Joined: 6/13/2006
Posts: 3300
Location: Massachussetts, USA
I think JXQ has the right idea, but the end result of 4 descriptive words don't quite sound acoustically appealing. Generally, 3 adjectives followed by a noun does not sound too good, plus there are other roles that members have filled. examples:
-coders (which we already have a rank for, but those are just the official ones. we have some unofficial coders as well.)
-game testers (does a new game work well, can a new existing game work better)
-glitch finders
-"TAS sometimes for fun"
-critical analyzers of runner's progress
-route planners
-members from other places who casually insert their knowledge or do research outside of this site to assist runs
-etc.
-game testers (does a new game work well, can a new existing game work better)
-glitch finders
-"TAS sometimes for fun"
-critical analyzers of runner's progress
-route planners
-members from other places who casually insert their knowledge or do research outside of this site to assist runs
Wow, you managed to name six ranks for something that needs a maximally of 1 rank :D
Some extra links would be nice, like this:
Viewing profile :: Kyrsimys
...
Published Movies: Number of movies: 3 active, 2 obsolete
...
Submissions: Number of submissions per fate:
...
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Just noticed that blublu's profile has his "Average submission receives votes as follows" yes section as 101.2%. Looks like the system has a couple of tweaks to be worked out.
I don't mean to nitpick, I just thought someone may want to know.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
So this thread has fallen by the wayside due to a certain controversial submission and work to improve the statistics and ratings systems (great work guys, BTW). However I'm curious if any more thought has been given to the player rankings and how a new system would look. I certainly think that a... umm... more prestigious title should be given to those who have contributed a large amount of runs to the site (3, 5, 7, 10, whatever it be), and I also think that those who rate movies should have some recognition (even though I personally don't tend to rate movies, I understand to some it is very important as witnessed in the ratings poll). With this in mind, I'd like to propose a slightly modified version of JXQ's idea.
I think that people who manage this site and contribute beyond the normal call of duty (i.e. judges, encoders/publishers, and editors), should be given a single title superseding all other parts of the rank. I had "Operator" in mind. The rest could pose a problem because the current system shows favoritism towards those who submit movies (as it probably should, since this site wouldn't exist without the runs). However it's hard to determine whether posting or rating movies is more important.
I personally think that people who post regularly tend to contribute to the making of new runs more than those who rate movies, in that they have the opportunity and the means to propose new ideas and give feedback on WIPs. This way, people who solely rate movies would be ranked below those who contribute to the boards, who in turn would be ranked below those who contribute to the "Front Page".
So here's a layout of how this could work:
A lurker would still be someone who skulks around doing nothing.
A watcher would be someone who (duh) watches movies but doesn't have more than say 50 posts.
A poster (contributor, talker, etc) writes on the forums and has more than 50 posts (arbitrary # from previous point), but doesn't have any published runs. This rank would be given no matter how many movies they have rated. *I know a lot of people will probably disagree with this, but it's just my proposal, no need to get too bent out of shape about it*
A player is someone who has a published run, as it is now.
All of these ranks could be preceded by modifiers such as those that exist now (i.e. quiet, active, etc), and could possibly have some sort of complicated mathimatical formula to take into account overall activity on the site, by factoring in the # of movies rated and # of posts, but I'm not sure how to go about this quite yet. Some adjectives to consider could be quiet, (in)active, working, vigilant, energetic, master, prime, ace, unconscious, etc.
And as I mentioned in my first paragraph, an outstanding member who has contributed an incredible amount of movies could be given a rank such as veteran/ninja/expert based on Baxter's formula.
I'm still trying to piece together a good way to explain the modifier system so that it's fair to everyone (and makes sense), but I think this takes the current (and in my opinion decent) system and makes it less arbitrary and at the same time somewhat more descriptive. Here's some examples:
Bisqwit- Still Site Manager if he'd want it like that, otherwise his title could be "Operator, Unconsious Player" ("Unconscious" due to high post count and movies rated)
Nitsuja- "Operator, Unconsious Ninja" (ninja is due to total domination)
Baxter- "Working Player" (or Ninja, if the formula is adapted)
Comicalflop- "Energetic Player" (high posts, low movie rating)
Moozooh- "Working Poster"
etc....
Like I said, the modifiers would need some work and some consistency but I think this is at worst a decent system. And even if people totally disagree with it, at least I got the topic going again ;)
("Unconscious" due to high post count and movies rated)
Huh? Thought of in a very specific way I suppose you could interpret "unconscious" to mean "highly skilled" or "natural-born", but usually it means things like "not being awake", "not paying attention", "not caring", "lacking mental processes", etc. "Unconscious due to high post count" sounds like a way to explain why someone is in a coma.
Also, I'm no operator. And I am probably conscious at the time of this writing.
"Average submission receives votes as follows" yes section as 101.2%. Looks like the system has a couple of tweaks to be worked out.
Wow, weird.
Who can find the error in this code?
$SQL = "select s.id,s.status,
(select sum(r.vote_result) from vote_desc d,topics t,vote_results r
where d.topic_id=t.topic_id and t.submissionid=s.id
and r.vote_id=d.vote_id and r.vote_option_text='Meh')
vote_meh,
(select sum(r.vote_result) from vote_desc d,topics t,vote_results r
where d.topic_id=t.topic_id and t.submissionid=s.id
and r.vote_id=d.vote_id and r.vote_option_text='Yes')
vote_yes,
(select sum(r.vote_result) from vote_desc d,topics t,vote_results r
where d.topic_id=t.topic_id and t.submissionid=s.id
and r.vote_id=d.vote_id and r.vote_option_text='No')
vote_no,
(select count(v.vote_user_id) from vote_desc d,topics t,vote_voters v
where d.topic_id=t.topic_id and t.submissionid=s.id
and v.vote_id=d.vote_id)
num_votes
from
{$db}.users u,
{$db}.submission s
where u.id=s.userid and $user_rule";
$nvotes = 0;
while(($tmp2 = mysql_fetch_assoc($tmp)))
{
if($tmp2['num_votes']) { ++$nvotes;
$this->votestats['avgmeh'] += $tmp2['vote_meh'] / $tmp2['num_votes']; // number of 'meh' votes ratio to number of votes
$this->votestats['avgyes'] += $tmp2['vote_yes'] / $tmp2['num_votes']; // in this submission (result is always less
$this->votestats['avgno'] += $tmp2['vote_no'] / $tmp2['num_votes']; // than 1 but >= 0)
$this->votestats['avgvotes'] += $tmp2['num_votes']; }
}
if($nvotes > 0)
{
$this->votestats['avgmeh'] /= $nvotes; // these are the values
$this->votestats['avgyes'] /= $nvotes; // that get displayed
$this->votestats['avgno'] /= $nvotes; // in the profile.
$this->votestats['avgvotes'] /= $nvotes;
}
Nitsuja wrote:
Some extra links would be nice, like this
I considered that, but there were so few occassions where that would apply that I did not do it. Could still change it though.
mmbossman's ideas regarding the rank reform are in an acceptable direction.
I can't, but I suspect database inconsistency (or weird db-constraints).
average votes: 9.0 on 9 submission means that the sum of the num_votes is 81. 101.2% is 82/81, so there's either a weird off-by-one-error or there's an unattributed yes-vote in your db.
Check for inconsistency with something like this:
SELECT t.submissionid,
(select sum(r.vote_result) from vote_desc d,vote_results r
where d.topic_id=t.topic_id and r.vote_id=d.vote_id)
num_results,
(select count(v.vote_user_id) from vote_desc d,vote_voters v
where d.topic_id=t.topic_id and v.vote_id=d.vote_id)
num_voters
FROM topics t
WHERE t.submissionid > 0 and num_results != num_voters;
(didn't check for syntax errors or other flaws since I don't have access to your DB)
Hmh. Thanks Tub.
Oh well. This requires another fixing program then. Anyone want to contribute? :) The database description is as follows:
CREATE TABLE vote_desc (
vote_id MEDIUMINT(8) UNSIGNED NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT PRIMARY KEY,
topic_id MEDIUMINT(8) UNSIGNED NOT NULL DEFAULT 0, KEY t(topic_id),
vote_text TEXT NOT NULL,
vote_start INT NOT NULL DEFAULT 0,
vote_length INT NOT NULL DEFAULT 0
); -- Note: One of these per each submission. --
CREATE TABLE vote_voters (
vote_id MEDIUMINT(8) UNSIGNED NOT NULL DEFAULT 0,
FOREIGN KEY(vote_id)REFERENCES vote_desc(vote_id),
vote_user_id MEDIUMINT(8) NOT NULL DEFAULT 0, KEY u(vote_user_id),
vote_user_ip CHAR(8) NOT NULL DEFAULT '', KEY i(vote_user_ip),
vote_opt_id TINYINT(4) UNSIGNED NOT NULL DEFAULT 0, -- refers to vote_results.vote_option_id --
PRIMARY KEY(vote_id,vote_user_id)
); -- Note: One of these per each vote. --
CREATE TABLE vote_results (
vote_id MEDIUMINT(8) UNSIGNED NOT NULL DEFAULT 0,
FOREIGN KEY(vote_id)REFERENCES vote_desc(vote_id),
vote_option_id TINYINT(4) UNSIGNED NOT NULL DEFAULT 0, KEY o(vote_option_id),
vote_option_text VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL DEFAULT '', KEY t(vote_option_TEXT(1)),
vote_result INT NOT NULL DEFAULT 0,
PRIMARY KEY(vote_id,vote_option_id)
-- Note: vote_result should match count(vote_user_id) where vote_opt_id=vote_option_id and vote_id=vote_id --
); -- Note: One of these per each poll option in each submission. --
how do you intend to fix this inconsistency? Should the vote_results be re-calculated from the votes logged in vote_voters?
on the other hand you could also ignore the vote_voters-table and use sum(vote_results) in the CV-script, thus happily living with the inconsistency (just like the forum does).
I'm not going to contribute a script, you could fix them manually in less time than it takes me to set up a testing environment ;)
on the other hand you could also ignore the vote_voters-table and use sum(vote_results) in the CV-script, thus happily living with the inconsistency (just like the forum does).
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
nitsuja wrote:
mmbossman wrote:
("Unconscious" due to high post count and movies rated)
Huh? Thought of in a very specific way I suppose you could interpret "unconscious" to mean "highly skilled" or "natural-born", but usually it means things like "not being awake", "not paying attention", "not caring", "lacking mental processes", etc. "Unconscious due to high post count" sounds like a way to explain why someone is in a coma.
Also, I'm no operator. And I am probably conscious at the time of this writing.
Two explanations for the unconscious part:
1) I wrote it at 12:30 am and had to get up at 6:30 this morning, so I was probably thinking of sleep :)
2) I think someone had suggested that phrasing before, and used it in the way you explained first (highly skilled). I can certainly understand that some people wouldn't either know that it can have that meaning, or that they would instead think about not being awake, but it was just a suggestion. Like I said, the modifiers need some work.
I included the term operator because of your editor status, nothing more. I wanted to include one single term to encompass all three of the groups of people who have special privileges here, so that we didn't end up with "Bisqwit- Site manger, judge, publisher, editor, high posting, high rating, player"
EDIT: There are currently 50 editors, and 14 of them have 15 edits or less, so 70% are actively editing. Whether this makes them part of the day to day maintenance of the site is debatable, but I'd have to say yes.
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
Well, most guys become editors just to add/maintain a couple of pages of the games they know really well. If there's nothing new to say, what should they do?
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
Notice to publishers: When you create new player entries, or just publish movies in general, please go check http://tasvideos.org/Players-List.html to ensure that the newly created player entry has a link to the accounts related to the player entry. Also, avoid creating duplicate player entries. Xipo had two just recently.
I updated this list so that it now lists the number of accounts related to the player entry right next to the "Edit" link, or a bold (!) if there are none.
When I asked a little while ago in this thread if there was any news on the Rank system overhaul, since the last post 4 month ago was made, there wasn't any response, so I'll just bump this thread. Is there any progress in this topic, or plans for changes? Are more ideas needed? Are the current forum ranks only temporary, waiting for something better, or is it already the way invisioned when this thread was created? Are there still plans with implementing the players movie statistics into the ranks?
Either way, I thought of a small change in the formula I posted a little while back as a suggestion for the forum ranks. This time, it also accounts for movies made by more than one author:
Take the rating of one of your movies to the power of X. Divide it by the number of authors of that movie to the power if Y. Then add all those numbers for all your movies. The value you get it Z.
- N is your total amount of published movies.
- X should be determined on how important high ratings are considered. For instance, if X=0, then ratings don't matter at all, and only the amount of movies is considered. If X=1, you will just be adding the ratings of your movies. If X>1, movies with higher ratings will count heavier. It is probably good if X>1, since generally, one movie with a rating of 9.0 is liked better than two movies with a rating of 4.5
- Y should be determined by how much team movies count. If Y=0, the authors will both get the full amount of points for the movie, the same amount an author would get if he had made the movie alone. If Y=1, you divide the amount of points a movie would get equally of the authors. The most logical value for Y is probably somewhere between 0 and 1.
- Z is the outcome.
This is just an example how the outcome can be used:
If Z = 0 --> member (what kind of member depends on number of posts)
If 0 < Z < A --> player
If A < Z < B --> experienced player
If Z > B --> expert player
1)Is there any progress in this topic, or plans for changes? 2)Are more ideas needed? 3)Are the current forum ranks only temporary, waiting for something better, 4)or is it already the way invisioned when this thread was created? 5)Are there still plans with implementing the players movie statistics into the ranks?
1) Until your post, nope..
2) Eagerly.
3) They are.
4) No.
5) Nothing straight implementable.
Your idea basically puts players on a scalar line. I'm not sure if that's the right way to go, but in some way it is the right way to go. :P
At least those ranks aren't awarded manually then.
Also, should it really just be sum(rating^X + nauthors^Y)? Not average? Not weighed?
At least those ranks aren't awarded manually then.
Indeed, this will avoid many discussions.
Bisqwit wrote:
Also, should it really just be sum(rating^X + nauthors^Y)?
it's sum(rating^X/nauthors^Y)
You must divide it by [the number of authors^Y].
Bisqwit wrote:
Not average? Not weighed?
No, it is important that it's NOT based on average rating. A movie with a low rating will get your average down, while it might just have a low rating since the game isn't popular. The movies quality might be perfectly good, and the fact that you made it should ADD to your score, not lower it. Of course, higher rated movies are appreciated more, and that's why X should probably be bigger than 1. But all the movies you made should add to your score, positively of course (since the movies are published, they are considered as good for the site, so it also should be good for your score).
The number Z might be a number that doesn't say anything on its own, but if you compute the number Z for all TASers, you will get a list that tells you more. The numbers like A and B can be decided by looking at that list.
I think the curriculum vitae is helpful, but what would be more helpful is, under the submissions, have a link to _every_ submission that person has sent. So you can see that, for whatever reason. I only think that would be nice if there was an easy way to get a URL for that specific act (gruefood included)
Due to not wanting to single anyone out, I will use myself as an example.
I have one submission, a Gruefood, but I think there should be a link that will send me to a page with all of my feats of Hide and Seek listed for people to see, as well as any Accepted runs [0 right now] or other grues.
It is late, I am tired. Hopefully I make at least a little sense, but this has been bothering me for a while.
adelikat wrote:
I very much agree with this post.
Bobmario511 wrote:
Forget party hats, Christmas tree hats all the way man.
Take the rating of one of your movies to the power of X. Divide it by the number of authors of that movie to the power if Y. Then add all those numbers for all your movies. The value you get it Z.
- N is your total amount of published movies.
- X should be determined on how important high ratings are considered. For instance, if X=0, then ratings don't matter at all, and only the amount of movies is considered. If X=1, you will just be adding the ratings of your movies. If X>1, movies with higher ratings will count heavier. It is probably good if X>1, since generally, one movie with a rating of 9.0 is liked better than two movies with a rating of 4.5
- Y should be determined by how much team movies count. If Y=0, the authors will both get the full amount of points for the movie, the same amount an author would get if he had made the movie alone. If Y=1, you divide the amount of points a movie would get equally of the authors. The most logical value for Y is probably somewhere between 0 and 1.
- Z is the outcome.
This is just an example how the outcome can be used:
If Z = 0 --> member (what kind of member depends on number of posts)
If 0 < Z < A --> player
If A < Z < B --> experienced player
If Z > B --> expert player
