in reply to Re^5: Querying Saints in our Book (2) (updated)
in thread Querying Saints in our Book (2)

Ya know, that sounds cool and stuff. But, i sadly have to admit, have no idea what any of it means.

Ordering Writeups by rep works even if you cannot see the rep? That is, is it accurate?

And if you cast votes at certain thresholds (like quantiles)

Please explain that a bit more. I keep thinking i know what you mean, but i don't.

I wouldn't expect tye to be too happy if you do this automatically and at large scale

The purpose of the above query is just on SioB, the one static page, and the data that is there. It might be fun for more pages to include queries but that would not be large scale. Eventually, though, i might use the xml for all the polls and poll ideas to have some fun querying with that.

after ordering your 863 posts best first and voting in a logarithmic scale

And my voting? What exactly are you doing? Admittedly, the big words make it sound interesting. :P

you are deciphered my friend

I will neither confirm nor deny the veracity of that statement, though i think you meant to add a comma to it. :)

  • Comment on Re^6: Querying Saints in our Book (2) (updated)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: Querying Saints in our Book (2) (updated)
by LanX (Saint) on May 18, 2016 at 13:51 UTC
    > And if you cast votes at certain thresholds (like quantiles)

    > Please explain that a bit more. I keep thinking i know what you mean, but i don't.

    Prerequisites:

    Normally I don't know how many votes your posts got, because I am LanX and not chacham and havent voted on all your writeups.

    Approach
    • I can order your writeups by votes and I (normally) see immediately the reply level by parsing the /Re:^(\d+)/ part
    • After voting at the middle of the 863 entries list at position 430 I see how many votes you got there +1 (here 4)
    • All following posts in this ordering have less or equal votes which is in a narrow margin (here <=4)
    • After voting at the middle of the upper list at position 215 I see how many votes you got there +1 (here <=7)
    • that means all posts between 215 and 430 have 4<=x<=8 votes
    • repeat these upper steps for 12.5%, 6.75%, ... and so on (here position 107 53 26 13 7 ...)
    • you get a logarithmic scale with narrow margins of votes
    Result
    Now you can pretty well approximate how many votes someone got for different reply levels

    For instance between 7th and 15th writeup there is only one level 2 post so you get @levelcount= (3, 4, 1) with votes 26<=x<=30

    Consequence

    You get a very good approximation of votes per level for one user after only casting votes on 1% of his writeups.

    Additionally you can also approximate the percentage of XP he got by votes cast by himself.

    Clearer now? :)

    Cheers Rolf
    (addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)
    Je suis Charlie!

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]

      Thank you. That is pretty neat. Let's see how it stacks up against the full data set. The link can be modified to show all the user's nodes.

      Read more... (33 kB)
      REP     AMOUNT      TOTAL    TOTAL_X
--- ---------- ---------- ----------
 -7          1         -7
 -4          3        -12
 -3          3         -9
 -2          3         -6
 -1         18        -18
  0         74          0
  1        124        124        124
  2        130        260        260
  3         94        282        282
  4         82        328        328
  5         61        305        305
  6         39        234        234
  7         44        308        308
  8         26        208        208
  9         27        243        243
 10         24        240        240
 11         15        165        165
 12         11        132        132
 13         21        273        273
 14         16        224        224
 15          9        135        135
 16          6         96         96
 17          7        119        119
 18          7        126        126
 19          6        114        114
 20          9        180        180
 21          3         63         63
 22          3         66         66
 23          1         23         23
 24          1         24         24
 25          3         75         75
 26          4        104        104
 27          1         27         27
 28          1         28         28
 29          2         58         58
 30          2         60         60
 31          1         31         31
 33          1         33         33
 39          1         39         39
 67          1         67         67
           885       4742       4794

      [download]

      So, i've got 885 nodes, and a total of 4794 rep, excluding the -52 from those with negative rep. Of course this doesn't show where a negative vote brought the rep back to zero (which means it gets the guaranteed xp inc at +1 more than once), but although its not terribly rare, at this level it shouldn't matter.

      Does that match up with you you determined?

[reply]
[d/l]
[select]
        (which means it gets the guaranteed xp inc at +1 more than once)

        No.

        - tye        

[reply]
Re^7: Querying Saints in our Book (Undervalued by 42%?)
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on May 18, 2016 at 15:44 UTC

    Some fodder for your endeavour.

    A summary of my post scores:

    <Reveal this spoiler or all in this thread>

    Which will allow you to test the logarithm hypothesis; and would allow you a datapoint for determining how much of the XP is down to votes cast by others; and how much down to the votes I cast and the daily freebies.

    Except that the calculated total shows that SioB undervalues my contributions to PM by 42%!

    With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I knew I was on the right track :)
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]
[d/l]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion