Recruiting Tangent Thread

Toe said:
@4skers89 Heh. Among those on the most rep points leaderboard, it looks like @Ulty is currently #1 for Likes:Posts ratio, with 1.07 likes per post, while I'm at #2 with 1.03, and @Fru is currently right exactly on a 1:1 ratio. Again, that's among those who show up on the leaderboard, which is like the top 75 for total rep. 
Click to expand...


I think I'm the de facto HuskerBoard custodian of Rep, since I have data going back to 2010, the first year we started the Rep thing when IP Board added it to their base package. My reliable historical data dates from about 2012 when people started asking questions about Rep and I, in response, started keeping a bit of track of it. 

What you're saying here is not exactly accurate, as it doesn't account for years when we only had 10 Rep to give per day, or 50, or 100, as decided by the Admins, and announced by @AR Husker Fan, who I don't think most of the people you're citing even know. Back in the day people would just respond to something they agreed with with "+1" or something like, and hitting the rep button wasn't really a thing.

So there are stages of Rep based on a few different factors, including a person's longevity, their post count, the amount of Rep we could give per day, etc. It's all fluctuated wildly over the past nine-ish years.

I don't have my data in front of me as I reply to this, but off the top of my head, @Guy Chamberlin has a really good post-to-Rep ratio, as does @Ulty, as does @Ads.

Weird that the reference links stop after five in a post.

Again, off the top of my head, @BigWillie has a really good post-to-Rep ratio, and I don't think he's even in the top 75. @Nexus used to be up there, too. Not sure where he is now, since he's barely posted in five years.

The reason we have data on the top 75 or whatever it is is because when we changed to this version of the board about three or four years ago, I asked @Mavric to increase the reporting for Rep to more than the default 10 or 25 or whatever it was, because on a bi-monthly basis I've been keeping track of this stuff for a bunch of years.

Year by year, BigRedBuster, Moiraine, me, Landlord, zoogs, and a few others have pretty good post-to-Rep ratios. Those stats will be skewed in favor of people who joined in the last, say, five years when Rep increased to 100 per day.

All that's to say that there are basically tiers of people with good rep ratios based on their join dates in relation to Rep-per-day amounts. But it's important to note that someone like Mavric, who does a TON of basic info-posting and other mundane tasks that increase his post count, but don't necessarily always result in +1s, won't ever be up there on a post-to-Rep ratio, but who are very important to the board, won't be counted. A lot of the Mods fit that category, but Mav is the most obvious of them.

So Rep ratios are nice, but they need historic context.

 
knapplc said:
I think I'm the de facto HuskerBoard custodian of Rep, since I have data going back to 2010, the first year we started the Rep thing when IP Board added it to their base package. My reliable historical data dates from about 2012 when people started asking questions about Rep and I, in response, started keeping a bit of track of it. 

What you're saying here is not exactly accurate, as it doesn't account for years when we only had 10 Rep to give per day, or 50, or 100, as decided by the Admins, and announced by @AR Husker Fan, who I don't think most of the people you're citing even know. Back in the day people would just respond to something they agreed with with "+1" or something like, and hitting the rep button wasn't really a thing.

So there are stages of Rep based on a few different factors, including a person's longevity, their post count, the amount of Rep we could give per day, etc. It's all fluctuated wildly over the past nine-ish years.

I don't have my data in front of me as I reply to this, but off the top of my head, @Guy Chamberlin has a really good post-to-Rep ratio, as does @Ulty, as does @Ads.

Weird that the reference links stop after five in a post.

Again, off the top of my head, @BigWillie has a really good post-to-Rep ratio, and I don't think he's even in the top 75. @Nexus used to be up there, too. Not sure where he is now, since he's barely posted in five years.

The reason we have data on the top 75 or whatever it is is because when we changed to this version of the board about three or four years ago, I asked @Mavric to increase the reporting for Rep to more than the default 10 or 25 or whatever it was, because on a bi-monthly basis I've been keeping track of this stuff for a bunch of years.

Year by year, BigRedBuster, Moiraine, me, Landlord, zoogs, and a few others have pretty good post-to-Rep ratios. Those stats will be skewed in favor of people who joined in the last, say, five years when Rep increased to 100 per day.

All that's to say that there are basically tiers of people with good rep ratios based on their join dates in relation to Rep-per-day amounts. But it's important to note that someone like Mavric, who does a TON of basic info-posting and other mundane tasks that increase his post count, but don't necessarily always result in +1s, won't ever be up there on a post-to-Rep ratio, but who are very important to the board, won't be counted. A lot of the Mods fit that category, but Mav is the most obvious of them.

So Rep ratios are nice, but they need historic context.
Click to expand...
Excellent overview Knapp, appreciate the rundown.

+1 for your contributions.

Also, thanks to all the posters who are here to share and discuss the Huskers and eyerolls to the trolls.

 
@knapplc Yeah, I pretty much assumed all of that. Didn't mean for my numbers to be taken too seriously, as I said I was only going by what the leaderboard showed. I figured that lots of posts predated the rep system, although I didn't know that there was a daily limit on reps. Even breaking things into tiers by join date might skew my numbers, since I registered here back in 2007 but didn't make this my regular board until a couple years ago.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Toe said:
@knapplc I pretty much assumed all of that. Didn't mean for my numbers to be taken too seriously, as I said I was only going by what the leaderboard showed. I figured that lots of posts predated the rep system, although I didn't know that there was a daily limit on reps. Even breaking things into tiers by join date might skew my numbers, since I registered here back in 2007 but didn't make this my regular board until a couple years ago.
Click to expand...


I agree. None of it is to be taken too seriously. The Rep stuff is a fun oddity to look at. A person with zero Rep can make a better point than a person with 5,000 Rep.

The whole thing is just fodder for spreadsheets and idle time.

 
Huskers93-97 said:
Well actually if we are going off pure facts and not just 1 person's angry viewpoint. The below would contradict your opinion and would actually state more people enjoy my posts than yours.  :D

I have 1912 +1 to my 2853 posts for an average of 67% of my posts get a +1. While you on the other hand have 1255 +1 to your 2129 posts for an average of 58.9% of your posts get a +1. 
Click to expand...


b8eaae7e3a27b521b21c7fa1544bd217.gif


Huskers93-97 said:
Probably plenty and I dont really care about that. It was a counter argument to someone attacking all my "stupid posts" 
Click to expand...


Amount of feedback positive or negative has nothing to do with the stupidity of your posts or lack thereof.

 
Toe said:
@4skers89 Heh. Among those on the most rep points leaderboard, it looks like @Ulty is currently #1 for Likes:Posts ratio, with 1.07 likes per post, while I'm at #2 with 1.03, and @Fru is currently right exactly on a 1:1 ratio. Again, that's among those who show up on the leaderboard, which is like the top 75 for total rep.
Click to expand...


Holy crap! All hail Ulty!

princess-bride-queen-of-filth.gif


Landlord said:
Amount of feedback positive or negative has nothing to do with the stupidity of your posts or lack thereof.
Click to expand...


This is very true. Despite my rep point to post ratio, most of my posts contain a good dose of idiocy. This post included!

 
knapplc said:
I think I'm the de facto HuskerBoard custodian of Rep, since I have data going back to 2010, the first year we started the Rep thing when IP Board added it to their base package. My reliable historical data dates from about 2012 when people started asking questions about Rep and I, in response, started keeping a bit of track of it. 

What you're saying here is not exactly accurate, as it doesn't account for years when we only had 10 Rep to give per day, or 50, or 100, as decided by the Admins, and announced by @AR Husker Fan, who I don't think most of the people you're citing even know. Back in the day people would just respond to something they agreed with with "+1" or something like, and hitting the rep button wasn't really a thing.

So there are stages of Rep based on a few different factors, including a person's longevity, their post count, the amount of Rep we could give per day, etc. It's all fluctuated wildly over the past nine-ish years.

I don't have my data in front of me as I reply to this, but off the top of my head, @Guy Chamberlin has a really good post-to-Rep ratio, as does @Ulty, as does @Ads.

Weird that the reference links stop after five in a post.

Again, off the top of my head, @BigWillie has a really good post-to-Rep ratio, and I don't think he's even in the top 75. @Nexus used to be up there, too. Not sure where he is now, since he's barely posted in five years.

The reason we have data on the top 75 or whatever it is is because when we changed to this version of the board about three or four years ago, I asked @Mavric to increase the reporting for Rep to more than the default 10 or 25 or whatever it was, because on a bi-monthly basis I've been keeping track of this stuff for a bunch of years.

Year by year, BigRedBuster, Moiraine, me, Landlord, zoogs, and a few others have pretty good post-to-Rep ratios. Those stats will be skewed in favor of people who joined in the last, say, five years when Rep increased to 100 per day.

All that's to say that there are basically tiers of people with good rep ratios based on their join dates in relation to Rep-per-day amounts. But it's important to note that someone like Mavric, who does a TON of basic info-posting and other mundane tasks that increase his post count, but don't necessarily always result in +1s, won't ever be up there on a post-to-Rep ratio, but who are very important to the board, won't be counted. A lot of the Mods fit that category, but Mav is the most obvious of them.

So Rep ratios are nice, but they need historic context.
Click to expand...




The pandering for Rep points is ridiculous. I didn't get one my first two years on the board, and do you see me complaining?

By the way, say hi to your Mom. She's a special lady.

Also, have you lost weight? 

 
Back
Top