Welcome to Codidact Meta!
Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.
Post History
Considering both timeframe and last N events We could base awarding of an ability on both proportion of events in a timeframe, and proportion of events in the last N events. I'll use concrete numb...
Answer
#2: Post edited
by
trichoplax
·
2024-10-18T19:07:27Z (about 1 month ago)
Remove specific numbers from final section
- ## Considering both timeframe and last N events
- We could base awarding of an ability on both proportion of events in a timeframe, and proportion of events in the last N events. I'll use concrete numbers because I find that clearer, but these are just examples - the actual numbers could be different (and different per community):
- > In order to gain this ability, you need to have 95% positive events over the last 3 months, and 95% positive events over the last 30 events.
- You don't get the ability until both of these requirements are met at the same time, but once you get the ability you don't lose it unless a moderator removes it manually.
- This means that on a low traffic community 3 months may not be long enough to get 30 events, so gaining the ability may take longer than 3 months.
- Similarly on a high traffic community you can't get the ability in a day just because you were able to process 30 events in a day (which means spammers won't get abilities unless they play the long game and behave consistently well for 3 months).
- This is similar to the current system where you need a hard minimum such as 30 events, but now once you go past that minimum, older events stop counting against or towards you. Having the timeframe stops someone from covering up bad behaviour with rapid production of good events afterwards, but still allows bad behaviour to age away eventually. If you have negative events, they cease to count against you once both 30 more events and 3 months have elapsed.
- ### Simplicity
I expect this could be made fairer by making it more complex, but personally I would lean towards keeping it as simple as possible while still taking into account both aspects (last 3 months and last 30 events). Wilson score is not immediately intuitive for most people, but the extra complexity is worthwhile in order to present answers in a meaningful order. The same does not apply to gaining abilities - the exact order in which different people gain an ability does not seem important in the way that the order of answers does. For abilities I would prefer to have something sufficiently simple that it can be displayed both graphically and textually in a way that is immediately clear.
- ## Considering both timeframe and last N events
- We could base awarding of an ability on both proportion of events in a timeframe, and proportion of events in the last N events. I'll use concrete numbers because I find that clearer, but these are just examples - the actual numbers could be different (and different per community):
- > In order to gain this ability, you need to have 95% positive events over the last 3 months, and 95% positive events over the last 30 events.
- You don't get the ability until both of these requirements are met at the same time, but once you get the ability you don't lose it unless a moderator removes it manually.
- This means that on a low traffic community 3 months may not be long enough to get 30 events, so gaining the ability may take longer than 3 months.
- Similarly on a high traffic community you can't get the ability in a day just because you were able to process 30 events in a day (which means spammers won't get abilities unless they play the long game and behave consistently well for 3 months).
- This is similar to the current system where you need a hard minimum such as 30 events, but now once you go past that minimum, older events stop counting against or towards you. Having the timeframe stops someone from covering up bad behaviour with rapid production of good events afterwards, but still allows bad behaviour to age away eventually. If you have negative events, they cease to count against you once both 30 more events and 3 months have elapsed.
- ### Simplicity
- I expect this could be made fairer by making it more complex, but personally I would lean towards keeping it as simple as possible while still taking into account both aspects (last M months and last N events). Wilson score is not immediately intuitive for most people, but the extra complexity is worthwhile in order to present answers in a meaningful order. The same does not apply to gaining abilities - the exact order in which different people gain an ability does not seem important in the way that the order of answers does. For abilities I would prefer to have something sufficiently simple that it can be displayed both graphically and textually in a way that is immediately clear.
#1: Initial revision
by
trichoplax
·
2024-10-18T19:00:12Z (about 1 month ago)
## Considering both timeframe and last N events We could base awarding of an ability on both proportion of events in a timeframe, and proportion of events in the last N events. I'll use concrete numbers because I find that clearer, but these are just examples - the actual numbers could be different (and different per community): > In order to gain this ability, you need to have 95% positive events over the last 3 months, and 95% positive events over the last 30 events. You don't get the ability until both of these requirements are met at the same time, but once you get the ability you don't lose it unless a moderator removes it manually. This means that on a low traffic community 3 months may not be long enough to get 30 events, so gaining the ability may take longer than 3 months. Similarly on a high traffic community you can't get the ability in a day just because you were able to process 30 events in a day (which means spammers won't get abilities unless they play the long game and behave consistently well for 3 months). This is similar to the current system where you need a hard minimum such as 30 events, but now once you go past that minimum, older events stop counting against or towards you. Having the timeframe stops someone from covering up bad behaviour with rapid production of good events afterwards, but still allows bad behaviour to age away eventually. If you have negative events, they cease to count against you once both 30 more events and 3 months have elapsed. ### Simplicity I expect this could be made fairer by making it more complex, but personally I would lean towards keeping it as simple as possible while still taking into account both aspects (last 3 months and last 30 events). Wilson score is not immediately intuitive for most people, but the extra complexity is worthwhile in order to present answers in a meaningful order. The same does not apply to gaining abilities - the exact order in which different people gain an ability does not seem important in the way that the order of answers does. For abilities I would prefer to have something sufficiently simple that it can be displayed both graphically and textually in a way that is immediately clear.