Revising the ArmchairGM User Rankings

11

by user Christof

Hey Folks:

As ArmchairGM continues to expand, it might be time to have a discussion as to what is the best way to rank users to the site. Currently, all users are ranked on the # of edits, comments, and promoted opinions that they make. In addition, each user is ranked by the positive popularity of their comments. The top 100 are then listed under Top Users.

I believe that it is the time to slightly adjust this process. First, I would add a fifth column for rankings. This fifth column would be for total comment score. Hence, this column will prevent some from abusing the positive popularity comments in such a way to increase their own ranking.

Second, I would expand the listing of Users from the Top 100 to All Users.

Finally, I would make it possible to sort the rankings by each column.

I am interested in hearing what others think on this matter.

Date

Sat 06/24/06, 8:43 am EST

Enable Comment Auto-Refresher

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1285 days ago

Score 0

What do you mean by total comment score? I thought that was already column 2? I asked Pean to change it to only include stats from the criteria above over the last week. What do people think of that? (N.B. I wrote that on the page in anticipation of that happening) I don't know if he did it yet - I understand his queue is long. I can't see why all users aren't on the list, it seems fair enough. FYI, it was 25 until recently, it was increased to 100 a few weeks ago. Sorting by each column would be a good idea. I think Pean is the man to talk to, as it was his idea.

Permalink | Reply

1285 days ago

Score -2

Comments score is the # of comments written right? The 5th column would add all positive and negative votes you get for those comments. Currently, column three only adds up the positive votes. This column has been abused by some already, and likely will be abused more often as time goes on. The fifth column would mediate the abuse to a degree, for the negative vote would still be included in the rankings. Does this clear things up for you.

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1285 days ago

Score 0

1. Edits rank, 2. Comments rank (No comments), 3. Comment Score Rank (taking + and - comment scores into account (the green and red boxes)), 4. Promoted opinions (the vote thing at the top of the page). Aren't they the 4 columns?

1285 days ago

Score -2

Yes. The fifth colum I am proposing is to add the + and - together. Column three currently takes +'s and subtracts -'s.

CoreyisarealboyMajor Leaguer

1285 days ago

Score -1

Wouldn't that help people who have nothing good to say and are constantly getting negative votes? I could say the worst stuff ever, get -100 votes for a single comment, and still improve my user ranking? Makes no sense.

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1285 days ago

Score 0

Oh, I think I get what you mean. But wouldn't that make a really controversial point score very highly? I get the reasoning behind it, however, I just have that one concern. Interesting idea though.

1285 days ago

Score 0

The down side of this is you could see someone making controversial points moving up the rankings. However, we have sysops who could step in and stop it if things get out of hand. On the other hand, we currently have a system where people have and will abuse the + / - system to move up in the rankings. Remember the post about Sportsmanship a few weeks back? This new fifth column fixes that problem.

MetsJetsDevilsDraft Pick

1285 days ago

Score 0

My ranking is low because I don't believe in sabermetrics. I may be right in my opinion, but everytime I post my thoughts I get tremendous negatives. If I were to fix anything it would be that.

Permalink | Reply

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1285 days ago

Score -2

With your comment score, course you would. I think that idea would lend itself to putting more frequent users higher on the list. Which might not be too bad.

DNLLegend

1285 days ago

Score 3

Actually, most of your negatives are because you made a lot of idiotic comments :)

Patrickburke1980All-American

1285 days ago

Score -2

I personally feel the ranking system is perfectly fine as is...though it would be cool to see how every user ranks. The only downside to that is there are probably a good number of people who sign up and never really use the site again. Why should they continue to be listed (unless the account is inactive for a certain amount of time).

Permalink | Reply

1285 days ago

Score 0

I imagine that a command can be added that if a person is inactive, say for 1 year, that person is placed on the in-active, Physically Unable to Continue ("PUC")list.

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1285 days ago

Score 0

Speaking of comment scores, have people noticed the sudden, yet brutal decline of Xinoph? He's gone down from 3rd to 80something, and his comment score has gone from +plenty to -60. Take a look...

Permalink | Reply

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1285 days ago

Score 0

Now I've looked, he is 91st, and his comment score is 31 below MetsJetsDevils!

1285 days ago

Score 0

Ouch. Like I said, people are beginning to abuse the system. Xinoph just happens to be the latest victim.

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1285 days ago

Score 0

I think users found of commiting such practices should be banned from voting. Such a rapid decline will be obvious to spot on the records. The user(s) should be punished by being unable to vote (and have all previous votes cancelled, if possible), to get rid of such idiocity, and restore justice to those that have succumbed.

1285 days ago

Score 0

Can we really follow those who vote. Someone can easily log out and vote. Then what to do. At least, by adding a 5th column, you mitigate the impact.

XinophDraft Pick

1285 days ago

Score 0

I believe anonymous users can't vote anymore, I think that change was made. Besides, that would still just give you two votes.

MetsJetsDevilsDraft Pick

1284 days ago

Score -1

I hope your post wasn't trying to insinuate that I had anything to do with it. I can promise you that my hatred for sabermetrics and the Yankees aside, I only vote negative for points that I vehemently disagree with such as Barry Bonds belonging in the Hall of Fame, the use of sabermetrics as a gauge on one's value, and, well, anything written by DNL!

XinophDraft Pick

1285 days ago

Score 0

Exactly. Who the f*ck did this to me? Probably a gang of Ozzie supporters or gay-haters went on a rampage against every single comment that I'd ever made, because I dared to oppose bigotry. The user comment score should be removed from the equation entirely at this point, it's so manipulatable.

Permalink | Reply

1285 days ago

Score -1

You can't assume that. Someone went wild on DNL's comments a few weeks back. Someone went wild on my comments in the NHL Opinion that followed the game live. You just happened to be the user to get nailed.

XinophDraft Pick

1285 days ago

Score 0

Oh, you're right. I'm sure someone registered a variety of fake accounts to go on a rampage against me because they don't like the letter X. It was odds-on a group of bigots attacking my user ranking. Bet you any amount of money.

1285 days ago

Score 0

Your comments on Gullien may have drawn the attention of those who are abusing the point system, but I would not say they are doing so because they love Ozzie or are bigots. I think your are making too far of a logical jump there, with no evidence to prove it. I mean, why did they attack DNL 2 weeks ago? Why did they attack me in the hockey post on Monday?

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1285 days ago

Score 0

They attack randomly, I was robbed of over 30 points from nowhere the other day. After an hours searching, I couldn't find where it was. At least the ArmchairGM community knows that Xinoph's contributions are much better than the 91st suggests. It shows how sharp the Top Users knife-edge is. One of my friends has used the site for a week, and is over forty places above Xinoph. Perhaps you could abandon that user status, and restart afresh?

XinophDraft Pick

1285 days ago

Score 0

I'm not abandoning my account because I was attacked - that would be giving in to bullying; I just wrote a column on this. And while I sympathize, Alex, 30 points is well less than I was robbed of today. I had more like 100+ taken from me; they would have had to register a variety of fake accounts, I think, to do this properly. While it certainly could be random terrorism, since it was so much in such a short time I'm willing to bet it was a response to something I wrote. It could as easily have been a response to my NL-bashing, but I don't think that's quite the emotional topic that bigotry is. That's why I'm betting it's that.

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1285 days ago

Score 0

Judging by the fact you were ahead of me in the rankings for comment score, and are now well, nowhere, it's probably more like 250 you've been robbed of. BTW, I've just read your article.

XinophDraft Pick

1285 days ago

Score 2

I think more than two days after a comment is made it shouldn't be rateable

Permalink | Reply

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1285 days ago

Score 0

That would make sense. Calm down though Xinoph, I know you probably care about your score, but you sound like you're about to explode... Calm down a bit... Of all the voting idiocies that have gone on, that's got to be the worst. I think everybody that doesn't abuse the system should vote more liberally - no-one minds their score staying the same or going up a lot, but dropping by about 200 in a few hours is eccentric.

XinophDraft Pick

1285 days ago

Score 0

I'm about to explode because fascists are trying to bully me out of being controversial. I'm not going to stop making comments and I'm not going to stop writing, regardless of where my user ranking is, so these little immature SOBs can give up now.

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1285 days ago

Score 0

At least if the stats were based on the last week, then Xinpoh would be back up in his rightful position by next Sunday, but now it'll take him ages to build his comment score anywhere near where it once was. Under the current system, I'd guess he will never get back up to third, no matter how long he tried.

Permalink | Reply

Madproof9Red-Shirting

1285 days ago

Score 1

Most of the discussion is about comments... what if you couldn't make negative comments anymore? Only positive ones. That way, if people don't like you, they can't bash you, but if you have a good point, you can still rise up. Probably a stretch, but with all the comment contraversy that might not bee too bad.

Permalink | Reply

Madproof9Red-Shirting

1285 days ago

Score 0

Or, make it so the initial comment has to be a positive one, and negatives can only come after the initial positive vote. That way, someone can't randomly go through every post and just mark a negative. Only comments with a good insight will even have the ability to be voted.

ASwaffAll-American

1285 days ago

Score 0

One thing I just noticed that also seems to be happening that's escaping notice is people putting pluses and minuses on old comments from articles that you have to go into a writer's profile to look for. I was looking at a few of my older articles, and some comments had minuses for no apparent reason. They were putting minuses for comments that read, in their entirety, things like, "ha ha," or "I agree."

Permalink | Reply

CoreyisarealboyMajor Leaguer

1285 days ago

Score 1

I think with some users the scores have become more of a reflection of their feelings toward another rather than an actual reflection of the comment itself.

Permalink | Reply

ASwaffAll-American

1285 days ago

Score 0

Exactly, Corey. I actually just addressed that on Xinoph's thread about not giving in to bullying.

All~In~ChicagoVarsity

1285 days ago

Score 0

Maybe we should have it where if you vote +/- you are required to add a comment. The box will prompt automatically and if you don't write anything you can't +/- the comment. At least everyone can see who is voting +/- this way. Also if the comments written are random scribble, that user can move to have that score removed. I don't know? Maybe too much work?

Permalink | Reply

Retrieved from "http://armchairgm.wikia.com/Revising_the_ArmchairGM_User_Rankings"

This page was last modified 18:45, 24 June 2006. Content is available under the GFDL.