'Top' Reputation Givers

[The Barrow-Wight]

Based on a complicated formula*, I have come up with the following list of ’Top’ Reputation Givers. The number in parenthesis is the user’s score. Notice who is well in the lead.

Compiled 18 October, 2004 by The Barrow-Wight

1. HerenIstarion (3.04)
2. mark12_30 (1.03)
3. Child of the Seventh Age (0.95)
4. Estelyn Telcontar (0.59)
5. The Barrow-Wight (0.56)
6. piosenniel (0.50)
7. Bêthberry (0.46)
8. Mister Underhill (0.35)
9. The Saucepan Man (0.31)
10. Evisse the Blue (0.19)
11. Mithadan (0.15)
12. davem (0.15)
13. Fordim Hedgethistle (0.13)
14. Nilpaurion Felagund (0.08)
15. Nurumaiel (0.08)
16. Guinevere (0.07)
17. Amanadial the Archer (0.07)
18. Eomer of the Rohirim (0.06)
19. Diamond 18 (0.06)
20. Lush (0.05)

* The formula (for those who don’t mind a little algebra)
(total points given by user / total reputations given by user) * ((total points given by all users / total points given by user) + (total reputations given by all users / total reputations given by user))

This forumula does not attempt the assess the accuracy of reputations given. It only tells who gives the most postive ones, on average!

[Elennar Starfire]

Fascinating! One wonders how often this is likely to be updated?

[Imladris]

Can you find out who gives the most negative ones?

[Firefoot]

Do we want to know who gives out the most negative ones?

[Neferchoirwen]

HI and Mark. I am not at all surprised *raises a pint to both*

I haven't been giving reputations out recently. I ought to do that more often.

*goes on a rep giving spree*

[rutslegolas]

Congrats HI

Ummm. Negative reps thats a intresting idea Imladris ,can we find that ??

* Thinks * Why can't we give reputation points to oneself ??

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Good job, BW - a great idea! Now it is blessed to give! Although I didn't need statistics to know who'd be at the top - HI da man!

[Diamond18]

I'm not sure if I should be proud to be on the list or ashamed to be last on the list. Actually to tell the truth I am surprised to see my name; if I'm one of the top givers the rest of you "below" me really need to shape up.

Or, as I like to think of it, take time to stop and smell the posts....

[The Barrow-Wight]

Actually you are not last, you are 19th. Somehow I forgot to add the 20th top name. It's on there now!

[Mithalwen]

Not a surprise... while others are kind, HI is absurdly generous... but it is a nice example to set

[Bêthberry]

What this also suggests is that the reputations as they now stand tend to represent HI's preferences, given his tremendous lead over the rest of us reppers, especially given how 'weighty' this 'wight's' weight is. Not a bad judgement at all to have shaping the system, in my opinion.

[Lalaith]

Sorry to be so rubbish at algebra, but can I ask one thing: does the formula take into account the much greater number of points those members who have attained the wisdom of Gandalf give, each time they approve a post, compared to, say, adventure-path starters?

[The Barrow-Wight]

Yes, indirectly. It does use a person's point total, but it factors that with how many reputations they have given and computes that against the averages of all members who have given reputation. In other words, HerenIstarion scored the highest partly because he has some weight in giving reputations, but mostly because he gave so many (all with comments, too!).

[Lush]

I actually somehow made it onto this thing? Wow.

For the record, I really enjoy commenting on good posts. If it wasn't for the fact that I'm being constantly distracted away from the forum by the ridiculous demands of something called an "adult" existence, I'd probably comment more.

Heren, you're the liveliest dead body on this forum right now. Must feel pretty sweet.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

It comes as no surprise to see Heren at the top of this list, that crazy son of a gun's even rated me several times!

I would ask one thing of the list though Barrow-wight. For two barrowdowners with the same 'score' is there a particular reason for one being above the other, or is it purely because one needs to be? I merely wonder why I am 18th and not 19th in this list.

But clever work. And I had noticed that the spectre of mathematics was creeping ever towards the centre of the website in recent times. I wish I had worked harder in school now, I might be able to keep up.

[mark12_30]

I would hazard a guess, Eomer, that although the Wight has here rounded the data to two decimal places (a polite display), the results were probably stored in single-precision variables (seven places after the decimal) or double-precision (fourteen places after the decimal.)

You could just go on a rating spree. It's fun.

I make it a goal that when an under-rated, respectable old-timer casually revisits the Downs, I hunt for a good recent post (or even a good old one) and rate it. Obloquy was one of my more recent triumphs; a quiet chap, but I caught him.

Now if only lindil were around more often...

[Mithalwen]

Yes, I feel rather guilty that I am in some kind of "negative equity" situation ...

[Amanaduial the archer]

Originally Posted by Firefoot

Do we want to know who gives out the most negative ones?

Ooh, name and shame time!

I was quite surprised I was there actually - not sure I expected to be: I don't rate as much as I possibly might because I pretty much live in The Shire, so I only have a limited number of people I might rate, and obviously you can't multiply rate within a short time without going on a mad rating spree. But it doesn't surprise me in the least that Heren is first

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Decimal places eh? Now why didn't I think about that? Oh wait, don't bother to answer that question.

I was just beginning to wonder if it was because I beat Diamond in that impromptu dance contest a while back, and thus I was awarded the higher place due to those extra talents. But your suggestion mark, is possibly more sensible.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

As always BW you amaze and delight. I am not a math whiz but I think I get the gist of the current system.

I really must work to move up the list however!

[Diamond18]

Originally Posted by Eomer of the Rohirrim

I was just beginning to wonder if it was because I beat Diamond in that impromptu dance contest a while back, and thus I was awarded the higher place due to those extra talents.

I have no recollection of this. Perhaps the shame prompted me to suppress the memory?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Maybe I imagined it. It seemed to fit right into the little question I had earlier but (though the Wight has yet to confirm this) the following reasoning seemed acceptable.

As I recall we were both very good, but, thanks to a disputed call by the Russian officials, I was awarded the win.

[Mithalwen]

Well there are three other ties - Although it is almost a pity that Davem and Fordim aren't one of them... I do always have a quick look and see "who is the leader at this point" in the input rep stakes..

[Encaitare]

I really must work to move up the list however!

Being at the top of one list not good enough for you, eh, Fordim?

[Boromir88]

The BW, I agree with everyone, brilliant idea on this recent thread. I pity you for having to figure out everyone, I want to ask one thing, if it's not too much trouble. Is there a way the people not on the Top 20 could view their own reputation giving, to see where we stand? Like is it in our User CP, or what not. And if not, don't bother, I was just wondering, thanks.

-B88-

[The Barrow-Wight]

There were no ties. The numbers you see are indeed rounded numbers, because the actual results of the formula resulted in a lot of numbers behind the decimal point. Once you get behind the top twenty, the differences between places become less and less, so that they are finally only a thousandth or a tenthousandth apart. For example, The difference between 40th place and 41st was only .0006.

I didn't actually have to do the figuring. All I did was create a small script that would read all reputations into a table, which I cut and pasted into an Excel spreadsheet. Then I created the forumulas and Excel did the rest. There is no way for you to look up your own result to this formula. Sorry.

[Boromir88]

That's fine, it will just have to remain a secret .

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I didn't actually have to do the figuring. All I did was create a small script that would read all reputations into a table, which I cut and pasted into an Excel spreadsheet. Then I created the forumulas and Excel did the rest.

Oh, well, that's all you did, is it? For a moment there I thought that you had gone and done something very clever. . .but if all you did was write a script-thingee that was able to tablize the reps, so that you could just whip up a few, no doubt, childishly simple formulas. . .I mean, who couldn't do all those things?

And after that, I suppose, you "merely" finished the cold fusion generator in your basement?

[Mithalwen]

Originally Posted by The Barrow-Wight

There were no ties. The numbers you see are indeed rounded numbers, because the actual results of the formula resulted in a lot of numbers behind the decimal point. Once you get behind the top twenty, the differences between places become less and less, so that they are finally only a thousandth or a tenthousandth apart. For example, The difference between 40th place and 41st was only .0006.

Oh well as a bean-counter, I don't generally venture further than 2 decimal places myself... and I think there is a circle of hell reserved for people who calculate vat to more and cause rounding differences grrrrrrr...

Still think Fordim needs more outlets for his competitive streak though. But not duelling...

[Sapphire_Flame]

A very cool thing to figure out. Thanks, BW!

And hugs for all you reputation givers; you're such great people. *mwah!*

Abedithon le,

~ Saphy ~

[The Barrow-Wight]

When I run the same formula with data from only the last 30 days, the list changes somewhat.

Top Reputation Givers for the last 30 days
Compiled 22 October, 2004 by The Barrow-Wight

1. HerenIstarion (1.96635) no change
2. Estelyn Telcontar (1.57152) +2
3. mark12_30 (1.37750) -1
4. piosenniel (1.14201) +2
5. Child of the Seventh Age (1.02781) -2
6. Bêthberry (0.75610) +1
7. Fordim Hedgethistle (0.50716) +6
8. The Saucepan Man (0.37717) no change
9. davem (0.32443) +4
10. The Barrow-Wight (0.31713) -4
11. Evisse the Blue (0.28750) no change
12. Nilpaurion Felagund (0.21804) +3
13. Mithadan (0.18122) -1
14. Imladris (0.16613) new
15. Firefoot (0.16353) new
16. Mithalwen (0.13740) new
17. Mister Underhill (0.09061) -10
18. Boromir88 (0.08920) new
19. Lalwendë (0.08339) new
20. Son of Númenor (0.06796) new

This used the same formula but only included reps given in the last 30 days. Names that are underlined did not appear on the all-time list. Those names above them need to watch out, because they are moving up fast! Our fastest climbers are Fordim Hedgethistle and davem. Our dropping fasts are Mister Underhill and me!

[Boromir88]

Ahh, now that list makes more sense to me, since I really just kind of figured out how to give reputation some 2 months ago. I'm slowly but surely finding out all the nicks and crannies, of this wonderful forum .

[The Saucepan Man]

What we really need is lots more tables like this, so as to keep Professors Hedgethistle and davem fully occupied in their attempts to top them.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Barrow-wight, are you going to update this every month or whatever? Because that is only going to encourage people to rate just about every post they see.

*subliminal note, rate this post*

[Mithalwen]

Oh I feel less guilty now.....less parasitic. But it was ages before I noticed the rep thingy ... I was so surprised when I looked at the CP and found comments lol ....

I think it will just be an incentive to take the trouble to encourage good posting, and perhaps try to widen the range ... I don't keep a record of whom I rep but so often I get told to spread it around.It is not intentional. Just the same people tend to crop up on the same boards.

[The Only Real Estel]

Barrow-wight, are you going to update this every month or whatever? Because that is only going to encourage people to rate just about every post they see

A concern I share. It's all well & good to rate posts, & I like this newest invention the BW has come up with. But there's a difference between wanting to get high up on the list, so you go browsing for great posts to rate, & wanting to get high up on the list, so you go rating just about every post you see. If people start rating just about everything (not that anyone on a site such as the Barrowdowns would ) than it greatly cheapens the worth of any & all reputation points received.

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

Ok, I really want to know who the anonymous rater of my above post was, because that's very amusing to me. All convenient/ironic comments on the content aside, it was a fabulous post and well worth the rating.

On an aside, I have noticed that I have been getting rated a lot more recently. I do wonder, sadly, if it's because of this thread rather than anything I bring to the forum.

[Mithalwen]

Maybe they just want to show their appreciation..... but as long as people leave their names youwill know if they are stalkers, rating-grabbers or true fans .. or in some cases screaming fan girls...


May be we need an honesty box for returning points we feel we don't deserve .....

[mark12_30]

Studying the second list a bit more, I now realise that the numbers in parenthesis are indicators of slip or gain in *position on the list*, and not increase or decrease in the person's own rate-of-rating .

[Mithalwen]

Yes, it is like what my dear Mamma would have quaintly called the "hit parade" rather than the FTSE / Dow Jones ...