Timeline for Is there bias in the parity of MO reputation (or similar random parameter)?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 12, 2016 at 7:13 | vote | accept | joro | ||
| Apr 11, 2016 at 9:47 | answer | added | user642796 | timeline score: 5 | |
| Apr 11, 2016 at 2:56 | answer | added | S. CarnahanMod | timeline score: 5 | |
| Apr 10, 2016 at 13:19 | comment | added | joro | @arjafi In 2012 MO wasn't part of the SE network and I believe 101 users couldn't join for free. | |
| Apr 10, 2016 at 13:18 | comment | added | joro | @JoelDavidHamkins Users with reputation 1 are excluded by the lower bound of 10 points reputation. | |
| Apr 10, 2016 at 13:00 | comment | added | user642796 | @JoelDavidHamkins Emil might also be including the large group of users with 101 reputation (due to the association bonus). I imagine that those two groups (1 rep and 101 rep) make up at least half of all accounts. | |
| Apr 10, 2016 at 12:54 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | I think Emil was referring to the large number of users whose score is not only 1 modulo 10, but is actually 1 identically. | |
| Apr 10, 2016 at 10:02 | comment | added | joro | @EmilJeřábek I think yours might be true because at the time question upvote gave 10 points. In case accepting an answer toggles the parity, I am not sure yours is true in a random model. | |
| Apr 10, 2016 at 9:58 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | For obvious reasons, at the lower end there will be a disproportionately large number of people with reputation = 1 modulo 10. | |
| Apr 10, 2016 at 8:34 | history | edited | joro | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 487 characters in body
|
| Apr 10, 2016 at 8:11 | history | asked | joro | CC BY-SA 3.0 |