Reputation calculations

[playBunny]

I don't know how the calculation for Rep Bot works (is there a web page?) but hearing mention of 10K vouches leads me to understand that the experience of the voucher is part of the equation. My question then is whether the reputation is dynamic, ie. if I vouch for someone, does their reputation change as my experience (and own reputation?) changes? If not, does that mean that I'd be of more benefit to the people that I favour by unvouching and revouching every so often?

[spielberg]

There WAS a webpage - it's now vanished into the ether. Repbot itself can give you the best guidance - just "tell repbot help" at your command line.

The 10k comments occasionally heard on fibs relate to repbot's weighting of our vouches/complaints which are worth player experience up to a maximum of 10,000.

The number calculation IS dynamic btw - there is no need to remove and replace your vouches/complaints.

[playBunny]

Ah, thanks for the tip about the "help" keyword, I only knew what 3DFibs gave me. I'd thought that the formula was more complex than just the sum of experiences, ie. that it took the reputation of the voucher/complainer into account too.

The formula info didn't mention it being dynamic so I tested it with someone who I vouched for a while back. I asked for their rep, got 12356, withdrew and asked, got 11940, then revouched and asked and ended with 12583. That resulted in a boost of 227 so it looks like you can top someone up every now and then!

[spielberg]

Wow - very interesting to find that the calculation is being observed as undynamic. I have an explanation which I hope is correct.

If Repbot's calculations are updated on a daily basis then changes in players vouch/complain values, from changes in their experience, will only take effect when repbot's weighting for those entries is changed. This will be a look up into a database of experience numbers. To save on processing this database MUST be semi static. Forcing repbot to use a new value for a players weighting may be done by removing and then reapplying a vouch/complaint - hopefully the change in the value of that comment will only be an intra day one ie the number will be now be what would have been reported tommorow anyway.

Gosh I hope that's correct - any comments?


PS I've now found this: Alef's old webpage guide to repbot

[playBunny]

Ah, now that's an interesting page. Thanks.

That's a decent theory regarding making the reputations dynamic on a daily basis. It makes sense if the processing demand would be too high in keeping track of all changes to everyone's experience and recalculating the reputation value on every query. Without knowing what the load on RepBot is it's hard to judge that but the proof of the pudding is in the eating and the best way to munch a spoonful of that pudding would be to check a reputation for a couple of days in a row and see whether it's changed. Having been curious about it all I have been checking mine at various times over the last few days and, while I haven't written it down, I haven't noticed any change since the last complaint (I'd like to say vouch there, lol, but I met a sore loser. Doh!).

[burper]

Its' not just efficiency, its' the right thing to do.
Your opinion, at the time it is rendered, should have a weight based on the experience you have at that same time.

That is not to say that a client or user could do updates periodically, but that is a client-side decision.

[webrunner]

PS I've now found this: Alef's old webpage guide to repbot

Thanks for finding that old page 
I retrieved it and placed it at http://www.fibsboard.com/repbot

[playBunny]

@webrunner: I don't know whether you'd want to fix up the links within the page to remove the webarchive indirection (eg. the link at the bottom to an archived page of your own RepBot Forum! ) but there's a RepBot usage stats link at the bottom which is also archived. Rather out of date but they do provide a bit of interest so it might be worth retrieving that as well.

[webrunner]

I thought i got all the archive stuff out of there but apparently not.
I fixed the page and the link to the forum.
Thanks for mentioning it!