Xenthos2008-02-01 02:57:44
QUOTE(Shiri @ Jan 31 2008, 09:54 PM) 482907
You're just making this up now.
Whatever, we're weighting it.
@Arix: Rubbish, that's just 'cause the 2nd one got to wayyy too many pages.
EDIT: P.S for whoever brought up locked threads earlier, how about we lock Lack of Rants every time it gets to the point these locked threads are getting to now?
Whatever, we're weighting it.
@Arix: Rubbish, that's just 'cause the 2nd one got to wayyy too many pages.
EDIT: P.S for whoever brought up locked threads earlier, how about we lock Lack of Rants every time it gets to the point these locked threads are getting to now?
No. I was complaining about the locking. Most of them were locked unnecessarily! Hmph.
And how am I making that up? It would take 300,000 hours played in a week to get to a vote rank of 2, if Estarra set the cap to 3,000,000 (your own choice) on a 1-to-10 scale.
Shiri2008-02-01 03:00:09
I'm ignoring your terrible numbers and deciding on my own. It's weighted -properly-, with visible postcounts. Capped at 500,000.
And which were locked unnecessarily?
And which were locked unnecessarily?
Arix2008-02-01 03:01:11
Shiri, when Lack of Rants 2 got to 500 pages, you could have closed it then and done the 'make individual threads plz' decree
Shiri2008-02-01 03:03:13
Ok.
But instead we did it during the 3rd.
But instead we did it during the 3rd.
Xenthos2008-02-01 03:05:14
QUOTE(Shiri @ Jan 31 2008, 10:00 PM) 482909
I'm ignoring your terrible numbers and deciding on my own. It's weighted -properly-, with visible postcounts. Capped at 500,000.
Okay!
Now, in 3 years, this forum has gathered 351,723 posts. Your cap is higher than the total postcount of EVERY single forum dweller combined. It's still the same as negating vote weight completely.
A good number to go with for voteweighting would probably be 5,000. 0-500 == 1, 501-1000 == 2, 1001-1500 == 3, 1501-2000 == 4, 2001-2500 == 5, 2501-3000 == 6, 3001-3500 == 7, 3501-4000 == 8, 4001-4500 == 9, 4501-5000+ == 10.
Edit: Actually, trying to base it on postcount is silly. That's like trying to give voteweight to people in-game based on their level. I reinstate the assertion that it should be based on time surfing the forums.
Shiri2008-02-01 03:08:49
The cap is 351,722.
Xenthos2008-02-01 03:11:44
QUOTE(Xenthos @ Jan 31 2008, 10:05 PM) 482912
Actually, trying to base it on postcount is silly. That's like trying to give voteweight to people in-game based on their level. I reinstate the assertion that it should be based on time surfing the forums.
And setting the cap to 351,000ish is still a problem!
Although now I'm going to equate it to levels, because that's the more apt comparison. Since you're combining all post counts, that means that for the in-game equivalent, to get a 10-vote-rank you'd need to be the combined level of EVERYONE is Lusternia.
Which, again, means everyone else is set to a 1, given the sheer number of 80+s (over 100). That's not even counting all the hordes at 50ish.
Shiri2008-02-01 03:14:27
Well, funnily enough, we already have people with that level! 
Xenthos2008-02-01 03:16:04
QUOTE(Shiri @ Jan 31 2008, 10:14 PM) 482919
Well, funnily enough, we already have people with that level!
But everyone else is set to 1, no matter how active... which means you hate vote weighting, because you're disabling it. There we go. Glad we finally hammered that out!
Shiri2008-02-01 03:19:12
I don't think you understand how this works. Yours is 7192. Mine is 16,876 or something. The gods have 351,722. Not disabled!
EDIT: Someone else needs to join in and make this more interesting.
EDIT: Someone else needs to join in and make this more interesting.
Xenthos2008-02-01 03:20:47
QUOTE(Shiri @ Jan 31 2008, 10:19 PM) 482922
I don't think you understand how this works. Yours is 7192. Mine is 16,876 or something. The gods have 351,722. Not disabled!
EDIT: Someone else needs to join in and make this more interesting.
EDIT: Someone else needs to join in and make this more interesting.
351,722 / 10 = 35,172.
Sorry, your vote weight is only a 1.
Looks disabled to me!
Shiri2008-02-01 03:21:38
We're not rounding it off, here!
Unknown2008-02-01 03:22:55
Why the 
are you going on about this?
are you going on about this?Xenthos2008-02-01 03:24:10
QUOTE(Shiri @ Jan 31 2008, 10:21 PM) 482924
We're not rounding it off, here!
Then your vote weight is 0.48.
Are you sure you don't want to round up?
Shiri2008-02-01 03:24:51
QUOTE(Xenthos @ Feb 1 2008, 03:24 AM) 482926
Then your vote weight is 0.48.
Are you sure you don't want to round up?
Are you sure you don't want to round up?
YES.
Kromsh: fun.
Xenthos2008-02-01 03:27:33
QUOTE(Shiri @ Jan 31 2008, 10:24 PM) 482928
YES.
Kromsh: fun.
Kromsh: fun.
Well, now you're half of the old standard... and everyone else is even less.
Kromsh: Vote Weighting Gone Bad. Or fun. Whichever.
