Exceptional posters

[Ellis Dee]

I was noticing Logophobic's remarkable reputation to postcount ratio, and it got me wondering if he had the highest signal-to-noise ratio on the boards. So I gathered up a list of all posters who have 100+ reputation, wrote a little routine to guess their actual reputation, and ended up with this list of the 100+ rep posters with the best (lowest) post-per-rep ratios. The results:

  #  Name               Rep   Posts    PPR
  1  jo0ls              107     296   2.77
  2  bgmacaw            114     375   3.29
  3  kaffenils          250     865   3.46
  4  jcis               867   3,148   3.63
  5  vbasicgirl         223     840   3.77
  6  Logophobic         133     542   4.08
  7  nothingofvalue     110     488   4.44
  8  zaza               232   1,158   4.99
  9  visualAd           750   3,752   5.00
 10  iPrank             480   2,465   5.14
 11  Comintern          138     728   5.28
 12  grilkip            164     867   5.29
 13  bushmobile         967   5,559   5.75
 14  FunkyDexter        122     717   5.88
 15  Andy_P             101     601   5.95
 16  Phill64            174   1,039   5.97
 17  -TPM-              142     850   5.99
 18  sevenhalo          367   2,282   6.22
 19  Andrew G           241   1,510   6.27
 20  twanvl             120     753   6.28
 21  DKenny             186   1,171   6.30
 22  Bulldog            119     762   6.40
 23  brucevde         1,150   7,486   6.51
 24  CVMichael          600   3,936   6.56
 25  oceanebelle        123     810   6.59
 26  schoolbusdriver    104     685   6.59
 27  pax                125     824   6.59
 28  Ellis Dee          209   1,404   6.72
 29  Half               118     797   6.75
 30  dannymking         100     677   6.77
 31  sunburnt           194   1,345   6.93
 32  bmahler            166   1,151   6.93
 33  moeur              383   2,664   6.96
 34  ntg                124     864   6.97
 35  Fishcake           111     775   6.98
 36  nmadd              176   1,251   7.11
 37  GaryMazzone        264   1,926   7.30
 38  Merrion            190   1,395   7.34
 39  wossname           700   5,140   7.34
 40  penagate         1,400  10,417   7.44
 41  wild_bill          192   1,439   7.49
 42  kows               116     886   7.64
 43  Shuja Ali          291   2,249   7.73
 44  Zakary             188   1,465   7.79
 45  Pradeep1210        184   1,460   7.93
 46  thegreatone        160   1,309   8.18
 47  Merri              520   4,325   8.32
 48  dynamic_sysop      108     930   8.61
 49  szlamany         1,050   9,087   8.65
 50  techgnome          800   7,206   9.01
 51  stanav             214   1,934   9.04
 52  Atheist            273   2,557   9.37
 53  conipto            123   1,163   9.46
 54  Joacim Andersson 1,000   9,849   9.85
 55  VBDT               198   1,957   9.88
 56  gigemboy           440   4,354   9.90
 57  sciguyryan         156   1,556   9.97
 58  AIS4U              103   1,042  10.12
 59  pnish              180   1,894  10.52
 60  stimbo             127   1,340  10.55
 61  Harsh Gupta        227   2,430  10.70
 62  mpdeglau           140   1,516  10.83
 63  DigiRev            255   2,771  10.87
 64  litlewiki          106   1,162  10.96
 65  Keithuk            114   1,264  11.09
 66  cssriraman         132   1,464  11.09
 67  ComputerJy         162   1,877  11.59
 68  Ideas Man          148   1,718  11.61
 69  DeadEyes           102   1,186  11.63
 70  sparrow1           152   1,774  11.67
 71  koolsid            128   1,502  11.73
 72  si_the_geek      1,200  14,258  11.88
 73  <ABX               130   1,618  12.45
 74  mar_zim            112   1,398  12.48
 75  eyeRmonkey         182   2,305  12.66
 76  timeshifter        143   1,818  12.71
 77  Jmacp              137   1,769  12.91
 78  Mark Gambo         200   2,668  13.34
 79  ganeshmoorthy      218   2,970  13.62
 80  Hell-Lord          105   1,441  13.72
 81  Aaron Young        158   2,169  13.73
 82  Frans C            205   2,909  14.19
 83  salvelinus         120   1,715  14.29
 84  gavio              259   3,709  14.32
 85  trisuglow          105   1,511  14.39
 86  MrPolite           282   4,370  15.50
 87  Al42               350   5,430  15.51
 88  RhinoBull          933  14,792  15.85
 89  Static             560   8,879  15.86
 90  Negative0          121   1,925  15.91
 91  Shaggy Hiker       333   5,449  16.36
 92  westconn1          245   4,015  16.39
 93  dee-u              317   5,283  16.67
 94  leinad31           295   4,947  16.77
 95  jmcilhinney      1,600  26,836  16.77
 96  lintz              135   2,345  17.37
 97  CornedBee          650  11,594  17.84
 98  chemicalNova       178   3,198  17.97
 99  Asgorath           111   2,010  18.11
100  Lord_Rat           117   2,155  18.42
101  BruceG             113   2,149  19.02
102  kleinma            833  16,067  19.29
103  danasegarane       150   2,963  19.75
104  brad jones         170   3,368  19.81
105  Lord Orwell        147   3,001  20.41
106  shakti5385         168   3,539  21.07
107  mendhak          1,100  23,648  21.50
108  |2eM!x             172   3,896  22.65
109  manavo11           286   6,688  23.38
110  baja_yu            108   2,621  24.27
111  Bruce Fox          268   6,643  24.79
112  Pino               154   3,820  24.81
113  NoteMe             400  10,170  25.42
114  MartinLiss         900  22,944  25.49
115  RobDog888        1,700  43,889  25.82
116  Dave Sell          102   2,665  26.13
117  Hack             1,300  34,011  26.16
118  kasracer           117   3,264  27.90
119  Ecniv              145   4,284  29.54
120  Edneeis            236   7,176  30.41
121  randem             300   9,696  32.32
122  Wokawidget         277   9,451  34.12
123  crptcblade         196   9,074  46.30
124  Cander             115   6,788  59.03
125  Pirate             109   7,870  72.20

Here's the spreadsheet I used to get these numbers if you'd like to check my math.

[RhinoBull]

Since actual reps are not available to general public your evluation cannot be correct.
As far as my numbers go they are way off.

[Ellis Dee]

Since actual reps are not available to general public your evluation cannot be correct.
As far as my numbers go they are way off.

Obviously. And the higher the rep, the less accurate my guess will be.

Your rep is somewhere between 800 and 999, and there are only 6 posters in that range. You are the 2nd highest in the range, so the guesses work out like this:

1: 967
You: 933
3: 900
4: 867
5: 833
6: 800

As the reputation gets lower, the accuracy goes up significantly since the tooltip values define a narrower range. For example, there are 33 posters with a reputation between 100-125, and since the board lists them in descending order the guesses will be much closer to reality.

[RobDog888]

One other thing to remember that really will skew your results is that Reps were not implemented until just over two years ago while many members were already posting years before, like me. So the post per rep ratio will never be able to be viewed as equal amoung all members.

[RhinoBull]

As I said not even close. But, I rest my case and let everybody else speak up.

[Ellis Dee]

One other thing to remember that really will skew your results is that Reps were not implemented until just over two years ago while many members were already posting years before, like me. So the post per rep ratio will never be able to be viewed as equal amoung all members.

Good point.

Also of note is that it is unfair to include the mods, who are required to make a slew of "unhelpful" posts. eg: Who's going to give you reputation for moving a thread?

Regardless of all the inherent limitations, I am still quite impressed with jcis's signal-to-noise ratio.

[RobDog888]

I guess I can skew the comparisons even more by stating that members that were acctive when reps were implemented had to work harder to make, for ex., 100 Reps because everyones rep power was at a minimum of either 1 or less then 5 on average. Now if a new member joins he can generate 100+ Reps in just a couple of posts as long time members generally have a much much higher rep power now of 5-18. For ex. I could give a single member reps 5 times and he would have nearly 100 reps while in the beginning of reps it would have taken an easy 50-75 reppings to equal 100 reps.

[Ellis Dee]

I guess I can skew the comparisons even more by stating that members that were acctive when reps were implemented had to work harder to make, for ex., 100 Reps because everyones rep power was at a minimum of either 1 or less then 5 on average. Now if a new member joins he can generate 100+ Reps in just a couple of posts as long time members generally have a much much higher rep power now of 5-18. For ex. I could give a single member reps 5 times and he would have nearly 100 reps while in the beginning of reps it would have taken an easy 50-75 reppings to equal 100 reps.

This is another excellent point. I'm not a fan of how rep power increases; I think it favors time over rep too much.

Plenty of people get extra rep power from years on the boards, but only 10 people get 1 bonus point for having 1000+ rep. (And nobody gets a second point.)

Of those 10 people, 4 are mods who (as I understand it) automatically get 10 rep power regardless of anything else.

It would seem that gaining reputation doesn't do anything for your rep power, which is unfortunate.

[Ellis Dee]

That being the case, your last point isn't all that strong. Two years ago plenty of people had been here for multiple years, so their rep power started strong pretty much right out of the gate.

The only thing that matters is post count and start date. Those both have certainly increased over the past two years, so it's definitely easier for new members like me to shoot up quickly, but the fact that there are more people of high reputation has pretty much zero impact on that.

(Hasn't your rep power always been 10, being a mod?)

[RobDog888]

...Of those 10 people, 4 are mods who (as I understand it) automatically get 10 rep power regardless of anything else.

It would seem that gaining reputation doesn't do anything for your rep power, which is unfortunate.

Completely opposite. All members and Mods follow the same rules and formulas for giving and receiving reps and building up rep power.

Check out my link "Reps and Ratings" in my signature for the detailed explainations on how its all calculated.

I started out with only a few rep points power strength and have built it up due to all the formula reasons.

You build rep power by a few formulas like: number of complete years on the site, number of multiple 4,000 posts, number of multiple 1,000 rep points and 1 rep point power by default.

[Ellis Dee]

Completely opposite. All members and Mods follow the same rules and formulas for giving and receiving reps and building up rep power.

From that link:

"The exception however is administrators, who have a fixed reputation power of 10 for both positive and negative reps."

[Ellis Dee]

Hmmm, reading more closely, is there a difference between a moderator and an administrator? I always thought they were basically the same thing.

Assuming admin is different, to say you "started out with only a few rep points power strength" is disingenuous. At the time reps were instituted two years ago, penegate calculated your rep power as 10. (Now 18.)

[RobDog888]

Mods are different from Admins when it comes to a "default" starting rep power but they too can follow they formula but on some vBulletin sites it is overridden but that just depends on the site and if they want to or not. We dont override here. All Admins follow the same rules as Members.

The Rep FAQ was updated over time and that too was updated at least once. I think I had somewhere around 8K-9K posts at the time. I think I started with 6 rep power due to only 3 complete years and so forth. I post about 15K per year.

But anyways, I hope I have brought about more of an understanding on how Reps work on our site. Do you have any other questions that are not answered here or in the Rep FAQ?

There is the sites FAQ which hasnt been updated as much - http://vbforums.com/faq.php?s=&do=se...l&titlesonly=0

It shows my 15K posts at least some time in July 2005 due to my "snowing" avatar for July theme.

[Ellis Dee]

But anyways, I hope I have brought about more of an understanding on how Reps work on our site. Do you have any other questions that are not answered here or in the Rep FAQ?

You certainly have expanded my understanding of reputation as it relates to this board. Thanks much.

No other questions come to mind.

[RhinoBull]

Don't forget btw that some people (like me) were getting lots of neg reps for just expressing personal opinion on rep system itself and in regerds to some other stuff - non of them were related to techincal information what so ever.

[RobDog888]

Good point RB because that also reminds me that perhaps if it was possible to take a quanitity of rep'ings instead of the total point value it may be more accurate. This would include -ve, 0, and positive reppings.

[RhinoBull]

Since we're talking about imperfection here is best of it...

[Ellis Dee]

Since we're talking about imperfection here is best of it...

That's friggin' ridiculous.

[RobDog888]

Well thats a good example (of a -ve I assume) of why taking some other point like total rep'ings and including the -ves may help give a better picture.

Reps are not perfect and shouldnt be viewed as an identifier of skill alone and same with post counts as both are more of a way to gauge the members knowledge, skills, helpfullness and experience etc.

Bottom line, all members on the site are valued members regardless of anything else that could quantify value.

[RhinoBull]

Bottom line, all members on the site are valued members regardless of anything else that could quantify value.

Statement of the month and I indeed agree!

[penagate]

Also of note is that it is unfair to include the mods, who are required to make a slew of "unhelpful" posts. eg: Who's going to give you reputation for moving a thread?

I got one once.


Anyway, I think people put way too much stock in rep system. It's a nice way of saying thank you but that's about it.
If posts showed a public rating (positive/negative) then it would be more useful as it could help those new to the forum to guage the accuracy of responses once they have been rated by the more "expert" members. As it is, reputation per poster doesn't help much. But that's not something we can change as it is a feature of the forum software.

[CVMichael]

I have 500 rep points, not 600...

And if only we could get the number of posts from the moment rep points were introduced to the vbforums.com, then we would have an accurate postcount ratio.

[Ellis Dee]

I have 500 rep points, not 600...

And if only we could get the number of posts from the moment rep points were introduced to the vbforums.com, then we would have an accurate postcount ratio.

Agreed. Finding out that the reputation was introduced late in the game -- as opposed to from the beginning as I assumed -- kinda took the wind out of the sails of this list.

You don't have 600? The gems indicate you have at least that:

5 regular gems + 1 bright gem = (5-1)*100 + 1*200 = 400 + 200 = 600

[CVMichael]

I have 500 points...

The bright gem I got it when I got the 500'th point...

[RhinoBull]

No Ellis, it doesn't work that way - I think Rob once pointed you to this faq.

[Hack]

And if I had 1,300 points I'd have another light green gem.

[penagate]

Another caveat to consider is that people who joined recently are likely to have a higher reputation to posts ratio than people who joined soon after the ratings were introduced, since the average reputation power of regular members will have increased in that time.