From: spike66 (spike66@attbi.com)
Date: Wed Mar 12 2003 - 20:23:47 MST
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> spike66 wrote,
>
>>Topic: karma experiment
>
> If you don't want not to decline refusal of your revocation of negative
> karma points reversal rejection please indicate otherwise.
>
> --
> Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC
> <www.HarveyNewstrom.com>
{8^D haaarrrrararararrarrrrrr...
Thats the spirit Harvey. {8-] The experiment was to post some
outrageous notion, knowing that I would be scolded. Turns
out you guys already know me and so you know I was goofing,
but had I been an unknown, you would need to assume troll.
Then your posting in response to the troll would cause his
karma to go... up!
Explanation: I have reverse engineered the karma parameter
on the archive profile page, and I think the negative number
represents the number of posts one has made to which no one
responded.
I realized that we were confusing karma with whuffie, but
looking at the numbers and realizing that we currently have
no mechanism whereby we can express whuffie. Karma is not
whuffie. No one here has input any parameters of consensus
or lack thereof to any post. Have you?
OK, that being established, I realized that the script used
to calculate karma has only a few pieces of information. It
can note when a new thread is started, by a new title. Then
it can note if any responses are made. It can note when a
post in the archives is opened. But that is all it knows.
I postulated that the karma script awards a positive point
in the first number for each time a person's post is opened
from the archives, and evidently awards a negative point to
each time a person originates a thread to which no one
responds.
To continue my experiment, I gave this post the intentionally
provocative subject line to see if it gets opened from the
archives a number of times.
Whoever wrote the karma script, how close did I get?
spike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 12 2003 - 20:31:35 MST