Timeline for Weighing votes?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 17, 2014 at 8:14 | vote | accept | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | ||
| Mar 17, 2014 at 6:30 | answer | added | Tim PostStaff | timeline score: 14 | |
| Mar 15, 2014 at 20:11 | answer | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 15, 2014 at 20:06 | vote | accept | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | ||
| Mar 17, 2014 at 8:14 | |||||
| Mar 15, 2014 at 14:19 | history | edited | user9072 |
edited tags
|
|
| Mar 15, 2014 at 14:18 | comment | added | user9072 | @მამუკაჯიბლაძე I expanded to an answer. Not that this is very important, but note: on meta.MO there is no reputation there is participation (computed in a quite different way, namely number of posts, comments, edits, votes cast [not received!] over a moving window of I think 6 weeks). | |
| Mar 15, 2014 at 14:15 | answer | added | user9072 | timeline score: 11 | |
| Mar 15, 2014 at 13:43 | comment | added | j.c. | This previous meta question also covers related ground: meta.mathoverflow.net/q/697 | |
| Mar 15, 2014 at 11:04 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | One more thing. I cannot speak in the name of others (neither here nor anywhere else), but speaking of me I think it is good to try to prefer improving myself over making myself happier. | |
| Mar 15, 2014 at 10:41 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | @quid Very interesting link! If you are willing to turn this comment into an answer I will gladly contribute to raising your reputation :) | |
| Mar 15, 2014 at 10:26 | comment | added | user9072 | @მამუკაჯიბლაძე in some way I agree quite a bit that in numerous ways the way these points are computed is not optimal. Here and also on Stack Overflow (its meta) they have numerous discussion like this, see things like for a 'historical' example meta.stackexchange.com/questions/9731/… but this got discussed over and over. Just to me starting to tweak it feels like opening a can of worms. In the end some will be a bit happier but likely more a bit unhappier, not because it will be worse but mainly as many do not like changes for such things. | |
| Mar 15, 2014 at 9:30 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | And as I said there is the opposite side - the case of contributions which might be good but relatively technical/specialized and because of that get few votes since only relatively advanced users realize that they are interesting. | |
| Mar 15, 2014 at 8:32 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | @ScottMorrison Well MO is part of the real world anyway, right? :) And this reputation is indeed reputation in this part of the real world. And I think that currently it encourages contributions which can impress the majority, which does not necessarily imply that they are good. One of the things local reputation should be about is the ability to judge which contributions are really good and not just superficially likable by majority. | |
| Mar 15, 2014 at 8:26 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | @quid I certainly did not mean restricting the meaning of reputation to mathematical abilities, and I find measuring them by any kind of numbers impossible. Nice edits improving readability are also relevant here and are rightly included as appropriate part of local reputation. As all of those who commented here I am talking about reputation relevant to MO only. I just want to say that (a) things like luck or ability to impress are not relevant and should be ruled out; (b) after improving it this way, local reputation would be more commonly recognized and so trusted to have higher weight. | |
| Mar 14, 2014 at 23:05 | comment | added | Kim Morrison Mod | I think it's very important we don't try to make MO 'reputation' reflect any kind of real world reputation. MO 'reputation' is the running total of a system of awarding points designed with the goal of encouraging good contributions to the site. I'm happy to think about that goal, as long as everyone realizes that's not really what the word reputation is meant to mean. | |
| Mar 14, 2014 at 19:40 | comment | added | user9072 | While I would prefer a word other than reputation such as contribution to make this clearer, I would still insists on "reputation" of course meaning reputation as a user of this site. One can also get points (not too many and not too easily but still) by things that have nothing whatsoever to do with math in a strict sense via making successfull suggestions for edits. Conversely if I would start to post advertisments on the site I might get spam flags that kick in which would make me loose reputation. And rightly so as "a citizen of this site" but unrelated to my math competence. | |
| Mar 14, 2014 at 19:04 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | Let me add that if it is indeed the case that what is measured here is not exactly reputation but something else, then calling it reputation can be not just misleading but also harmful, I believe. | |
| Mar 14, 2014 at 18:35 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | @GeraldEdgar I like the idea itself very much and I think measuring reputation is very useful, I am just asking whether everybody agrees that what is currently measured is really reputation or closer to something else like luck or ability to make impression. | |
| Mar 14, 2014 at 18:32 | comment | added | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | @ScottMorrison You may understand my question precisely as asking whether the quantity measured by votes in the current way matches the word 'reputation' well enough. | |
| Mar 14, 2014 at 14:14 | comment | added | Gerald Edgar | My advice: if you think "reputation" as now computed is not useful, then ignore it. | |
| Mar 14, 2014 at 13:32 | comment | added | Kim Morrison Mod | Only somewhat facetiously, weighing votes in such a way might misleadingly suggest we were trying to make 'reputation' match some other quantity more perfectly, when it already perfectly reflects the stated rules for calculating 'reputation'. | |
| Mar 14, 2014 at 10:11 | history | asked | მამუკა ჯიბლაძე | CC BY-SA 3.0 |