Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
laziness, impatience, and hubris

comment on

( #3333=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

I've started making the following fairly minor changes to the Voting/XP system. These changes serve to mildly discourage some forms of "problematic" voting and, more importantly, to make such "problem voting" matter much less.

  • No XP loss if your node is only down-voted once. Experience shows that a single down-vote being cast against a node usually has more to do with the person casting the vote than with the node. Losing 1 XP because of a single down-vote on one of your nodes is just noise that should be avoided.
  • Less XP loss if an old node of yours is down-voted (we forgive you for your old sins). If a node is more than 4 weeks old, then you can no longer lose any XP for it. The odds start dropping gradually after the node is 2 weeks old. This makes it much less effective for somebody to "attack" someone by down-voting all of their nodes.
  • High-reputation nodes that are old earn XP for up-votes more like regular-reputation nodes. This reduces the pile-on effect of Best Nodes on XP. Once a node is 4 weeks old, it having a high reputation no longer increases the likelihood of its author getting 1 XP for the up-vote. The effect of reputation begins dropping after the node is 2 weeks old.
  • If you cast too many down-votes, then each down-vote poses a chance that you'll lose 1 XP. If you only cast down-votes occasionally, then each will still give you a chance of gaining 1 XP.
  • I'm also considering a change such that casting most of your votes for/against a single author would cause you to not get most of your votes restored to you the next day. So if you always spend all of your votes on just one author, then you'd only get votes every other day. But I need to work on this idea more before I'll consider implementing it.

The "problems" addressed here are several.

Once in a while we get a monk in a fit of pique or dudgeon decide to punish another monk or just vent their feelings by systematically down-voting every node by that monk. This is not something that we feel we can outright ban, for several reasons3. But it also is easy to characterize as an abuse of the PerlMonks voting system. So I'd like to still allow the rare monk to occassionally anonymously "vent" (in hopes of helping them to "get over it"), while greatly reducing the potential impact on the "victim" and also encouraging the "attacker" to give up sooner rather than later (in the past, some of these "attacks" have gone on for many months -- go figure).

3 We have a long-standing policy of "they are your votes, cast them how you see fit". There have been rare cases where such actions could be seen by some as a reasonable protest against systematic anti-social behavior. Allowing people a fairly inoccuous way of venting their outrage can be a good idea. There have been cases that have gone to extremes and resulted in administrative intervention. But administrative intervention sucks so we'd rather just make it so the administrators and victims mostly just don't care much when this type of thing happens in the future.

Although the vast majority of monks mostly only up-votes nodes (thankfully), we have a small but significant minority of monks who mostly only down-vote nodes. These less-discriminate down-votes also seem to be among the most disruptive (most likely to lead to "dwelling" or worse). I think if you feel justified in dishing it out, you ought to be required to "take it", so casting only down-votes is going to incur one an XP penalty roughly equal to the one being given. I hope that these changes will encourage some monks to seek more balance with respect to voting.

We also occassionally (though more rarely than many predict, I think) get monks who miss the point and decide to cast as many votes as they can primarily for the XP gained rather than to aid in encouraging the creation of good quality nodes and to aid in the identification of which nodes are of the best quality. It appears that the most common route taken is to pick an author and just systematically vote for (or against) every one of their nodes. So I think it appropriate and useful to reduce the number of votes one can cast if one is only casting them toward a single author. The tough part for me is how to (mildly) discourage casting most of your votes for a single author while not unduely causing frustration when one reasonably runs into several nodes by one author that all deserve an up-vote.

Below is part of the Voting/Experience System documentation updated with the changes being implemented.

There are five ways to earn XP on PerlMonks:

  1. You have a 25% chance of gaining 2 XP once each day if you were logged in when visiting the site in the past 24 hours from when the vote fairy does the rounds.
  2. You have a 25% chance of gaining 1 XP every time you up-vote somebody else's node and a chance of gaining or losing 1 XP every time you down-vote a node (more on that later).
  3. If you cast all of your available votes, then you gain XP equal to +1/6 the number of votes you get each day. But this bonus only applies until you reach level 6.
  4. You gain 1 XP for each node you post that at least one person up-votes.
  5. You have a chance of gaining 1 XP each time somebody else up-votes one of your nodes. You have a chance of losing 1 XP each time somebody else down-votes one of your nodes. The exact odds are rather complicated and are explained below.

Exactly how do others' votes on my nodes affect my XP?

How you gain or lose XP when others vote on your nodes is a bit complicated. First let us define a couple of variables as follows:

This variable is calculated daily when votes are handed out. It is the average reputation of all of the nodes created within the past week. The current value of $NORM is ....
The current reputation of the node being voted on.

The chance that a vote on a node changes the author's XP is based on the $REP's relative value to the current $NORM and on the node's age (how much time has passed since the node was created). If the node's $REP is higher than the $NORM, then an up-vote is more likely to result in the author gaining 1 XP, and a down-vote is less likely to result in the author losing 1 XP. If the $REP is below $NORM then any given vote will always have a fixed chance of altering the author's XP. The exact odds are as follows, for nodes that are 2 weeks old or newer:

Odds of author's XP change based on $NORM and $REP
Range Odds of a Gain1 Odds of a Loss2
            $REP <   $NORM 1/3 1/3
   $NORM <= $REP < 2*$NORM 1/2 1/3
 2*$NORM <= $REP < 3*$NORM 2/3 1/3
 3*$NORM <= $REP < 4*$NORM 3/4 1/4
 4*$NORM <= $REP 1 0
 4 weeks <= Age 1/3 0

1 If a node is more than 4 weeks old, then the odds of its author gaining 1 XP when it is up-voted are 1/3 no matter the reputation. When a node turns 2 weeks old, the odds are based on the node's reputation as listed in the above table. As the node's age goes from 2 weeks to 4 weeks, the odds are linearly slid from the odds shown above to the 1/3 odds. For example, exactly 3 weeks after it is posted, if 4*$NORM <= $REP then the odds are (1+1/3)/2 or a 2/3 chance of earning its author 1 XP each time it is up-voted. Also, as noted previously, the first up-vote on a node always earns its author 1 XP (and has a 1/3 chance of earning its author a 2nd XP).

2 If a node is more than 4 weeks old, then the author of the node will no longer lose any XP when it is down-voted. When a node turns 2 weeks old, the odds are based on the node's reputation as listed in the above table. As the node's age goes from 2 weeks to 4 weeks, the odds are linearly slid from the odds shown above to 0. For example, exactly 3 weeks after it is posted, a node with 3*$NORM == $REP has (1/4+0)/2 or 1/8 chance of losing its author 1 XP each time it is down-voted. Also, the first down-vote cast on a node never costs its author any XP.

Exactly how does down-voting another's node affect my XP?

If you cast down-votes infrequently, then each down-vote that you cast has a 1/4 chance of earning you 1 XP, just like casting an up-vote does. If all you ever do is down-vote, then each down-vote that you cast has a 1/3 chance of losing you 1 XP, just like the author you down-vote likely has 1/3 chance of losing 1 XP.

For each user, PerlMonks tracks a weighted average of the recent votes that they have cast. Each time you cast an up-vote, your weighted average, $vtavg, is set to 0.1 + 0.9*$vtavg. Each time you cast a down-vote, your weighted average is set to -0.1 + 0.9*$vtavg. So somebody who only ever up-votes will quickly have a $vtavg very close to +1 while somebody who only ever down-votes will quickly have a $vtavg very close to -1.

If your $vtavg is positive, then each down-vote has $vtavg/4 chance of gaining you 1 XP. If your $vtavg is negative, then each down-vote has $vtavg/3 chance of losing you 1 XP. No, you are not allowed to look up another monk's or even your own current $vtavg.

For now, casting a down-vote will not earn nor cost you any XP. About one week from now, I'll deploy the "chance to gain or lose 1 XP when casting a down-vote" feature. But your $vtavg is already being updated based on your current voting.

The rest of the features are already in place, except, of course, for the "you don't get as many votes if you mostly just vote for/against one author" feature.

Update: See also One week left until potential XP loss for casting down-votes.

- tye        

In reply to History now influences voting by tye

Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post; it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":

  • Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
    <code> <a> <b> <big> <blockquote> <br /> <dd> <dl> <dt> <em> <font> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr /> <i> <li> <nbsp> <ol> <p> <small> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <table> <td> <th> <tr> <tt> <u> <ul>
  • Snippets of code should be wrapped in <code> tags not <pre> tags. In fact, <pre> tags should generally be avoided. If they must be used, extreme care should be taken to ensure that their contents do not have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor intervention).
  • Want more info? How to link or or How to display code and escape characters are good places to start.
Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others wandering the Monastery: (2)
As of 2022-01-20 07:22 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    In 2022, my preferred method to securely store passwords is:

    Results (56 votes). Check out past polls.