# XP spreading...



## mach1.9pants (Jun 7, 2010)

How much do we have to 'spread around' before we can award some one again? It is getting annoying that most of my attempts at giving XP are thwarted by this. Is the 'spread around' factor too high? I think it is.

Anyway could we have a break down of how it works? 

Thanks


----------



## Bullgrit (Jun 7, 2010)

It takes 100 xp to others before you can give it to someone a second time. Unless you give xp on Saturday, which is worth 4 points, or the 13th of the month, which is worth 8 points. If you give xp between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m. (GMT), your points count for double. If you give as often as you can (once per 72 seconds), over a week, you can give xp to someone a second time in. . .

x*13/(91+y)*PI^2 + 42/t(H*18) days.

Hope this helps.

Bullgrit


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 7, 2010)

This thread talks about spreading XP around, where it seems it used to be give xp to 50 other people.  But Piratecat mentions lowering that number some, but to an as of yet undisclosed amount I believe.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jun 7, 2010)

mach1.9pants said:


> It is getting annoying that most of my attempts at giving XP are thwarted by this.




If you (or anyone else) needs to spread some XP around, feel free to give XP to this post.  I don't post a lot, so it's unlikely you've already given some to me.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 8, 2010)

It's somewhere around 30 now. That being said, I expect that we'll be pretty stringent about people not xp-whoring.. err, begging for xp. Tacky! 
That's the kind of thing we'll probably counter with negative xp from a mod or admin.

EDIT: _You know. Like Deset Gled's post above. Ahem. Harrumph. Ahem._

But we love to see good and/or helpful posts getting recognition. That's a good thing.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jun 8, 2010)

The problem I see is that there are guys on these forums who put a lot in and are a real asset, and I want to give them XP often. However I can't so I add a bit of random stuff around, maybe not so deserving, but required to be able to give it to where it is really deserved.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 8, 2010)

1 vote for Deset Gled to get away with it..._this time._


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 8, 2010)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 1 vote for Deset Gled to get away with it..._this time._



(cue suspenseful music here)


----------



## Deset Gled (Jun 8, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> EDIT: _You know. Like Deset Gled's post above. Ahem. Harrumph. Ahem._





*nervous giggle*

*eyes dart around the room*

*quickly grabs XP*

*sprints away*


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 9, 2010)

I thought threads about xp always turn into xp-giving fests.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 9, 2010)

If you need to spread XP around, give some to people who have XP turned off.

It is generally understood to be an ironic gesture, but you could always explicitly say something like "HA HA YOU HAVE XP TURNED OFF" just to be sure no-one could mistake your gesture for genuine approval.

That said: there's nothing wrong with just spreading it around randomly. It doesn't actually mean anything!

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Umbran (Jun 9, 2010)

Nifft said:


> That said: there's nothing wrong with just spreading it around randomly. It doesn't actually mean anything!




Unlike postcount, XP are actually supposed to mean something.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 9, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Unlike postcount, XP are actually supposed to mean something.




That you're good enough, smart enough, and gosh-darn it, people like you?


----------



## Jdvn1 (Jun 9, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Unlike postcount, XP are actually supposed to mean something.



I tend to think neither means anything. On the other hand, if people like it, then it's a feature that attracts people to EN World, so it's useful nonetheless.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jun 9, 2010)

> Unlike postcount, XP are actually supposed to mean something.



It would mean something if we could give xp to posts/posters who deserve it, when they deserve it, regardless of whether it's once a month to that poster, or once a day. As it is now, probably 1 in 20 xp really "means something." The other 19 xp is just tossed around to burn through the buffer.

Bullgrit


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jun 9, 2010)

I try to give XP to the lowly Level 1 Kobolds. They are relative newcomers here and I hope to encourage them to post more.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 9, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> It would mean something if we could give xp to posts/posters who deserve it, when they deserve it, regardless of whether it's once a month to that poster, or once a day. As it is now, probably 1 in 20 xp really "means something." The other 19 xp is just tossed around to burn through the buffer.




Rating and voting systems have meaning _only if_ they have structure, and if folks use that structure in their rating/voting strategy.  If you fail to work with the structure, that will result in your votes meaning less.

In this case, the behavior you're describing is exactly the stuff that makes your votes have less meaning in the structure.  You give an XP because you really like one post.  You see another post by the same person, and want to give another XP.  So, you lay about you to "burn through the buffer" as you put it.  In that process, you devalue your first point.  So, why in heaven's name are you doing that?

The system is currently designed to show _breadth_ of appeal, not depth.  You already said you liked the person's post.  That you like seventeen other of their posts is not really what the system is measuring - you liked the one, _we already know_ you're going to tend to like other posts by that same poster.  

If a person has 20 XP now, it more or less means that his posts were liked by something like 20 people.  That five people liked him a whole lot is not something the system is intended to display.  Trying to force it to display depth when it isn't intended to is what makes your votes have much less meaning in the system.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jun 9, 2010)

> The system is currently designed to show breadth of appeal, not depth. You already said you liked the person's post. That you like seventeen other of their posts is not really what the system is measuring - you liked the one, we already know you're going to tend to like other posts by that same poster.



I misunderstood the xp system. I've been giving (serious) xp to good *posts*, not to favorite *posters*. I've given xp to posts by posters that I don't particularly like, when that post is a good point. Giving that xp is a "thumbs up" to that post, it is not an endorsement of that poster.

My misunderstanding comes from an xp award being associated with (shown on) the particular post on the forum, rather than being associated with the particular poster.

When I've seen xp given to one of my posts, I've been assuming I made a good post. I never thought that the xp meant, "You like me! You really like me!"

I'll reconsider my xp awards from now on. If awarding xp is an endorsement of the poster in general, rather than kudos for that particular post, there are some xp I'd like to rescind.

Bullgrit


----------



## frankthedm (Jun 9, 2010)

Piratecat said:


> That being said, I expect that we'll be pretty stringent about people not xp-whoring.. err, begging for xp. Tacky!
> 
> That's the kind of thing we'll probably counter with negative xp from a mod or admin.



Great! Those who ask for XP should get negative XP.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 9, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> I misunderstood the xp system. I've been giving (serious) xp to good *posts*, not to favorite *posters*. I've given xp to posts by posters that I don't particularly like, when that post is a good point. Giving that xp is a "thumbs up" to that post, it is not an endorsement of that poster.




I'm sorry that seemed confusing.  I thought that since we totaled the XP and gave the poster a level, it would be obvious that giving an XP for a post is by extension giving a nod to the poster.

In the end, a good poster is made of good posts.  I don't myself see a problem with giving someone XP for a particular post, even if you don't care for a lot of the other things they write. That's part of the feedback aspect.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jun 9, 2010)

> I'm sorry that seemed confusing. I thought that since we totaled the XP and gave the poster a level, it would be obvious that giving an XP for a post is by extension giving a nod to the poster.



See, I thought the level showed that the poster has made many good posts, not that the poster was well liked. shrug.

Bullgrit


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 9, 2010)

bullgrit said:


> see, i thought the level showed that the poster has made many good posts, not that the poster was well liked. Shrug.
> 
> Bullgrit




qft.


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 9, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> I've been giving (serious) xp to good *posts*, not to favorite *posters*. I've given xp to posts by posters that I don't particularly like, when that post is a good point. Giving that xp is a "thumbs up" to that post, it is not an endorsement of that poster.




This is more along the lines of how I have been doing it was well.  If a post is good then I can acknowledge it via the XP system.  I've given and have no issues giving XP to posters who write a good post even if I am not a particular fan of theirs as I am basing it on post content.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Jun 10, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> It would mean something if we could give xp to posts/posters who deserve it, when they deserve it, regardless of whether it's once a month to that poster, or once a day. As it is now, probably 1 in 20 xp really "means something." The other 19 xp is just tossed around to burn through the buffer.
> 
> Bullgrit



Yes, although I don't randomly spread XP myself but I become 'less stringent' in my XP requirements!



Bullgrit said:


> I misunderstood the xp system. I've been giving (serious) xp to good *posts*, not to favorite *posters*. I've given xp to posts by posters that I don't particularly like, when that post is a good point. Giving that xp is a "thumbs up" to that post, it is not an endorsement of that poster.
> 
> My misunderstanding comes from an xp award being associated with (shown on) the particular post on the forum, rather than being associated with the particular poster.
> 
> ...






Dannyalcatraz said:


> qft.




And again, can't give you guys XP, but I have been XPing posts not posters. If it is just 'you like that user' then you should be only able to do it once and never again and the levels should be lower. IMO.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 10, 2010)

Bullgrit said:


> See, I thought the level showed that the poster has made many good posts, not that the poster was well liked. shrug.




Shrug yourself, dude.  If you want to be that 100% literal, rather than have a discussion in relaxed form, I can do that.

It doesn't show the poster made many good posts or that they are liked - it shows the poster made posts that many people chose to give XP to.  Maybe they did it because they liked the post, or liked the person.  Maybe they did it because the post met some quality standard (which doesn't equate to "liking" - you can note quality without being pleased by the result).  Maybe they did it to post a snarky comment, and were willing to up the XP total to do it, and so on.  

That's basically true whether under any rules, or none.  There is _never any guarantee_ that the XP denotes quality, either of post or of poster, unless the individuals of EN World choose it to be so.  And if they so choose it, that's what they'll denote no matter what the particular rules - the specific rules are only a framing to make some voting patterns a little more difficult.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 10, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Unlike postcount, XP are actually supposed to mean something.



 Why do you hate @_*Crothian*_:?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## TarionzCousin (Jun 10, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Why do you hate @_*Crothian*_:?



Because he has too many posts here.

Any non-mod with more than 10,000 posts is obviously not busy enough gaming in real life.




P.S. How you doin'?


----------



## Nifft (Jun 10, 2010)

TarionzCousin said:


> P.S. How you doin'?



 Just peachy, though I need to spread some XP around before poking you back.

"_Actually today was more nectarine-y_", -- N


----------



## TheYeti1775 (Jun 10, 2010)

Honestly the XP system really means nothing.
Either you like a post or you don't.


----------



## Camelot (Jun 22, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Rating and voting systems have meaning _only if_ they have structure, and if folks use that structure in their rating/voting strategy. If you fail to work with the structure, that will result in your votes meaning less.
> 
> In this case, the behavior you're describing is exactly the stuff that makes your votes have less meaning in the structure. You give an XP because you really like one post. You see another post by the same person, and want to give another XP. So, you lay about you to "burn through the buffer" as you put it. In that process, you devalue your first point. So, why in heaven's name are you doing that?
> 
> ...




I haven't been here as long as some of the other posters, and maybe my new-fangled youngster thinking is the reason for this, but I agree with the idea that XP should be for posters not their posts.  However, I also agree that the way the XP system runs currently is attributing to the idea that it is for the posts.

To show that XP represents the posters and not their individual posts, the XP awards shouldn't be shown in the post, but like it used to be should be shown only when you click on the poster's name.  Also, the "spread XP around" idea really reinforces XP --> post mentality.  What would help XP --> poster mentality would be to only allow you to award XP to a poster once every week or two weeks or something.  This would show that the poster is still worthy of admirers as time goes by, rather than showing that they had one or two good ideas.  It would also completely get rid of the need to "spread around XP" to people who "don't deserve it."

But me, I've only been here a little over a year.  Plus, this is the first forum I ever joined.  I may not yet be used to how a forum works as a whole, or how the XP system or lack thereof affects the community.  It's the only system I've ever known.  Still, I thank you all for giving me, a lowly kobold, the opportunity to make known my whippersnapper ideas.  It has been an honor and a privelage.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 22, 2010)

Camelot said:


> I haven't been here as long as some of the other posters, and maybe my new-fangled youngster thinking is the reason for this, but I agree with the idea that XP should be for posters not their posts.



 Q: What is a poster?
A: A miserable little pile of posts.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Camelot (Jun 22, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Q: What is a poster?
> A: A miserable little pile of posts.
> 
> Cheers, -- N




But those posts aren't individual things.  They have a connection: the poster.  Their creator.  The living, thinking, human being sitting at a computer and typing them up.  We may only be able to see their posts, but that doesn't mean that's all there is.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 22, 2010)

Camelot said:


> But those posts aren't individual things.  They have a connection: the poster.  Their creator.  The living, thinking, human being sitting at a computer and typing them up.  We may only be able to see their posts, but that doesn't mean that's all there is.




That's true, but that's not what XP is awarding (at least, not anymore). Now it's a public pat on the back for a specific post, not for the poster in general. It's a way to put your comments into someone else's post, albeit while repping them at the same time.


----------



## Nifft (Jun 22, 2010)

Camelot said:


> But those posts aren't individual things.  They have a connection: the poster.  Their creator.  The living, thinking, human being sitting at a computer and typing them up.  We may only be able to see their posts, but that doesn't mean that's all there is.



 That actually *is* all there is of any person on any forum.

The poster -- the sum of his contribution, his reputation, his interactions with other "living, thinking, human being"s -- is made entirely of posts. If you are a jerk in your posts, you are a jerk as a "living, thinking, human being". Your posts are your actions. You can be judged by them, and you will be judged by them.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 23, 2010)

XP is absolutely for posts, and the post is a reflection of the poster in some way, at least at that moment.  I have given XP to members who annoy the crap out of me at times - enough to occasioanlly consider putting them on ignore.  Then I see a post that makes an excellent point, give XP and remind myself why I avoid using the ignore feature.  And maybe along the way, the member will see the kind of post that gets XP and change a tiny bit.


----------



## IronWolf (Jun 23, 2010)

Thornir Alekeg said:


> XP is absolutely for posts, and the post is a reflection of the poster in some way, at least at that moment.  I have given XP to members who annoy the crap out of me at times - enough to occasioanlly consider putting them on ignore.  Then I see a post that makes an excellent point, give XP and remind myself why I avoid using the ignore feature.  And maybe along the way, the member will see the kind of post that gets XP and change a tiny bit.




Yep - this is the same way I give out XP as well.  I rate the post, if the post is good, informative, etc then I will award XP for it - even if it was a post from someone that normally annoys me in some fashion.

And also the same as you - a reason I try to avoid using the ignore feature.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 24, 2010)

And in the meantime, as of this writing, weem has racked up 111 more points than The Beast...


----------



## surfarcher (Jun 24, 2010)

I mostly go around giving out XP randomly to folks just because they are low level and have posted... But I don't advertise the "low level" bit


----------

