Poly "Impact Factor"

[KrazyHorse]

I glanced at the list of "top 20 posters" as organized by post count and I suddenly realized that I find it objectionable that each post by somebody like Ming or Asher counts as much as each of my posts, when both their post quality and importance are obviously far inferior to my own. Even Imran's posts appear to be counted fully despite their almost total irrelevance.

As the current system is blatantly unfair, I propose that we multiply post count by an "impact factor" similar to that employed in judging the importance of academic researchers. Most of the time such metrics are based on the number of citations per article authored by the researcher in question, with appropriate weightings factored in for multiple authorship. It should be a simple matter to implement some sort of script which counts the number of "reply with quote" "citations" each post receives.

Of course, there is no need to stop at one level of recursion. The citations of highly-impactful Apolytoners should count more than those of lesser importance.

With such a system I feel certain that post quality will improve as people strive to maintain (and even increase) the impact their posts have. It could even usher in a new golden age of posting as our community engages in creative competition.

Please comment on both the desirability of such a system and on any improvements you feel could be made to it.

Sincerely,
Matt

[rah]

+1

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by rah
+1

Thank you for demonstrating fully how inappropriate the current system is, rah. Such succinct and on-point arguments are sorely lacking right now.

[Asher]

I actually find the post count depressing. I'd like to see mine permanently be zero.

[snoopy369]

It amazes me to think that anyone who actually is involved in publishing academic works would believe that said system is in any way beneficial ...

[Ming]

Re: Poly "Impact Factor"

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I glanced at the list of "top 20 posters" as organized by post count and I suddenly realized that I find it objectionable that each post by somebody like Ming or Asher counts as much as each of my posts, when both their post quality and importance are obviously far inferior to my own.

Some people are just soooooooooo full of themselves.

[KrazyHorse]

It amazes me to think that anyone who actually is involved in publishing academic works would believe that said system is in any way beneficial ...

While there are obviously deficiencies with this system, it is nonetheless an improvement over a raw number of published works (especially given that there is no peer review prior to a post appearing on this forum).

[Solver]

I propose that posts should give, instead of +1, +IQ, of course we'll have to determine the IQ of every poster. The only problem with the approach is, some people's post counts will be dramatically decreasing as they post then.

[Asher]

Re: Re: Poly "Impact Factor"

Originally posted by Ming




Some people are just soooooooooo full of themselves.

I'm so smart that I recognize it's best to let the children like KH feel delusional about their importance compared to me.

He does have a point about you though...

[snoopy369]

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure that is even true... maybe biology is worse than the physical or mathematical sciences in that sense, but sometimes I wonder whether the current system actually net harms science ...

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Re: Poly "Impact Factor"

Ming, your smiley-filled replies are one of the major demonstrations of why it is necessary to update the current system.

If we don't do so the movement toward blatant nonsense exemplified by your posts will be almost unstoppable as the incentive structure of raw post count is aligned this way.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

It amazes me to think that anyone who actually is involved in publishing academic works would believe that said system is in any way beneficial ...

While there are obviously deficiencies with this system, it is nonetheless an improvement over a raw number of published works (especially given that there is no peer review prior to a post appearing on this forum).

Actually, I nominate the following system:

- By default, everyone has full posting access.
- Once determined by an elected official (eg, the OT President) that a person is stupid, all of their future posts will be subject to peer review by the President and his Cabinet before they are posted to the site.

[Felch]

Are you proposing something akin to a karma rating?

I agree that it seems as though some posters are present in every thread, whether they contribute to the topic or not. These posters also have the word "Diety" next to their names, or occasionally "Co-Owner/Administrator". Now we can't do anything about the ownership situation, besides voting for Che every chance we get, but we can do something about Apolyton's ever-growing pantheon. Titles should be a product of Post Counts and "Impact Factor."

I'm with this plan. Some specifics need to be worked out. Would posts be rated individually or would posters be rated? Who would be trusted to prevent cartels of like-minded spammers from ruining the system? What about all of Asher's DLs?

It's a worthy idea, but it needs to be fleshed out.

[Solver]

Originally posted by snoopy369
maybe biology is worse than the physical or mathematical sciences in that sense

Any statement comparing the importance, intelligence levels, etc., of science levels and starting with "biology is worse than" is automatically true.

[KrazyHorse]

Asher, while your posts tend to be more interesting than Ming's they still have no place in a serious intellectual setting like Poly.