It's long been held that the XP to writeups ratio is pretty meaningless. Not as much as in the old days, however, when everyone got XP for voting out for the day, and people went on voting sprees just to get the vote-out XP (one of the several forms of XP whoring).
More meaningful is the total reputation to writeups ratio. This reflects what your betters, peers, and lessors think of your articles, over a period of time. The only problem with this number is that as more users join the monestary, and more articles get more votes (since there are more voting users), it's hard to look at it over time. I remember when an article with a rep of 20 was a *seriously* good article. Now, that should be about average, or slightly above. What you'll see is that users that have been here a long time, but post infrequently, have a lower that "deserved" rep to writeups ratio.
This information is not publically available, but can be calculated for your self. See statswhore.pl for a basic summary, or if you like to monitor the changes in reputation to your articles, see luke_repwalker.pl.
For my self, I am of a divided opinion about whether this number should be shared with others or not. People like Erudil (who has 5 articles) have a ridculous rep to writeup ratio, where others are much, much lower. This is sort of like telling everyone your IQ. If it's really high, you brag. If it's low, you kinda just don't say anything. Or, some may feel it's simply none of your business, and will tell you so.
It would be interesting to plot a graph of the reps to writeup ratio, with a reading taken daily. I'll leave that project to someone else to implement.
--Chris
e-mail jcwren | [reply] |
| [reply] |
I would also be interested in seeing the average rep per post ratio as well. | [reply] |