters. It is certainly harder to argue with the top 5. The posters in the 250-300 range are similar (eg FrancesHinden and awm) except that they tend not to post quite so much. So despite the odd discrepancy (myself included) that misuse of the reputation system has produced I think, in general, it is a pretty good guide. Interestingly, those with high Reputation and low Rating tend to think this and those with high Rating and low Reputation tend to think the opposite. An interesting psychological effect perhaps.

What's the "Rating?" Where does it come from? How is it determined? Or who determines it?

[barmar]

See this thread from a few months ago:

http://www.bridgebas...73-reputations/

[awm]

Reputation is like masterpoints. It rewards some combination of participation and quality (at least subsequent to the addition of reputation and removal of down votes). This makes for a very error-prone measurement, but extremely high totals still have some meaning. Very low totals have meaning only for regular participants.

[Fluffy]

1eyedjack, on 2012-May-30, 06:41, said:

I suppose it depends in part on the precision that you infer. Someone with a rep of 300 may have had a few "undeserving" votes by the criteria of a particular observer, but even so is likely to be pretty reputable. Someone with a rep of 54 probably does not mean much more than someone with a rep of 2.

This will not hold true for long, 6 months ago 54 was a lot. and in some years 300 will be few.

[MrAce]

thebiker, on 2012-May-30, 05:55, said:

Hi

When one clicks on a forum members name one can see a measure of their "reputation" ie 0 upwards

How is this number arrived at?
No of posts?
No of sensible posts/answers?
Status in the face to face world?
Master Point ranking in the face to face world?

How is it calculated? and by whom?
Note many posters dont supply their real names - so if say Zia Mahmood signed on as "another" would he automatically get a high rating?

thank you in advance for your replies

Brian Keable
alias "thebiker"

Reputation points can be earned in 3 different ways

1-Post something that is good enough to impress a member or members.
2-Having an ok relation with Lurpoa
3-Both

[aguahombre]

MrAce, on 2012-May-30, 16:17, said:

Reputation points can be earned in 3 different ways

4 ways. I have (and Bluejack has admitted doing it, too) slipped and hit the plus tab when attempting to reply. Doesn't happen often, but it would explain some contradictions between comments and upvotes.

[plum_tree]

MrAce, on 2012-May-30, 16:17, said:

Reputation points can be earned in 3 different ways
1-Post something that is good enough to impress a member or members.
2-Having an ok relation with Lurpoa
3-Both

aguahombre, on 2012-May-30, 19:39, said:

4 ways. I have (and Bluejack has admitted doing it, too) slipped and hit the plus tab when attempting to reply. Doesn't happen often, but it would explain some contradictions between comments and upvotes.

5 ways. Don't forget the cliques who upvote each others posts.

[Antrax]

We still have those?

[32519]

awm, on 2012-May-30, 09:42, said:

Reputation is like masterpoints. It rewards some combination of participation and quality (at least subsequent to the addition of reputation and removal of down votes). This makes for a very error-prone measurement, but extremely high totals still have some meaning. Very low totals have meaning only for regular participants.

I know what "Reputation" is. I have no idea what "Rating" is (see below). Surely someone must know what this is?

Barmar / Inquiry? What about you guys. One of you must know what "Rating" is?

32519, on 2012-May-30, 08:29, said:

What's the "Rating?" Where does it come from? How is it determined? Or who determines it?

[JLOGIC]

Click on someones name and you will see stars. You can rate people anonymously how many stars they are. That is their rating.

[mycroft]

JLOGIC, on 2012-May-31, 14:34, said:

Click on someones name and you will see stars. You can rate people anonymously how many stars they are. That is their rating.

First Read As "click on someone's name and you will see stars" and wondering why the clicked-on person would hit me.