Fun fact one: Another account can liked comment in draft block, and it will get contribution.
Fun fact two: in one-two hour considred real contribution on comment/post from like.
And i'm conducted an experiment: call different color, and we put like on comment. And now i can tell: Blue get 3 contribution. Purple get 5 contribution. Yellow (2100-2299) get 8 contribution. Red (2400-2599) get 10 contribution. I don't know, this considered from now rating or max rating, and i don't get information for another color.
Sorry, but I couldn't understand what you mean ?
If red likes your post, post will get 10 contrubution, but if blue likes, you get only 3 contribution
Number of upvotes, not contribution.
When i upvote something, the counter increases by one only!
It will gradually increase to more than one. Go make a private blog (for example, in a group) that only you and an alt can see. Make a comment with the alt and upvote it. If you come back later, it will have more than one upvote.
Do you know if a similar phenomenon happens with downvotes, and if so, what the numbers are? (i.e. an orange downvote going to -8 and blue downvote going to -3 over time)
If red likes your post you will also get -10
Yes, this is true
Sometimes when i upvote comment or blog , it's upvote count doesn't changes . Are their some limit over number times we can upvote per day?
I think old comments get "archived" after some time and voting on them doesn't really do anything.
This comment is a lot more clear than the blog itself! Can you please edit it so more of us will understand?
I think it's also known >= 2600 is +15, and < 1600 is +1
No, I tested and it is 10. Maybe 15 is LGM (or perhaps old border LGM?)
The subject is interesting, but if you improve your English writing skill you will get much more contribution I think.
I'm know( i'm will need study the english(
what about IM (2300~2399)?
It's 8 as if it was a master (I upvoted a private blog some hours ago and its number of upvotes ended up at 8).
P. S. I upvoted you too :) ( UPD: then your comment had 8 upvotes)
This blog reminds me of Wild_Hamster's comment about ratism.
He wrote "contribution mostly measures how low-rated people upvote(since there are most of them on this site)".
Interestingly enough, the small population of high rated people are given a higher priority, which kinda balances it. So I think his comment wasn't valid :)
By the way, I have been curious about the formula between contribution and upvote.
Interesting. Though, I think it makes more sense for the number of votes your vote is counted for to depend on your contribution, not your rating. Why be ratist when there is a metric explicitly for how good a member of the community you are?
Actually, I think in general we should use contribution over rating when possible, seems like Mike makes a lot of features rating-dependent and contribution doesn't really give you anything.
Using rating to determine privileges encourages people to practice. Using contribution encourages people to spam.
If the value of a vote was determined from contribution, don't you think that can create feedback loops?
Did you know that your rating is determined from other people's ratings?
I'm not implying it would be bad simply because X affects X.
Rating affects others' rating, but in an inversely proportional and balanced way. If high contribution increases the value of upvotes, then high contribution leads to even higher contribution.
It's also not a good idea in principle, because for the vast majority of users, contribution is not a measure of how much they actually contribute to the community.
Actually there are some communities that have feedback loops like this and do well, since the popular opinion is so strong that the empowered individual voice isn't so high (for example there's a forum called steemit works like this). So I don't think that the feedback loop alone is enough to make it bad, though it certainly isn't a positive feature.
But I would argue that the idea is principle is comparable to stack overflow, where the incentive is to make more and better questions. Of course cf has a much more primitive system than stack and you might be right that on cf contribution isn't really an accurate metric. But aren't spam posts heavily downvoted here? I can see why the system I described would make people post more, but not why it would make them spam more.
Although, I agree that contribution would not work for most features, but there is a lot of correlation between people who upvote/downvote posts and people who post things.
It's almost like rating defines a skill while contribution defines how much time you waste (for most people)...