Feature Request: full "Top Contributors" list
Not important, of course, but I'd like to see where I fall in the list :)
You have been nominated for the Hall of Shame anyway,
Quote: strictlyAPaces I ran the numbers you are 39th
Nice, did you just crawl the website or are you joking?
If you are joking, maybe I'll work on that...while I'm at work...not working...
Quote: DRichI think that is a terrible idea. Why give people an incentive to just post more without regard to quality. I think the whole idea of showing how many posts users have is counter-productive.
I don't know what forum software Mike uses, but I noticed some sites use software that allows members to "vote" on the quality of a person's posts; which affects their ranking.
Who cares who the top contributors are, it has
nothing to do with anything.
Quote: DRichI think that is a terrible idea. Why give people an incentive to just post more without regard to quality. I think the whole idea of showing how many posts users have is counter-productive.
What's the incentive? Prove to others that wouldn't care anyway that you are "King of the Internet"?
On my private poker forum, I was the 3rd most verbose in my posts I think, so I am never making high post quantity.
Quote: GHI don't know what forum software Mike uses, but I noticed some sites use software that allows members to "vote" on the quality of a person's posts; which affects their ranking.
This forum software is custom written by JB.
I understand the opposition to the idea, although I don't agree. I think it's harmless, people are going to run their mouth off on the internet regardless of anything. So without further ado, I present to you: The ranking of members!
Took me about an hour or so to hack it together in perl. Note this list is not auto-updating, it is a snapshot
Quote: strictlyAPaces I ran the numbers you are 39th
So either you were joking, or you did the same thing I did and confused me with aceofspades :). If so, props for hacking it together in 14 minutes, a paltry amount of time compared to me.
Quote: EvenBobI vote for getting rid of that function altogether.
Who cares who the top contributors are, it has
nothing to do with anything.
I couldn't agree more but let's not stop there. How about removing the thread and post count that are there every time we post? If it's that important to someone they can keep track of it themselves.
Quote: 1BBI couldn't agree more but let's not stop there. How about removing the thread and post count that are there every time we post? If it's that important to someone they can keep track of it themselves.
Yup, that should go to. It serves no purpose. I prefer
rankings, like with numbers of stars, that tells how
long a person has been a member.
Quote: EvenBobYup, that should go to. It serves no purpose. I prefer
rankings, like with numbers of stars, that tells how
long a person has been a member.
I for one like seeing how many posts and threads a user has created. Here's an example:
Some person makes their first post telling some story. I'm less likely to find it credible and spend time thinking about it/helping them with math etc. if they aren't an established member and are instead just a troll looking for attention.
On the other hand, the guy who yesterday asked questions about his dealer audition, I took time to respond to that because while I didn't recognize his username, I noticed that he had over 100 posts and had contributed to the forum over the years.
There are people who made accounts in 2010 but never post, so I would take opposition to them having several stars next to their name while someone who joined in 2012 but is very active and helpful is made to look like a newbie.
I would like you to add a separate section for all capitals top poster----
Who would that be??????
Quote: SOOPOOaces and eights-----
I would like you to add a separate section for all capitals top poster----
Who would that be??????
That would be the all YELL team?
Quote: RaleighCrapsThat would be the all YELL team?
no... i meant SOOPOO......
Since I'm SURE everyone is super excited about watching this list and where they fall, I'll try to fix it :p
Also, strictlyAP, you never answered my question as to whether you were just joking, are or WAY more efficient than me at hacking :).
Quote: AcesAndEightsDamn, just realized my script has a bug of not counting admins, due to their green color and the regex I'm using to scrape page data. Whoops! Ran into the same problem with blocked members and fixed it, but there are a lot more blocked members than admins.
Since I'm SURE everyone is super excited about watching this list and where they fall, I'll try to fix it :p
Also, strictlyAP, you never answered my question as to whether you were just joking, are or WAY more efficient than me at hacking :).
Finally fixed the admin problem, list has been updated today! One thing I noticed from adding this fix is that either the Wizard specifically (or more likely all admins) don't show up in the "Top Contributors" list! I'm guessing this is by design, but it is interesting to note that the Wiz would be between Nareed and pacomartin in the top 5 were he included.
Quote: AcesAndEights... list has been updated today!
Not being a comp sci type, I still don't really understand starting the rankings with the number zero, unless that is some kind of snipe at the person holding that position.
Quote: DocNot being a comp sci type, I still don't really understand starting the rankings with the number zero, unless that is some kind of snipe at the person holding that position.
It is absolutely not that (a snipe at Nareed), it is just a computer science thing. Everything is indexed starting at 0. I could, of course, change it, but I'd rather not :).
Quote: AcesAndEightsIt is absolutely not that (a snipe at Nareed), ...
We must be looking at different lists.
Quote: DocWe must be looking at different lists.
Haha, whoops. Nope, I just didn't look at the list directly while responding to that comment, and I thought Nareed was #0. Was not a snipe at EvenBob either.
WOV members by post count
DT members by post count
If JB or the Wizard ask me to remove this, for any reason, I will do so. If they don't like having the list available on philosophical grounds, I disagree but completely understand. If they don't want me scraping all 148 pages of member listings once per day, then I would suggest they add the feature to the website directly using an appropriate DB query :).
Also, because of a mistake I made in the crontab, the thing actually ran every minute between 1am and 2am PST (d'oh) this morning. While I doubt it caused any problems as this site gets a fair bit of traffic, I apologize for the extra load.
Quote: RonCNot that I would rank high in either category because I don't post a ton and sometimes go off on a tangent, I'd rather see "Top Contributors" be the ones who actually contribute the most, not that make the most posts. The list could be different under those standards...
Right, that would involve some subjectivity. My natural language processing software skills are pretty lacking (read: nonexistent :) ). So, feel free to do that one yourself.
Quote: 1BBHow about listing who has the most posts in the least amount of time?
Now that request is feasible. I could add a "average posts/day" metric or somesuch to the table. I'll put it on my backlog.
A&8: I think 1BB was kidding you!Quote: AcesAndEightsNow that request is feasible. I could add a "average posts/day" metric or somesuch to the table. I'll put it on my backlog.
I also find these features totally ridiculous and useless. Now if that makes you smile, OK. But remember, we in Europe are writing while it is night in the USA, so if your thing slows down traffic it definitely bothers us...
Quote: AcesAndEightsNow that request is feasible. I could add a "average posts/day" metric or somesuch to the table. I'll put it on my backlog.
I'd like to see it. The now defunct BlackjackInfo has it right in the members' profiles. It makes you wonder where some people find the time. Admittedly it doesn't speak to the quality of the posts or to the posters expertise. Anyone can have a high post count if they barrage us with one or two word posts or silly one liners of which I would have to plead guilty to on occasion. Others who feel compelled to comment on every single subject can also have high post counts.
I also don't think we need the list of the "newest members." Personally, I've never paid any attention to it.
Quote: WizardI've read through this thread and am considering the issue. A question to be addressed is if I get rid of the "top posters" list, what do I replace it with.
I also don't think we need the list of the "newest members." Personally, I've never paid any attention to it.
*Maybe some sort of highest rated threads (possibly with a bit of karma decay).
*Admins' choice (like editor selections)
*Maybe some FAQ threads? Although anyone who doesn't do a standard search on the current threads is probably a lower probability candidate for looking through that.
Edited for format
Quote: endermikeMaybe some sort of highest rated threads (possibly with a bit of karma decay).
I'm not at all sure that the current thread rating system is all that valuable. I initiated the Casino Chip of the Day thread that now has 4,198 posts and a 5-Star rating. However, that rating is based on a total of six votes. After 375,697 views, only six people have bothered to vote on what they think of the thread. Most threads have no votes at all. With that small degree of voting, I think that every vote is over-valued when the stars are posted next to the thread title.
Quote: DocI'm not at all sure that the current thread rating system is all that valuable. I initiated the Casino Chip of the Day thread that now has 4,198 posts and a 5-Star rating. However, that rating is based on a total of six votes. After 375,697 views, only six people have bothered to vote on what they think of the thread. Most threads have no votes at all. With that small degree of voting, I think that every vote is over-valued when the stars are posted next to the thread title.
I agree. However if the voting was somehow material to how the site shows threads people would be more likely to rate them. I know for me the ratings have little meaning and I ignore them. However if there was greater participation in the rating, they might become useful.
<deleted>
I would like to get into the top 40...
Quote: WizardI've read through this thread and am considering the issue. A question to be addressed is if I get rid of the "top posters" list, what do I replace it with.
I also don't think we need the list of the "newest members." Personally, I've never paid any attention to it.
It is really a good idea to encourage people to post for the sake of posting?
Quote: AxiomOfChoiceIt is really a good idea to encourage people to post for the sake of posting?
it makes sense for wizard because every post and every view of that post generates ad views
Quote: sodawaterit makes sense for wizard because every post and every view of that post generates ad views
Unless the noise starts to drown out the signal and people never come back.
Quote: sodawaterit makes sense for wizard because every post and every view of that post generates ad views
Then he should not have banned juicie jennie :) (this is a JOKE! Just pointing out that her threads were well-viewed)
I am actually not sure how his advertising agreement with Bovada works. Does he really get paid for views? Or only clicks? Or only new sign-ups as a result of the click?
Quote: WizardI've read through this thread and am considering the issue. A question to be addressed is if I get rid of the "top posters" list, what do I replace it with.
I also don't think we need the list of the "newest members." Personally, I've never paid any attention to it.
I've thought of this a few times... still got nothin'.
The Top Threads I use seldom, usually if I'm just looking for something interesting to read as long threads are usually long for a reason.
The New Member list I only look at to confirm if a spam post I nuked was indeed someone new. I can accomplish the same just by looking at the post in question, since everyone's post count is visible in the page.
Top Contributors, for those who care, would be better off with Aces version. As of now, it's the same unchanging 5 people, and clicking the header just takes you to a list sorted alphabetically. That being said, I do use the alphabetical list for other reasons, and if you ditch both the New Member and Top Poster threads, I'm unsure how I'd access it.
My only suggestion is I wish that the Blog bolded the way the Recent Threads does, to notify you when a blog has been read or when a post has been added since your last viewing.
If you think having a full list of posters sorted by post count is some way detrimental to the forum, well then I've got something for you right here. <points to crotch>
Quote: AcesAndEightsIf you think having a full list of posters sorted by post count is some way detrimental to the forum, well then I've got something for you right here. <points to crotch>
Oh, no, not my point at all. I just don't know that I'd put it up on the front page of the site.
When I want to search for someone, I click on any member's name, even my own. In the tree view above what opens, it says, Forum...Members..beachbumbabs and I just click on the member part and it brings up the member list alphabetically.
Quote: AcesAndEightsOriginally I did the full list because I was curious where I ranked. Other people were curious, so I made it public. In no way am I encouraging people to post just for the sake of posting, or to incite a post-count-war. It should be considered for informational purposes only. If anyone is "inspired" by my list to artificially inflate their post count, then they have some serious problems.
If you think having a full list of posters sorted by post count is some way detrimental to the forum, well then I've got something for you right here. <points to crotch>
Careful there. You meant the crotch in the tree outside your window, right? There are always going to be those who post for the sake of posting and all too often the post has nothing to do with the subject of the thread. Some are actually funny but many are repetitious. If you must post "that's what she said" for the umpteenth time, at least accompany it with a comment on the discussion.
So, I suggest a set of three tests be developed for each member to take.
Test One would be an IQ test
Test Two would be a Common Sense type of test.
Test Three would be a test of gambling knowledge (anything gaming related).
Each member would then receive a 3 digit rating, for Test One-Test Two-Test Three
So, someone rated 914 would be a High IQ brain, with little common sense, who has average gaming knowledge.
Or, the rating would be the percentile ranking against other forum members
In this case, a 271 rating would mean this person ranks in the bottom 20% in member IQ, is in the top 70% of member common sense, and must be a Big 6 Wheel player <G>.
That should drive away some current members, and most of any new, perspective members.
