I...don't know what to say. For weeks I was rated among the elite. It WAS just three votes...but it was THREE GOOD VOTES! I tried to be as non-offensive and likeable as possible...and I am rewarded with...a plunge of almost two whole points. I-I'm lost. Once among the giants, and now.....I might as well be Justin Shapiro...
George Washington gave his signature The Government gave its hand They said for now and ever more that this was Indian Land
"As long as the moon shall rise" "As long as the rivers flow" "As long as the sun will shine" "As long as the grass shall grow"
I think there's the Wienerboard Ratings Law: mention your rating, and it will fall by at least 2 points, even if only out of general spite for people with high ratings.
I probably shouldn't admit this, but earlier today, I noticed that someone I had rated (and been the only one to rate), had been rated by another person. I deleted my rating on the person and found that the other person's rating was 0. With that as a base, I tried a few ratings and got the following results:
0 = 0 1 = .5068 2 = 1.0137 4 = 2.0274 9 = 4.5616
I noticed that at each of those values, the difference between what should have been the average (x/2, where x is my rating) and what was the average was a multiple of .00684. (The extra digit accounts for rounding.) This really doesn't seem to shed any light on how the ratings are determined beyond what my personal multiplier seems to be (although CRZ did mention something about wanting his opinion to count more than that of some troll who just registered). I doubt this will prove useful, and I'd wager the system will be summarily changed to render my *studies* useless. At any rate, this is how I've been spending my unemployed time as of late...
I'm Mr. Mister. Watch your back, felons! When I get pissed, you get mist!
The general way I've assumed it worked is like this:
Guy A and Guy B rate someone. Guy A's been registered for 50 days, Guy B for 150. Guy A rates Dude (not The Dude, just Dude) a 9, Guy B rates Dude a 4. From here, the 9 is multiplied by 50, the 4 by 150, and the combined result is divided by 200 to get the combined ranking (5.25). Hence, the rankings can change somewhat with time (as mine has done, even with no new people rating me). I have no clue if that's even close, but it's what I'm holding onto.
EDIT: Just experimented with it (a ranking I had been working on for a while anyway), and I think it's not far off. Might've just been rounding error on my part.
DOUBLE-TIME~! After more experimentation, there's a variable somewhere in here that I'm missing - a minor one, but one nonetheless.
I was wondering how length of registration would be applied, if used, but I didn't think he'd use it because the ratings would vary over time. I haven't had the opportunity to observe any ratings change despite the votes appearing to remain constant, but if that is the case, then I think you may have the formula.
I'm Mr. Mister. Watch your back, felons! When I get pissed, you get mist!
These are all very nice postings, but back to the matter at hand.
Was it because I can't stand Test? That's not my fault, I'm genetically predispositioned to dislike personality-challenged mediocrely-talented wrestlers. It's society's fault too.
Was it because I actually personally talked on the telephone to Bobby The Brain Heenan? Naw, that would be jealousy...and no one on this board would fall victim to THAT...
Or was it because on every ladies' Christmas wish list, #1 is "Handsome Eddie Famous"? Hey, talk to your ladyfriends about that one, I just can't help it....
George Washington gave his signature The Government gave its hand They said for now and ever more that this was Indian Land
"As long as the moon shall rise" "As long as the rivers flow" "As long as the sun will shine" "As long as the grass shall grow"
In an interesting turn of events I appear to have a pure rating. If I give you a 5 you are getting a 5, if I give you an 8 you are getting an 8. I have no pull around here and CRZ isn't particularly fond of me so I'm thinking that EXP points must come in to play somehow, I'm thinking 1,000,000.
I still believe my theory: your personal rating multiplier is affected by how CRZ (and/or maybe Guru) have rated you. If he hasn't rated you at all (or possibly given you a "5"), your rating is "pure" (like BigDaddyLoco's). If he gives you a high rating, your personal ratng multiplier is higher.
I have two new reasons for believing this to be the case:
1) When I posted it in a previous thread, CRZ did not mock me for being wrong.
2) Immediately after, my rating plunged precipitously -- obviously due to CRZ being angered that I'd figured his system out.
--K
*EDIT: Brief and unscientific testing reveals my personal rating modifier to also, seemingly, be "pure." Hm.
I think you will find that rating a person who has no rating will always result in them having the rating that you gave them. I'm pretty sure, at least
Willful ignorance of science is not commendable. Refusing to learn the difference between a credible source and a shill is criminally stupid.
Originally posted by JayJayDeanI rated both Karlos and BDL and their ratings moved in accordance with the full rating I gave them. WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?!
Originally posted by JayJayDeanI rated both Karlos and BDL and their ratings moved in accordance with the full rating I gave them. WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?!
Without The Wienerboard, you have no life?
Good guess, but WRONG. (I think by most standards, I'd say I have at least a BIT of a life.) It does mean, however, that melodrama for melodrama's sake doesn't come across too well over a message board post.
(edited by JayJayDean on 15.7.03 1827) Washington Huskies, 2003 Pac-10 football champs. Coming soon.
No, no, it comes across fine. It's just that on a message board, those of us who prefer to kick the overly dramatic in the shins can do so verbally. Not that I'm sure we actually can kick them verbally, seeing as how this is written, but I AM sure that we can't do it literally.
-Jag
I'm so confused.
Roxanne from The Real Cancun on being famous: "I'd rather be known for [dancing topless with my twin sister] instead of being smart or something. There's a million people who are smart. There's only 16 of us who were in Cancun together."
I rated both Karlos and BDL and their ratings moved in accordance with the full rating I gave them. WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?!
Gee, thanks my rating after having peaked at a whopping 5.02 (above .500) has plummeted once again to the low fours. I think I should start thinking lottery pick here.
Originally posted by JaguarNo, no, it comes across fine. It's just that on a message board, those of us who prefer to kick the overly dramatic in the shins can do so verbally. Not that I'm sure we actually can kick them verbally, seeing as how this is written, but I AM sure that we can't do it literally.
-Jag
I'm so confused.
I was thinking more along the lines of lemmings and cliffs but your explanation is nicer. :)
George Washington gave his signature The Government gave its hand They said for now and ever more that this was Indian Land
"As long as the moon shall rise" "As long as the rivers flow" "As long as the sun will shine" "As long as the grass shall grow"
So with all my posts and experience, my ratings can make or break people? Ha ha, abuse of power! I will now stick out my chest and walk around my computer room in mock trimuph! And then I'll probably hang my head for being such a sad sack.
Over 1750 posts and still never a Wiener of the Day! But I'm not bitter!
#
#