1. Subscriberkmax87
    Land of Free
    Health and Education
    Joined
    09 Oct '04
    Moves
    80388
    22 Sep '06 10:071 edit
    I am on another board where they dont give recs but they do let you know how much a person has posted. If we were to include a total number of posts counter with the recs, would be much easier to evaluate the calibre of the poster.

    It may be a pain to create but what may also make the recs more honest would be to allow any subscriber, fellow clan member or not to rec an individual post, but to not allow clan recs to add on to your rec total.

    Given the ten rec per month rule, in conjunction with a post/rec ratio (we could do the maths) and a clan ban on rec accumalation, we would end up with recs that would actually signify something.
  2. Standard memberRagnorak
    For RHP addons...
    tinyurl.com/yssp6g
    Joined
    16 Mar '04
    Moves
    15013
    22 Sep '06 10:56
    Originally posted by kmax87
    I am on another board where they dont give recs but they do let you know how much a person has posted. If we were to include a total number of posts counter with the recs, would be much easier to evaluate the calibre of the poster.

    It may be a pain to create but what may also make the recs more honest would be to allow any subscriber, fellow clan member o ...[text shortened]... clan ban on rec accumalation, we would end up with recs that would actually signify something.
    The post total was removed because people saw it as a competition to see who could post the most.

    I reckon the ratio, posts per rec is the way forward, allowing the removal of the total recs.

    I don't see the point in removing clan reccing ability.

    D
  3. Joined
    03 Sep '03
    Moves
    86119
    22 Sep '06 11:24
    Originally posted by Ragnorak
    I don't see the point in removing clan reccing ability.
    Agreed. Removing the ability to rec one's own clan members is a stupid idea put forth by paranoid freaks that are jealous of other people's ability to write posts that others agree/rec.

    My main clan The Funky Movers has a very active private forum, but we almost never discuss rec's and certainly never talk about rec'ing each other's posts. Maybe some other lame clans have nothing better to discuss, but that is their problem. That is no reason to take my ability to rec a my fellow clanmember's posts, simply because some other lame clans feel the need to abuse the system.

    Perhaps Russ or Chrismo should take it upon themselves to go looking in some of the private forums of these lame clans and see if that policy/idea has been promoted. And take the appropriate action, if true. The more this goes on, I believe that perhaps the latest rec changes were caused by a minority of users trying to foink with the system.
  4. Subscriberkmax87
    Land of Free
    Health and Education
    Joined
    09 Oct '04
    Moves
    80388
    22 Sep '06 11:311 edit
    Originally posted by Ragnorak
    The post total was removed because people saw it as a competition to see who could post the most.

    I reckon the ratio, posts per rec is the way forward, allowing the removal of the total recs.

    I don't see the point in removing clan reccing ability.

    D
    You would still see that a particular post was recced by whoever (including fellow clan members) but by not allowing clan members to rec each other indiscriminately and then have those recs show up in the totals would then take away the possibility that clan members were just bumping up the totals of one of their favoured 'sons'. It would take away the knee jerk reccing that even limiting to 10 recs would not.

    Whether anyone wants to acknowledge it or not someone with 1000 recs against their name tends to grab your attention. If someone in a clan felt they would never really assemble recs on their own, they might decide to live vicariously and feed their strongest/most opinionated forum posting member unconditional recs just so that they could bask in their reflected glory.

    Now while a good post deserves a rec by anyone including a fellow clan member, especially so that that post if it were a truly good one would not be predjudiced in getting into the best of the week rec standings, by not letting the recs amongst fellow clans members add to their buddies total it would remove the joy of living through the glory of their stronger members posts and it would remove the unfair weighting that anyone may enjoy in the rec stakes because they have sycophantic friends.

    Clan members should still be able to rec each other, nothing against that. Clan members reccing of each other should not be reflected in the rec standings. Just to be sure
  5. Joined
    03 Sep '03
    Moves
    86119
    22 Sep '06 11:35
    Anybody that feels the need to "...just so that they could bask in their reflected glory." really needs to get out more.
  6. Subscriberkmax87
    Land of Free
    Health and Education
    Joined
    09 Oct '04
    Moves
    80388
    22 Sep '06 11:37
    Originally posted by tmetzler
    Anybody that feels the need to "...just so that they could bask in their reflected glory." really needs to get out more.
    I totally agree, but when you looked at some of the posters and saw their rec standing you would have to ask the question, just who is buying this?
  7. Joined
    03 Sep '03
    Moves
    86119
    22 Sep '06 11:562 edits
    Originally posted by kmax87
    I totally agree, but when you looked at some of the posters and saw their rec standing you would have to ask the question, just who is buying this?
    Well, unfortunately the rec's have been reset, so I no longer have the numbers to prove the following statement BUT:

    Those same people also posted far and away more than most other users. If you took their total number of posts/recs you came out with a very, very low rec per post number. Which disproves this theory. On the other hand, it makes sense that people that post more than anybody else would also have more recs than others.

    I was bored the other night and did run the numbers and failed to find ANY users that were frequent posters with a higher rec per post rate than myself. (16.4% ) for myself. But I am not an extremely frequent poster. Most of the frequent posters fell into the 6-10% range. Even no1maurader, whom has contributed some of the most entertaining threads in RHP history had a rec percentage within that range.
  8. Subscriberkmax87
    Land of Free
    Health and Education
    Joined
    09 Oct '04
    Moves
    80388
    22 Sep '06 12:18
    Originally posted by tmetzler
    Well, unfortunately the rec's have been reset, so I no longer have the numbers to prove the following statement BUT:

    Those same people also posted far and away more than most other users. If you took their total number of posts/recs you came out with a very, very low rec per post number. Which disproves this theory. On the other hand, it makes sense t ...[text shortened]... ed some of the most entertaining threads in RHP history had a rec percentage within that range.
    sort of the long run statistical tendency of things. The only reason I started this (I would never qualify, Im way too verbose, hah) is I would really like oneday to see some person who has made say 200 posts in all and was recced say 120 times. Its the only way we would get an idea of who the true sages were on this website.

    We quantify everything else with statistics on your last move your chess rating etc. We might as well go the whole hog. In a perfect world when in say the debates forum, which I almost exclusively post in, it would be nice to know that chessgeek A with 1000 recs had 20 debate forum recs in their total. Only the forum you were in would be shown as a subtotal of your total recs. That would be another way to rank credibility.
  9. Standard memberRagnorak
    For RHP addons...
    tinyurl.com/yssp6g
    Joined
    16 Mar '04
    Moves
    15013
    22 Sep '06 12:241 edit
    Originally posted by kmax87
    sort of the long run statistical tendency of things. The only reason I started this (I would never qualify, Im way too verbose, hah) is I would really like oneday to see some person who has made say 200 posts in all and was recced say 120 times. Its the only way we would get an idea of who the true sages were on this website.

    We quantify everything else ...[text shortened]... would be shown as a subtotal of your total recs. That would be another way to rank credibility.
    Credibility? Sages?

    You do realise that most of the recs given out in the debates forum were for racist posts. A "good" racist or bigoted post regularly got 10+ recs. A good rebuttal of said bigoted post might get 3.

    D
  10. Subscriberkmax87
    Land of Free
    Health and Education
    Joined
    09 Oct '04
    Moves
    80388
    22 Sep '06 12:39
    Originally posted by Ragnorak
    Credibility? Sages?

    You do realise that most of the recs given out in the debates forum were for racist posts. A "good" racist or bigoted post regularly got 10+ recs. A good rebuttal of said bigoted post might get 3.

    D
    I know voting tended to go in blocks and you could pretty much sense when a particularly extreme view was about to be recced. But hey I would'nt want it any other way. I mean what other options besides the dreaded c word are there?
  11. Joined
    12 Jun '05
    Moves
    14671
    22 Sep '06 14:17
    Originally posted by Ragnorak
    The post total was removed because people saw it as a competition to see who could post the most.

    I reckon the ratio, posts per rec is the way forward, allowing the removal of the total recs.

    I don't see the point in removing clan reccing ability.

    D
    I suggested this (post/rec ratio) elsewhere; it would be easy enough to convert it into some kind of icon, e.g. different coloured stars (or different chess pieces) according to someone's post/rec ratio.

    It was a semi-serious suggestion meant to flag up the fact a lot of people post way too much.

    To be honest, the more I think about it and the more I read the boards, the more I agree with Nordlys - the "total rec" figure should just be scrapped.
  12. Standard memberflexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    Chesstralia
    Joined
    18 Aug '03
    Moves
    54533
    22 Sep '06 14:23
    i think you should be able to make as many recs as you like ....

    but :

    if it is the 1st rec for the day then it is worth 1 point.
    if it is the 2nd rec for the day then it is worth 1/2 point.
    if it is the 3rd rec for the day then it is worth 1/4 point.
    if it is the 4th rec for the day then it is worth 1/8 point.
    etc
    if it is the nth rec for the day then it is worth 2^(1-n) point.
  13. Subscriberkmax87
    Land of Free
    Health and Education
    Joined
    09 Oct '04
    Moves
    80388
    22 Sep '06 14:43
    Originally posted by flexmore
    i think you should be able to make as many recs as you like ....

    but :

    if it is the 1st rec for the day then it is worth 1 point.
    if it is the 2nd rec for the day then it is worth 1/2 point.
    if it is the 3rd rec for the day then it is worth 1/4 point.
    if it is the 4th rec for the day then it is worth 1/8 point.
    etc
    if it is the nth rec for the day then it is worth 2^(1-n) point.
    You would do xeno proud. I take it we would be able to make an infinite number of recs on any given day. Why not just give every one two recs a day and be done with it?
  14. Standard memberflexmore
    Quack Quack Quack !
    Chesstralia
    Joined
    18 Aug '03
    Moves
    54533
    22 Sep '06 15:591 edit
    Originally posted by kmax87
    You would do xeno proud. I take it we would be able to make an infinite number of recs on any given day. Why not just give every one two recs a day and be done with it?
    although i defend the superiority of a massively complex and infintely diverse system over a blunt boolean style cut and slash ... you do have a point ...
    except: perhaps you meant zeno ?!
  15. Joined
    22 Aug '05
    Moves
    26450
    22 Sep '06 17:47
    Originally posted by Ragnorak

    I don't see the point in removing clan reccing ability.

    D
    Clan members can inform their fellow members in their own forums if they want to recommend something, they don't need to do it in the public forums to wind up other clans - like they seemingly do at present. It just devalues the system completely. [imo]
Back to Top