For the last few days I noticed that users do not get the proper credit for an upvote. Here is an example. I upvoted the answer given by mayer and Dan (because those are good answers)
, but neither mayer
nor Dan
received credit for this. Now I am just wondering if this is a glitch or if there are changes made with the upvoting system. Hope this is a bit clearer than my last question. Thank you.
Okay, so I have at least some partial answers. There is a 200 rep limit per day from Answers, and a separate 200 rep daily limit from guides. In this case, it looks like mayer and Dan hit their Answers limits, so additional votes were going un-counted. The way the algorithm checks for hitting your rep limit is as follows:
1. A new reputation addition is started (e.g. someone upvotes your answer).
2. Find the sum of reputation rewarded in the past 24 hours (in this case, only looking at Answers-related sources of reputation).
3. Reward either the full amount or whatever would take you to the limit without passing it, whichever is lower.
Some funny business comes because of that 24 hour rule. This does ideally cause the proper behavior with an even spread of voting activity. However, if mayer gets upvoted 17 times evenly spaced between 21:00 and 23:00 (17*12 > 200, making mayer hit his 200 rep cap), then he will be unable to receive reputation until 21:00 the next day. At 22:00, he will be able to receive about 100 rep, since half of the aforementioned 200 is now greater than 24 hours old.
As far as I can tell, this accounts for all the missing reputation, though if you think something's still wrong, I'm happy to dig deeper. I'm also open to reviewing the way we handle daily caps. Without these caps, some users' reputation would grow wildly. The cap has cancelled about 20% of the total reputation on the site, but has only affected about 16% of our users.
Let me know what you think, and I hope this answers your question!
6 Comments:
Does it make sense the person getting the vote based over a mean average of answer posts (within a given month or two) the person does. That way people who make the effort to answer questions don't get limited. But people who don't answer questions heavily don't run the up voting wildly. I would still limit what one is able to up vote or down vote equally.
by Dan
Basically, you want to reward people answering, but prevent false up voting.
by Dan
Dan, let me see if I understand you. You're proposing a system where the number of answers someone makes over a month influences their reputation cap, such that good posts over time will lead to higher potential reputation gains?
This sounds somewhat reasonable, though one issue we've run into is that we have a handful of very active users who are far surpassing the reputation limit every day. I'm not sure if having some very active users get a wild amount of reputation is a good or a bad thing. It is good to prevent gaming the system and getting up to dangerous levels of reputation overnight, but once people are past a certain point, maybe it doesn't matter anymore.
I thinking of the group in the middle. People who are making the effort we don't want to sour them. Yes, the heavy players like me it does become silly after a while. But, as I was making my way up there is a point you feel what is my effort worth? Then you note the limit and you start to wonder. Thats the group I'm hoping to raise up here. As you've noted there is a group that likes to percolate up meaningless answers.
by Dan
We also have a hanging chad type of issue ;-} People who ask a question and abandon it. I would love to see a means to retire questions as No Conclusion so it can be archived. We tend to give people the votes for a accepted answer. While the effort of given the answer should be given, it also implies the incomplete answer is the answer which it might not be. So people reading these older questions are perplexed as it relates to their problem.
by Dan
It's doing it again today. Team Master Techs got opened up while I was in the hospital having surgery to anyone that asked. It has 163 members. You may one of the few people giving valid answers that hasn't joined. In my opinion the concept of teams might have been good but failed and is of no real use. My thought when I named it that it would be the top five or six answer givers.
1 Comment:
Neither Old Turkey or myself believe what we've been told by Sterling. So if you see some voting irregularities going on in the next few days (starting yesterday), we are testing out our theory that Sterling is full of it and the system need change. We will give or results when we are sure. Please bear with us.
by mayer
I'll guess that something like that may be because you are all members of Team Master Tech. If, for example, Team members weren't allowed to upvote each other's answers, then I would expect it to be implemented like this.
No clue if that is what is going on or not
2 Comments:
You are absolutely right. Some notification would have been nice.
by oldturkey03
This is not what's happening. More details here: Change in upvote credit or just a fluke?
272 
103 
7
1 Comment
This is still going on.
by mayer