10 replies to this topic

[Cornstalks]

First, Stormynature said reputation history and actual reputation received may not match, and I believe he's correct. I was at 1761, an hour ago I was rated up (history shows +3 rep for upvote), and am now at 1765 [edit: I'm now at 1766 after making the picture below (and yes, that upvote was deserved)]. Are some votes worth more (like 4 or 5 points)? And is it a bug that the rep history shows +3 instead of +actual amount (4 in this case)?

Second, this is really minor, but I nitpicked it a couple days ago. The font on someone's post's votes changes after you vote on a post. Observe:
before:


after:


Just in case your todo list wasn't long enough...

Edited by Cornstalks, 19 July 2012 - 02:33 PM.

[jbadams]

When I have some time I'll try to go over it in more detail to double-check, but your reputation seems to accurately match up with the list of recorded reputation events.

Don't forget that the data shown in the reputation panel is generated from cache and may not always be immediately up-to-date.

Are some votes worth more (like 4 or 5 points)?

Votes are worth from 0 to 4 points, based on the reputation of the voter. I don't believe we currently have any members with a high enough reputation for a 4-point effect however, and I've also never seen a +/-2 from the system; I'm guessing this is a result of the carry-over from the old system, where there was a bigger gap between most higher-rated users and those on lower reputation.

There's also your +1/day for logging in, which sometimes takes a few minutes to show up in the list of rep events.


I'll definitely make the time to check over yours and a couple of other randomly selected reputations to make sure they really add up properly though -- thanks for the report!

Edited by jbadams, 19 July 2012 - 03:34 PM.

[Cornstalks]

I just voted someone and saw their rep go up +4, but their history shows +3. I know things are cached, but still, I think it should be showing up as +4 if it is +4 (that is, caching +3 makes no sense).

You can also try by finding some thread and a user (don't know if their rep has to be below a certain number), and pay attention to their rep (and their rep history) before and immediately after you vote. Also notice the difference of the bold/not bold font from before and after voting (but the bold thing is just a really minor thing).

Edited by Cornstalks, 19 July 2012 - 03:38 PM.

[jbadams]

I'll do some tests and get back to you.

//EDIT:
You appear to be correct, I've passed the info on to Mike to have a look -- obviously something going slightly wrong that we'll have to track down.

Edited by jbadams, 19 July 2012 - 03:52 PM.

[szecs]

This bug is there from the beginning. I asked about both issues, don't remember the answer... probably there wasn't a real answer.

[Promit]

I've been seeing some bugs as well -- I'm not the highest rated user site-wide.

[Michael Tanczos]

Okay, you guys spotted it.. technically it's intentional. Since my own rep system is augmenting the built-in system I couldn't force the existing rep system to do anything other than +1 / -1 for posts. I had to have more than that to balance out other ways to earn rep points. So what happens is that I calculate how many points you should be given using the new system and then subtract away the amount the system would normally award you. My augmented system value (typically +3) gets recorded in a visible transaction log, but the one internal reputation vote isn't visible in logs.

[Cornstalks]

I've been seeing some bugs as well -- I'm not the highest rated user site-wide.

wait, wut?



@Michael Tanczos: Hmmm... so it has to stay like that? What if an event/image was displayed instead of the number (i.e. "Post voted up" or something like that)? I just think some people may get confused if there are numbers there, because they'll trust the numbers, and then complain of a bug when the numbers don't add up (like what happened in Acotoz's thread). Yeah, yeah, there's caching we can blame, but still, the number's don't match so someone's gonna freak out at some point about it again.

[jbadams]

How about just making the log "lie" to correct it? I.e. compensate for the extra +/-1 by displaying +4 rather than +3.

[jbadams]

How about just making the log "lie" to correct it? I.e. compensate for the extra +/-1 by displaying +4 rather than +3.

[Michael Tanczos]

Maybe altering the log would be sufficient. I'll see if that would be an easy fix.