in reply to Re: Querying Saints in our Book (2)
in thread Querying Saints in our Book (2)

NodeReaper added to version 1.1.2. Had to change ranking to username, as ranking is not userid. But i knew that already...

I'm hoping for more suggestions about whom to exclude or modify, as inactive users who get the overwhelming majority of their points via voting are not really representative of the ratio. OTOH, except for the egregious, the outliers probably do not mess up the ratio much anyway.

I'm curious also if there is interest is displaying each monk's ratio and its relation to the level and all groups' ratios. The possibilities for useless information are endless.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Querying Saints in our Book (2)
by 1nickt (Canon) on May 17, 2016 at 12:52 UTC

    suggestions about whom to exclude or modify, as inactive users who get the overwhelming majority of their points via voting are not really representative of the ratio

    I added fields in "Ranking the Saints by XP Efficiency" to require having visited the site in the most recent N weeks, and having made a minimum number of posts. Did not add a filter to require having posted in the last N weeks, which would have improved the quality of the rankings even more, but I think it could be done. Also my script can be configured to deduct 0.5 XP per day in an attempt to get closer to the XP gained from posting rather than longevity.


    The way forward always starts with a minimal test.
[reply]

      require having visited the site in the most recent N weeks

      That helps give the recent average, which might be interesting, assuming the average has changed. But that's hard to detect, unless included when people first logged on or started posting.

      having made a minimum number of posts

      That's a decent idea. The question is, what is the minimum?

      To get into SioB, a certain amount of reputation must be reached, that is, 3000. There is no minimum on posts.

      Read more... (1332 Bytes)
      MONK_LEVEL MONK_TOTAL        MIN        MAX        AVG     MEDIAN     
+ LOWER      EQUAL     HIGHER
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----
+------ ---------- ----------
        13        205          0        903        238        229     
+   109          2         94
        14        145          1       1009        328        312     
+    75          0         70
        15         80          4       1236        456        445     
+    42          0         38
        16         77          0       1133        553        538     
+    40          0         37
        17         44         13       1582        751        767     
+    21          0         23
        18         42         51       2565        936        859     
+    23          0         19
        19         34         16       4183       1374       1347     
+    18          0         16
        20         26        186       4500       2021       2057     
+    13          0         13
        21         18        600       5335       3065       2974     
+    10          0          8
        22          8        607       4520       3159       3650     
+     3          0          5
        23          6       3416       7240       5503       5794     
+     2          0          4
        24          2       3001       6420       4711       4711     
+     1          0          1
        25          3       6323       7909       6956       6635     
+     2          0          1
        28          4      10463      22669      17635      19772     
+     2          0          2
                  692          0      22669        785        378     
+   531          0        161

      [download]

      The average Writeups per level does seem to be mostly balanced. (Included the median, per LanX's suggestion.) How exactly would we determine the lower bar for Writeups?

      deduct 0.5 XP per day in an attempt to get closer to the XP gained from posting rather than longevity.

      That's an intriguing idea. On what is the half point based though?

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

        "require having visited the site in the most recent N weeks"

        That helps give the recent average, which might be interesting, assuming the average has changed. But that's hard to detect, unless included when people first logged on or started posting.

        Hm, I was interested in the recent numbers, frankly, because I felt that the environment had changed so much from the early days of the monastery that it's almost not valid to compare a monk who joined a year ago with one who was active from 2007-2008, say.

        "having made a minimum number of posts"

        That's a decent idea. The question is, what is the minimum?

        Perhaps a function of the overall median reputation per post and the number of their posts? I.e. if your total XP is N and you haven't made at least M posts, your XP is deemed to be overweighted by longevity? Or perhaps better as a function of median rep per post and age as a monk - you should have at least this many posts after this long?

        LOL, it's amusing. My goal was to try to evaluate contributions rather than just showing up ...

        "deduct 0.5 XP per day in an attempt to get closer to the XP gained from posting rather than longevity."

        That's an intriguing idea. On what is the half point based though?

        From the Monastery FAQ: 

        Visiting the site regularly.
You have 25% chance of gaining 2 XP points once a day if you were logg
+ed in within the past 24 hours from when the vote fairy does the roun
+ds.

        [download]

        Cheers!


        The way forward always starts with a minimal test.
[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion