Proposal to Change Function of 'Stars'
 

I'd like to change the mechanism of how the 'stars' are calculated. At the current time, it is based on a user's post count. I think it would be beneficial to swap it to how many years a user has been a member of the Oddworld Forums.

Of course, the colour-coding would still be kept intact. But I might have a few other ideas to russle up with said colour-coding.

Alcar...

But wouldn't people get the wrong idea about a person who had registered since the beginning of OWF, but never posted?

Maybe it should be a mixture of both, and maybe forum online time too?

Hmmm...Both...I like both, maybe two rows of stars for each thingy? That could be fun 8).

Oh, I didn't mean two rows, I meant calculate the overall ranking based on both or both and online/active time or whatever.

Good point, I hadn't thought of that. That's remedied easily enough - I'd just need to set a minimum post count. Say, 30 posts? That way we're guaranteed to get a fair-enough result.

That, or I could whip up a little plugin and base it on posts per year or posts per day.

Alcar...

Perhaps posts multiplied by the number of years, scaled to some reasonable point?

You have too much time on your hands if you're thinking about this sort of thing.

I'd give a no. As the stars are in some way a member's "rank", in my opinion they should be proportioned as to how much the member has actually contributed to the forum.

Hmm... It's a good idea but the two rows thing sounds quite good and the idea with average posts per year is good too.

I agree with Nate, if you're going to change it then change it to a sum of multiple factors but there really is very little point in it.

If I get more, it's fine by me.

Ah, hell, give me a hundred stars and people will barely notice me anyway.

I have a suggestion, but I don't think you'll like it: I agree with Nate and Paul, but there are members who posted very much, for example 13000 posts, and they have 6 stars, but they could have more than 6 stars. Maybe could you add some stars at ranks?

I was thinking about that, an extra star or two could be added as long as it's aesthetically pleasing. Otherwise a combination of coloured stars to represent the number of years could be used.

Alcar...

I'll say goodbye to my stars then :P

And maybe bigger stars too? Maybe just for mods or admins. And normal stars for users. And new ranks!!! And I was thinking, if you want obviously, a very short personal phrase for everyone...

Larger stars have crossed my mind. A "very short personal phrase" is something to add to your signature.

Alcar...

Well. I think I should have spinning stars.

And Xavier should have a lot of stars, eheh!

My Sporeum forum has an unfathomable system that ranks you up "evolutionary" stages, based upon post count, which forums you post in, your user rating, length of time you've been a member, news articles submitted, for solving science-related mysteries in a game, some other mysterious inputs and probably partially at random too. Right now I'm at the later stages of level 8: Paramecium.

It's fun, partly because we don't know what each stage is until we get there, but if all it does is give you a few stars then it's hardly worth it.

Well, I think it's a good idea, but the fact that someone can start an account a long time ago, and then post over 30 or so and leave, and then come back ten years later or something and have a huge ammount of stars.
I'm happy with the second idea though, I see how this could work, how about a seperate star system though, stars above being for posts, and stars below being for years, if not, you could put them together, and have say greyed out stars for posts, and non greyed out stars for years.
Or is that what some of you meant?

I think it's fine how it is to be honest. Maybe livening it up a bit, but the stars should reflect who's contributed the most and such. Not how long they've been lurking.

Perhaps the number of stars should reflect post count and the colour the number of years of membership?

EDIT: Whoops, Alcar already mentioned that. Well, it's still a good idea.

Age based stars are better than post related stars. People who have been here longer have no doubt contributed more than new members, older members have kept this place alive! Everyone always says that quality is better than quantity, so logically, those who have been here longer have probably made more quality posts, it stands to reason. Besides, if you were to rank people on much they've contributed to this forum you would have to know quite a bit about everybody, plus you'd have to do it manually. In short, it's more time consuming.

Also, you hardly have to worry about someone creating an account and then waiting for multiple years, everyone else's stars would increase too. If you think about it, if someone was prepared to wait several years just to obtain some stars, wouldn't they just do the same if we used the post-based stars? Yes, they probably would. Age-based stars is better.

Mudling's objection wasn't about someone creating an account and waiting multiple years; it was about someone making an account and never using it (believe me there are plenty of them) or a productive member leaving then returning some time later (you only need to frequent W&B to see how often this happens).

Yes, with flashy lights!

Anyways, I don't have stars! How come I don't have stars! I'm stuck with OWI Logos!

Everyone has OWI logos. I’ve been timing how long it takes for somebody to notice. About 11 days. :D

I’m not bothered by stars at all, but since there are already post counts and ranks (which are directly related to post count) in postbits already, they might as well reflect the number of years a member has been registered, but then we have the situation where Sligface has six stars but one of newer but infinitely more contributive members has just the one. For any system to be better than what we’ve got now it’d have to involve sums!

I think those ARE the 'stars' we are talking about :p.

I think the stars should represent a person's activity over a course of time but I don't think it's possible with the current software to apply an entire math formula to how stars are calculated, they can only be displayed using a few criteria such as registration date, post count, activity, group member status or set manually.

However to link the stars to a postcount is kind of double since the post count is already displayed. In which case I would recommend giving people one star for each year they have been a member and start using different color logos when that number exceeds every 8 years or so depending on how crowded you want the userbars to get.

EDIT AFTER MAX: Good point, fortunatlly I think it can also factor in if a person has been active within a certain amount of time. So if someone is registered for 6 years but hasn't posted for a year, he could be reset to just 1 star.

Or maybe it only counts time during periods in which the user is considered to be an active one.

[posts/day *(days since joining date)!]^6

Is how many stars I want.

Wait... Wut?

Anyways, I've been having OWI logo's for as long as I can remember.

Wait, that's not true. Can it be the Industrial skin I'm using? Cause I DO remember a time where I had 1 measly star :P.

Bah, if we're going to include the posts/day variable, I'm not getting a lot of stars :P, I mean: 0.89 posts/day? XD.

Post/day is a bad idea.

A new user could have 30 posts in one day and own poor little me.

Well, you incorporated it into your little mathematic equation :P

He also included a ^6, but I wouldn’t consider using indeces of that order to work things out.

I thought about factoring in the time since a user’s most recent post, but then fantastically memorable, beloved, and contributive members who left us a long time ago would appear weak against those that left a long time ago but recently made a one‐off post.

Why do we need a change in how we use stars today? Does anyone even look or count how many stars one has when visiting the forum?

I just say keep it the way it is, so no one would get to stressed over it :p.

Nate's exactly right on what I meant, and I would know it happens alot, I was one of those people that had to leave for a long ammount of time, I'm basically less experianced than some of the younger (In terms of joining date) members, becuase of my absence.
Hobbo's right, everything is fine as it is, altough maybe a seperate system would be ok, but I think the join date being shown to everyone is good enough.
And Havoc the problem is, what if the person can't help being away? If there was a star sytem, I don't think you should be deducted, maybe your timer or whatever it is frozen untill you've came back.
Actually, instead you could install a timer if possible, which would track the ammount of time you're logged in to the OF, I doupt anyone wouild be keen enough to leave their computers overnight, so technically, you are graded for the amount of time you've spent on the forums, I can see how this can be abused though.
I'm not sure, I think my final judgement are things are fine as they are, but if Alcar manages to pull it off, I'm fine with that.

Yea but that would happen with almost any variable we put in. No system is perfect, especially not forum systems :p.

lets see...

(5.75 * 2354)^6 = 6149585147916068827971030,015625

ouch


(sorry didn't see the second page :()

You can make different users's stars: when an user will reach a tot of posts, he will have OWI symbols... for example

You forgot the !, which would make the number so much bigger.

I did not anticipate updating the function of the 'stars' (tiny OWI symbols) would be so much trouble. If anything, I would base it on the number of years registered, and pin it on a consistent number of posts per year. However, this means that those members who remain more reserved, but never-the-less respected and valued would be penalised.

Alcar...