Blog Post

1
Pseudolonewolf
5 years ago

Orb Calculations

◊ Posted by A β Pseudolonewolf
Categories: Features FLIGSThe Site
Currently, the orb by your name is determined by the average colour of the orbs on your posts from the last month.
That means that you can post one green-rated comment per month and keep a green orb, but can't stay green by posting only once ever. Also, the more you post, the lower your average is likely to be.

This 'formula' or whatever was always meant to be temporary; a placeholder until I came up with something better.

I suppose that now is the time to be seriously considering what to add on a permanent basis.

Do you have any suggestions for how these orbs could be worked out?
9 Comments

on 7 Roots

9 Comments

SAPPHIROS
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
I've come up with a much more simple system, I can't see if it can get any simpler...

OK, so each positive rating from FLIG (not the S) counts as +1, and each negative is -1. Just add up each number until you get a final number.

Now, if that number (X) is less than or equal to 15, but greater then 0 (0<X≤15) you get a purple orb. If 15<X≤25 then you get a blue. If 25<X≤40 then an azure and so on. The same applies for the negatives (mauve = 0>X≥-15, tan = -15>X≥-25). If you have 0 as the value of X, then you get no orb because no one has rated any of your posts.

If you want certain parts of the FLIG to be worth more then others, then just edit how much they add (F+ = 2, not 1). Looking back, the values of the upper and lower bounds were too low and small... Make them bigger if you want!
Glycan
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
I agree with Nepene and M β Sunflower, so I won't say anything about that, but both ideas/systems have a common flaw: you can't tell how a person behaves in chat. Why not correct that? Chat posts can have ratings (Binary ones). Such ratings would have less 'wight' when low, but more when higher (for example, (R/6)^2, where R is the rating). If such a post goes higher than a threshold (negative and positive), it's considered a Quote and posted on the user's page, maybe, and can be rated as a comment.

You could also encourage people to post by something like giving a letter to people who haven't posted, and remove 0.1 or something from there rating each day they have it. However, this would encourage short meaningless posts, so maybe posts by people who had that status when they were made are judged with greater severity? That part seems a bit compilcated.
Sunflower
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Uhm, I'm not sure if you've read my whole post thing (although it's understandable if you haven't, I guess ^^'), but I already addressed an issue with chat behaviour. Maybe it's not exactly "chat ratings" or something, but it's based on blurbs, which are very likely to be written, especially if someone misbehaves on chat.

So yes, if someone writes great posts, but is a jerk on chat, thanks to blurb factor it'll be nearly impossible for them to get green, I guess. ^^'
Glycan
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
I did. I, for one, am not all that inclined to write blurbs, and few write positive blurbs without being asked (I think), so while blurbs might be a reasonable measure of jerkiness in chat, it's not a good one for goodness. And quotes in general sounds like a good idea. But one rating shouldn't do anything either way, because one person could go and downrate a bunch of posts. Ratings should only matter after several rates, like I said.
Sunflower
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Well, I think that first we need to think what's the aim of such system, or rather, how it should react to different factors. These are some points I've came up with:

*Quantity and quality*
First of all, such system should favour quantity as well as quality. In other words, one green post shouldn't give you green orb, but neither should five blue posts; otherwise it would be too easy. However, e.g. five green posts would be quite appropriate, if not the fact that it's not so difficult to have green post (only 4 positive ratings), but I'll return to this matter later...
Why: in order to encourage posting many and valuable posts, rather than only one excellent (lack of quantity) or much more little ones (lack of quality).

*Lesser good isn't bad*
General rule is simple: any positive contribution shouldn't be punished just because it isn't so excellent. So, if someone have written a great, thoughtful post and got green for that, their rating shouldn't be dragged down just because later they wrote a little post helping someone which got only blue (because of a single +G rating). It just doesn't make sense.
(and yes, not addressing this principle is the greatest "simple orbs average" system issue)
Why: in order not to discourage people from posting helpful, but not purely excellent posts, because it would drag their rating down.

*Continuous contribution*
I guess it doesn't require much details, as it's already solved. Generally it's about people contributing constantly rather than posting some great posts and then leaving the site for 2 years and still having their shiny green orb. Making posts irrelevant after a month seems reasonable to me.
Why: to keep people active, of course. A little problem would be the fact that someone could post something negative knowing, that it wouldn't affect their rating later, but it's rather unlikely; such people rather wouldn't care about ratings, anyway, while it makes things safer when someone would like to participate in religious discussion, but is afraid of being -F'd.

*No misbehaviours*
Of course, such system should punish misbehaviours. For example, it wouldn't make sense if someone got e.g. 4 green posts and cyan overall, while someone else has 10 reds, 16 greens and gets green overall rating. So it needs to be done in a such way which will grant the green orb only to the very best people, who don't misbehave or do it only occasionally (...by e.g. participating in religious discussion :P) and it's irrelevant compared to their positive contribution.

*Good person or good posts?*
Finally, we need to think if we want the orb to reflect only the quality of person's posts or rather how they behave in general. It would be somewhat unfair if someone who writes very valuable posts, but is a jerk on chat, gets the same green orb which belongs to person who not only contributes significantly, but is pleasant to talk with, too! I guess that including blurbs in overall rating would be a good idea, although in such case it would be very essential to remove inane ones. Currently there are no many blurbs, but maybe it'll change when more people will come to this site. O.o

*Balance*
Green should be an achievement. It's not something which user can get just by writing a few good posts and generally being nice to everyone. It should rather show that this person is indeed a great contributor and that they're exceptionally valuable to community. Also, red should get only people whose behaviour is truly horrible and community would be way better without them.

So yes, these are the guidelines which I find appropriate. Anyone has something else to add? O.o

-----
*WARNING! MASSIVE TECHNICAL DETAILS APPROACHING!*
-----

And as a bonus I'll write a system I've came up with. Yay!
*Posts overall factor*
- posts losing their relevance to overall orb after a month (no doubts here, I guess)
- it takes more ratings to get extreme post rating (currently you need only 4 ratings to get extreme, which means that one person is enough to get you red or green post); after all, green post is supposed to be something exceptional, isn't it?
- each positive post (purple and higher) increases the Positive Posts Value (PPV), each negative increases the Negative Posts Value (NPV)
- extreme ratings affect Post Values much more than average ones
- when calculating posts overall factor, first you count the ratio of Positive Posts Value and total Posts Value ( PPV / (PPV+NPV) ); if I remember, similar formula was used when calculating orb based on all positives and negatives ratings from UFELTA
- if this ratio gets you certain orb, system checks if certain PPV or NPV was reached; if it wasn't, it gives you the most extreme orb you can get with your Posts Value
For example, if you have 7 PPV and 1 NPV (an occasional Mauve rating), the ratio is 0.88, which would normally give you cyan orb; however, because thresholds are: 5, 15, 35, 75 for blue, azure, cyan and green respectively (those values are only for the sake of example), it gives you only blue orb (as the post overall factor). It seems you need to post a bit more to get higher rating!

*Blurbs overall factor*
This one is much easier to count! First, you sum up values of blurbs (0 for negative, 1 for neutral, 2 for positive), and then divide by twice the number of those!
So if someone has 9 positive, 1 neutral and 1 negative blurb, their total blurbs value would be 18 + 1 = 19, and the doubled number of blurbs would be equal to 22, so ratio in this case would be 19/22 = 0.86. However, if it turned out that the neutral blurb was inane and a moderator decided to delete it, it would be 18/20 = 0.9, which gives the user quite unstable, but valid green orb!
Also, there should be some thresholds of positive/negative blurbs numbers, too, but I guess that something like 1, 2, 3, 5 from blue/tan to green/red would be appropriate here. The orb we would get here would be blurbs overall factor.

Problem: some blurbs may not be valid anymore, if e.g. user will improve over time and before someone posted a negative blurbs for them. One solution would be making each blurber confirm the blurb they've posted to the user every month or so, but it'd make things unnecessarily inconvenient to blurbers. However, I think that it's reasonable that if blurber was inactive for at least a month, then they didn't really have chance to review their opinion, and thus such blurb would become invalid. What do you think? O.o

*Calculating the orb*
Alright, once we have both factors, it's time to count The Ultimate Orb!
Generally, there are 4 cases I've considered, depending on factors state (none, positive or negative):

None vs None - when user hasn't got any relevant blurbs or post anything, they are yet to be reviewed, thus no orb

None or Negative vs Negative - that's the most confusing case of these all, because there are different possible misbehaviors. There are some propositions:
- treat "None" as "Mauve" and get an average rounded down; however, if someone is horrible at chat and doesn't post anything, then should yellow be the lowest thing they can get?
- ignore "None", but when both factors exist, get an average; but it would mean that otherwise red-blurbed person can post anything, get bad ratings for that, but wouldn't reach a threshold required for red and thus end up with yellow or orange
- if there are no positive blurbs or positively rated post (PPV = 0), we get lower of blurb/post factor; otherwise we get an average rounded down, since if they can contribute something positive then they aren't so bad after all; the main issue is its relative complexity ^^'

None vs Positive - in such case system treats "None" factor as "Purple", and then proceeds as with the last case...

Positive vs Negative or Positive - an average of orbs is counted, and it's rounded towards extreme (so purple + yellow would produce tan, while cyan + green gives green); I added this rounding towards extreme thing so that extreme rating would be easier to achieve (especially because of blurbs, which are unlikely to have green, but easier to have cyan); if it's tan vs purple, overall would be purple ^_^

Uh... soo, anybody got any questions regarding this system? Any possible issues? Is it understandable at all? ^^'
UndefinedSnail
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
I rather liked the second orb calculation used for UFELTA, which I believe was based not on post orbs but rather on the total number of ratings, (Or did I just imagine that)? I think it was an average of the "letter grades" for U, F, E, L, and T, or something to that effect. This might work even better for FLIGS because it would be like "the culmination of how all users feel about this person," maybe?

Anyways, I'm not going to come up with a specific formula for calculation, because that would be silly. I'm just commenting to say that I like the idea of such a system.
Nepene
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
I'm gonna focus my post on the twin issues of how to get people more involved in the fighunter community, and how to most accurately represent a person's nature with an orb.

There are two issues. You are solving one problem, of a single post being enough to get you a good rating forever. That can be a problem, people shouldn't just sit on a good post forever. But we do judge people based on more than their conduct of a month ago. It takes a long person to really get to know a person, and their orb reputation should reflect that.

So how about, if a person doesn't post for three months, every day they don't post whatever rating score they have is multiplied by 0.9. And every month everyone's total score is multiplied by 0.9. That way you are encouraging people to keep posting and keep an active forum environment, spend figcoins on your games and such.

The other issue is how your current system encourages people to post a single perfect comment and sit on it. This probably isn't optimum. The more people post the more actively they are involved in your community and the more benefit you get. So, you should switch to some sort of net orbs system, where the net orbs across all posts is calculated. As in real life, not everything a person says is exciting, and we judge a person a lot by their general low key conduct. Of course, you could give extra points for green rated posts.

I think that would best for my twin goals. If you share them, my proposals should be well suited to you.
SavageWolf
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
SavageWolf 22 United Kingdom CholericMelancholic INTP 666 402C
I don't really see the need to be complicated...

A simple mode average (Where the "most common" rating is chosen) would do fine... For example, a guy with the post ratings 1, 2, 3, 3, 2, 5, 3, 1 would have a user rating of 3...

If you wanted to complicate it, you could make posts in the last month worth three times as much, posts in the last two months worth two times as much, and so on.

Also, what I WOULD like is for people who have no rating due to lack of posts to have an orb, like a black or white one... It looks so strange if they have none...
SAPPHIROS
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
OK. Let's say each orb has a number. Green = 25, Cyan = 16, Azure = 9, Blue = 4, Purple = 1, No Orb = 0, Purple = -1, Tan = -4, Yellow = -9, Orange = -16 and Red = -25.
Each comment-orb will have have exactly the same numbers as said before. Purple has the value of 1, Mauve has -1. No orb would have the value of 0.

The comment-orb-number would be halved then square-rooted. Every time you receive a number, then that is added to the previous number. That way it would be harder to reach green/red, and many green-orbed posts would be needed.

The formula is below. 'N' shall be the orb-colour-number, 'C' your current number and 'O' your orb-colour.
O=C+√(N/2)
C would be not be rounded, but O would be rounded down. The exception is that if the number is below 1 but above 0, then it is rounded up. If it is below 0 but above -1 then it is rounded down.

Example:
Comment gets a Azure (4) rating. That is halved (2) and then square-rooted (1.414 approximately). So if that is your first post then you receive an orb colour of Purple.
Let's now say that you post another comment that gets a Green (8) rating. You go through the formula and get 2 at the end. That is added to your previous comment and you end up with 3.414 approximately. So now you get a Blue rating.

Your 'score' would be reset every 1 or 2 months. Or maybe every month your 'score' loses 6 'points' unless you are in the negatives, that way you don't lose all the hard work you've done to get a green rating, which with my system, would be very hard.

The only problem is that you can not square-root a negative, but you could treat it as a positive number then multiply it by -1. I am not sure how to code something like that though, and it might just over complicate everything.

Anyway, I hope this system makes sense. Feel free to use it and edit it in any way at all.

EDIT: I might have to change this somehow... Because it is possible to post 4 green-orbed comments and get a Green orb... Is that too easy? Because really, as long as you post good things, the more you post the better with this system. Oh well. Hope you sort a system out!