General > General Technical Chat
Designated "Expert" Forum Users?
<< < (31/98) > >>
Carel:

--- Quote from: RoGeorge on February 16, 2022, 04:26:40 pm ---OMG, just checked and I've been thanked 1000 times!   ;D
(not kidding, that's the precise number, 1000 thanks)

Now, how many medals do I get for such a round number?


--- End quote ---

Dear exalted member, the photo illustrated exactly the problems our dearly beloved expert leaders face: like when to order a wider uniform, a wider and higher chair, or when finally let their inseparable underlings carry and display all their garbage.
Zero999:

--- Quote from: nctnico on February 16, 2022, 02:02:41 pm ---
--- Quote from: Zero999 on February 16, 2022, 12:46:40 pm ---
--- Quote from: nctnico on February 15, 2022, 01:10:38 pm ---
--- Quote from: PKTKS on February 15, 2022, 12:09:20 pm ---
--- Quote from: RoGeorge on February 15, 2022, 11:14:54 am ---- The most important counter argument is that science does not work by voting.  Science is not a democracy, and it is not about what people like or what people think.  Science and its derivatives, like engineering, are independent of crowd's belief.
(..)

--- End quote ---

That would be funny if science would resolve itself by voting....  ::)

--- End quote ---
Actually it kind of is. Science is truth by consensus.
--- End quote ---
No it's not. A consensus on a theory doesn't always mean it's right. The astronomer Galileo was proof of that. In the last two years, there are plenty of things which were believed to be correct, by a large number of scientists, yet are now widely contested.

--- End quote ---
-off topic-
And how it that not truth by consensus?  ;)

Truth by consensus means that a previously proven theory is regarded as being true until someone comes along and proves (by using new/better methods and insights) it is not. That is how science works and always has worked for centuries. In hindsight it is easy to say 'look, those idiots where wrong all that time' but that is just hindsight. And then there are cases where it is better to be cautious and accept a safe theory that is not fully proven / disproven yet.

--- End quote ---
There's the actual, real, objective truth and there's the consensus, which is just what the majority of people believe to be true at the time.



--- Quote from: Cerebus on February 16, 2022, 02:16:52 pm ---
--- Quote from: emece67 on February 16, 2022, 11:33:05 am ---Each user can see who thanked him (it is nice to know who are one's friends, isn't it?  :) ), but statistics about thanked/found-useful posts for each user are not public.

--- End quote ---

Yes they are, but as usual the SMF user interface is less than helpful in guiding you to find them. Summary statistics are hidden at the bottom of the forum index page, and you can see any users 'thanked' count by looking them up in the members list.

You have been thanked on average 0.27 times per post whereas I have been thanked on average 0.77 times per post. That to my mind conclusively proves that any metric based around thanks is worthless because while I like to hope I'm a useful contributor from time to time I most certainly don't think I'm the über contributor that statistic would seem to imply.

There's also the issue you allude to but don't express directly: "Any metric once created will be gamed". Someone will play in such a way as to inflate the metric rather than to behave in the way the metric was supposed to measure positively for, wasting time trying to bolster the metric rather than doing something useful to produce the outcome the metric was intended to measure. I don't think anybody is currently gaming the thanks statistics, but if they were given prominence they would almost certainly become "gamed".

If anyone needs any more convincing that "Thanks" as is currently implemented is a useless metric, here it is. This is the top 10 most thanked people, as spat out by SMFs stats. I've added number of posts and calculated a "Thanks per post" ratio as a percentage.
User       ThankedPostsThanks to post ratiomed6753    1063410178104.48%bd139      1040420506 50.74%EEVblog    860033942 25.34%Cerebus    7288 9403 77.51%mnementh    604515133 39.95%tautech    492623059 21.36%james_s    440416959 25.97%BU508A      4012 3803105.50%T3sl4co1l  368018610 19.77%tggzzz      353114611 24.17%
--- End quote ---
You forgot Noopy, with a thanks to post ratio of 116%, probably because nearly everyone of his posts is an interesting dieshot, which more than one person likes.

Another thing to note is the thank you button only came in around 2015, so older users who made many posts before then, will have a lower ratio, than newer ones. You'd have to factor this in to get a more accurate picture.



--- Quote ---Note how that puts Tim (T3sl4co1l) at the bottom of the ranking by "Thanks per post", one of the most useful contributors (arguably the most useful) on the forum and Mounty (BU508A) at the top, who while being a sterling chap, and very generous to boot, isn't in Tim's league (Sorry Mounty). (Note, these are only the top 10 thanked, so the ranking on the ratio of thanks per post is only out of these 10 posters, not the whole forum.)

--- End quote ---
I agree.
RoGeorge:

--- Quote from: eugene on February 16, 2022, 04:35:59 pm ---It'll be more impressive when you get to 1024 thanks.

--- End quote ---

1024?  Why?  (100 0000 0000)2 maybe, but I'm no camel with 2 toes, I have 10 fingers!

But then I realized, our base 10 system is wrong!   :o
Let me demonstrate why:

- We use Base 10 because with 10 fingers one can represent any number from 0 to 10, right?
- Let's write that down: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, correct?

- But that would need a total of 11 distinct symbols.
- Therefore our Base 10 system is wrong.

Should have been Base 11, or else said Base A!   ^-^
jpanhalt:

--- Quote from: RoGeorge on February 16, 2022, 04:26:40 pm ---Now, how many medals do I get for such a round number?

--- End quote ---

Your eyes deceive you.  Those ain't medals.  They are targets for the anti-aircraft gunners.
MK14:

--- Quote from: RoGeorge on February 16, 2022, 06:35:24 pm ---
--- Quote from: eugene on February 16, 2022, 04:35:59 pm ---It'll be more impressive when you get to 1024 thanks.

--- End quote ---

1024?  Why?  (100 0000 0000)2 maybe, but I'm no camel with 2 toes, I have 10 fingers!

But then I realized, our base 10 system is wrong!   :o
Let me demonstrate why:

- We use Base 10 because with 10 fingers one can represent any number from 0 to 10, right?
- Let's write that down: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, correct?

- But that would need a total of 11 distinct symbols.
- Therefore our Base 10 system is wrong.

Should have been Base 11, or else said Base A!   ^-^

--- End quote ---

NO!

10 Fingers = 2^10 = 1024 Thanks needed.
Or 1023, if you want to be pedantic and start from 0 Thanks.
N.B. I wouldn't jest over such a serious matter.   ;)
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod