The Carolinas - Charlotte United States
Member #21,626
September 12, 2005
4,142 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Rick G on Aug 26, 2006
Todd explained in his blog (that Emily provided a link to earlier in this thread) about how the ratings are derived.
They are not subjective ratings. If you've been a member of LP for five years and have visited the site every day and posted things every day in those five years, you will have a higher rating than someone who joined a year ago and and has visited every day and posted things every day for that year.
Three factors are involved. How many days have you been a member, how many of those days have you visited Lottery Post, and on how many of those days have you made a post?
Maybe I'm wrong but that's how I understood it. It's lind of like a seniority rating in a job. If "Joe Smith" has worked for five years at the same job as you have for one year, with proportionate contributions to the company during each's own tenure, and both of you have the same attendance record, who should get the higher rating, you or "Joe"?
Rick
I might be like a lot of people on here and couldn't give a hill of beans what my rating is...however, I have seen a few people when I was trying to decipher this, who were here less than me, posted less than me, and have probably logged on less than me, yet they are Experienced, or Advanced, or a Guru. It doesn't make any sense to me, but then again, it really doesn't matter. As long as people are learning and appreciate what I am presenting herein, that's all that matters to me. I enjoy the quest of chasing the prize more than what my reputation is.
That being said, that is a good explanation that you made on this...thank you!!
The North Carolina Education Lottery - so much a joke that here are their mascots:
New Jersey United States
Member #1
May 31, 2000
27,926 Posts Online
Quote: Originally posted by Rick G on Aug 26, 2006
Todd explained in his blog (that Emily provided a link to earlier in this thread) about how the ratings are derived.
They are not subjective ratings. If you've been a member of LP for five years and have visited the site every day and posted things every day in those five years, you will have a higher rating than someone who joined a year ago and and has visited every day and posted things every day for that year.
Three factors are involved. How many days have you been a member, how many of those days have you visited Lottery Post, and on how many of those days have you made a post?
Maybe I'm wrong but that's how I understood it. It's lind of like a seniority rating in a job. If "Joe Smith" has worked for five years at the same job as you have for one year, with proportionate contributions to the company during each's own tenure, and both of you have the same attendance record, who should get the higher rating, you or "Joe"?
Hey Rick, out of your three criteria you mentioned, only the third one actually counts.
Pcnut, I'm sorry that you feel put-out and "penalized and discriminated" (your words). Maybe in the future I'll do something that you absolutely love, and someone else feels that I am "penalizing and discriminating" them.
Thanks to everyone who have been taking the time to explain in different ways how this new ratings system works. With any new idea sometimes it takes several different explanations before it is clear to all.
New Jersey United States
Member #1
May 31, 2000
27,926 Posts Online
Quote: Originally posted by pcnut on Aug 26, 2006
Well, there went the remainder of my integrity as a valued LP member!Just, "one of the ones in the "don't like it" category. "I guess I'm on this blacklist now...
Todd, how about placing a small text above the scale identifying what it is then?
pcnut
Oops, missed this gem of a post when I made my last reply.
You guess you're on a blacklist now? What a ridiculous thing to say!
Let's see... According to you, here are the things I am guilty of:
"Blacklisting you"
"Attacking your integrity"
"Penalizing and discriminating against you"
In the future, if you have some suggestions or a complaint, I think it would be much more productive to contact me through Private Messaging, rather than launching an attack on the forums, don't you think?
FEMA Region V Camp #21 United States
Member #520
July 27, 2002
5,699 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Todd on Aug 26, 2006
Hey Rick, out of your three criteria you mentioned, only the third one actually counts.
Pcnut, I'm sorry that you feel put-out and "penalized and discriminated" (your words). Maybe in the future I'll do something that you absolutely love, and someone else feels that I am "penalizing and discriminating" them.
Thanks to everyone who have been taking the time to explain in different ways how this new ratings system works. With any new idea sometimes it takes several different explanations before it is clear to all.
Todd,
Thanks...didn't mean to misrepresent it. I gotta re-read your blog and anyone else with questions should read it too.
Posted 4/6: IL Pick 3 midday and evening until they hit: 555, 347 (str8).
New Jersey United States
Member #1
May 31, 2000
27,926 Posts Online
Quote: Originally posted by ayenowitall on Aug 26, 2006
pcnut,
We can't really hold it against Todd for trying to to increase regular participation on the site. Whether it's his intent or not, the effect of the new ratings on those who are concerned with ratings will be to prod them into posting something every day. That doesn't guarantee that people will post anything of value, but it will demonstrate more traffic on the site, and that translates into $$$.
If you're concerned about your rating, just start posting something every day. Your rating will slowly improve over time. If you don't care about your rating, just work harder on your lottery picks. Your winnings will buy you a lot more than any rating of any kind.
Good luck,
aye'
I just want to make one thing clear: this has absolutely nothing to do with money or traffic. It has to do with identifying people who are daily contributors, and that's all.
New Jersey United States
Member #1
May 31, 2000
27,926 Posts Online
Quote: Originally posted by ayenowitall on Aug 26, 2006
pcnut,
Now I see your point, and it just might be a valid one. I understood the rating because I'd already read about it in Todd's blog, but I can see how that rating and the other indicators (level of membership, level of total posts, poster ratings) might be confusing if a reader were not familiar with them. One might wonder, "Gold what?" Or another reader might ask, "What exactly is being rated four out of five stars?" Yet another person might question, "What exactly makes someone a Top Poster of any degree?" Heck, all of that might already be covered somewhere on this site, but maybe it should be made a little more prominent in a place like the Home page. Maybe there should also be some disclosure of exactly what numerical ratios (number of posting days divided by the number of Lottery Post days) qualify members for each of the rankings. With that, members would at least know exactly how far they have to go to improve their standing as a resource on LP.
Good luck,
aye'
I wish I had the time to put together that level of documentation, but I'm only one person, and if I spent that much time documenting, there wouldn't be half the features that exist today. If someone would like to volunteer to write some help material to put on the site, I'd be happy to receive it. Do you want to take a stab at it?
United States
Member #4,416
April 22, 2004
1,075 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Rick G on Aug 26, 2006
Todd explained in his blog (that Emily provided a link to earlier in this thread) about how the ratings are derived.
They are not subjective ratings. If you've been a member of LP for five years and have visited the site every day and posted things every day in those five years, you will have a higher rating than someone who joined a year ago and and has visited every day and posted things every day for that year.
Three factors are involved. How many days have you been a member, how many of those days have you visited Lottery Post, and on how many of those days have you made a post?
Maybe I'm wrong but that's how I understood it. It's lind of like a seniority rating in a job. If "Joe Smith" has worked for five years at the same job as you have for one year, with proportionate contributions to the company during each's own tenure, and both of you have the same attendance record, who should get the higher rating, you or "Joe"?
Rick,
I agree that there is nothing subjective or arbitrary about the way the ratings are derived. Actually, only two factors are involved: (1) a member's actual number of posting days divided by (2) the number of days that Lottery Post has been around. (Lottery Post days) That's it. It's a very simple concept.
It's the purported interpretation of that simple ratio that I see as subjective. If I may quote from Todd's blog:
"It is my feeling that someone who has a high rating is by extension someone who has developed a very deep knowledge base of lotteries in general, as they would have been exposed to literally years of every type of information about the lottery, and in fact have participated to a very high extent, regardless of whatever their opinions may be, or whatever games they enjoy playing. If you were to mention any particular lottery topic to a member with a very high rating, it is very likely they will have a good deal of knowledge about it, and would be able to help others to understand the topic.
In short, such people would be excellent resources on Lottery Post, and that is exactly what a rating system should capture! Hence, I would consider this new rating system to be a breakthrough concept for identifying important resources on Lottery Post."
That's a lot to conclude from a simple fraction. That fraction really only states the proportion of days one has posted to the number of days lottery post has been around. Period. Any inferences about a member's knowledge based on that fraction really are subjective. Posting on the boards is an expressive function. The acquisition of knowledge is an endeavor of absorption. It might make more sense to conclude that those who never post have the deepest base of knowledge about lotteries. I don't really think that's the case either, but it does demonstrate the pitfalls of interpreting statistics.
If I may quote part of my response to Todd's blog entry:
"The ratings won't necessarily be a good indication of a member's knowledge or the quality of posts submitted. LP has some members who rarely post, but their posts are always valuable contributions. LP also has some members who basically submit a lot of junk posts with great frequency. "
I further suggested that a rating of individual posts, much like the topic ratings, would give a much more reliable indication of which members are regarded by others as being "excellent resources" on Lottery Post.
You see, the intended function of the member ratings is clearly far more than a simple matter of seniority on the site. I think that's what pcnut and some others are objecting to. Personally, a rating doesn't matter one way or the other to me. I won't be posting any more or less because of it. Being rated as an Advanced member doesn't make me any smarter or dumber about lotteries than I was before I had that rating bestowed on me. The only rating that I really concern myself with is the dollars I get for cashing a winning lottery ticket once in a while. Even that doesn't make a huge difference to me because I'm going to have to win a jackpot to get out of the whole I'm in. Now winning a jackpot by my own methods might actually make me feel like I've got some kind of knowledge.
New Jersey United States
Member #1
May 31, 2000
27,926 Posts Online
I'll leave you all to fight it out over who is right. I will leave this thread having explained to you all the best I can why this is a great way to do it, and you all can argue theory all day long if you'd like.
FEMA Region V Camp #21 United States
Member #520
July 27, 2002
5,699 Posts
Offline
I feel kind of bummed for Todd right now. He put a lot of effort into this and if one read his blog about it, it makes sense.
I'd trade my rating to any unhappy ratee because that's not why I'm here in the first place. I give Todd enough grief on my own, up close and personal. I don't want to see others giving him grief too. Then I can't do it in good conscience. lol
It's cool Todd, like you said in your blog, there were going to be people who liked it and didn't. I just wish they took a minute to read your blog about it to see the reasoning and purpose behind it.
I'd be just fine with being a "new member". I have nothing to prove here except my personal responsibility to myself and for what I post.
Posted 4/6: IL Pick 3 midday and evening until they hit: 555, 347 (str8).
United States
Member #4,416
April 22, 2004
1,075 Posts
Offline
Quote: Originally posted by Todd on Aug 26, 2006
I wish I had the time to put together that level of documentation, but I'm only one person, and if I spent that much time documenting, there wouldn't be half the features that exist today. If someone would like to volunteer to write some help material to put on the site, I'd be happy to receive it. Do you want to take a stab at it?
Todd,
Thanks for the offer, but I'd be hard pressed to offer explanations for things that I don't fully understand myself. The numerical ratios which define the member rating categories would simply be eight numbers (fractions, decimal equivalents, or percentages); however, you are the only one who knows what those numbers are. I don't have a complete understanding of how the top poster and post ratings are calculated either. I wouldn't have a clue about how to document things that I don't understand. And if what you're looking for involves any programming code, you could fit my knowledge of that into a thimble... a very small thimble.