![]() | Weather: Tropical Project‑class | |||||||||
|
@ Hurricanehink: Here is rough draft of point accumulation and leveled awards. Noah Talk 13:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Hurricanehink: Clarified that it is lifetime edits. FYI, I could technically add more levels beyond this (with much more difficulty) if need be. Noah Talk 19:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Hurricane Noah: First of all, great work on everything you've done here so far! You've clearly been putting in a heap of effort. I have a suggestion for an amendment to the TC Edits criterion. At present, very small edits such as adjusting the punctuation in a sentence, or updating the infobox of a current cyclone, or adding words here and there, etc., are weighted the same as edits which take a significant amount of time and effort to do. This results in a disproportionately high number of points for people who have many small edits compared to those who often contribute with large edits. For example, I often make edits with more than one hundred bytes, and it is not uncommon for me to make edits with more than 1000 bytes of information. I think an excellent amendment to the system to take this into account would be to include a multiplicative scaling value to the total number of points achieved through TC edits. For example, the average edit size of a user could be divided by some number (this number would represent a 'standard' edit size), and then the quotient could be multiplied by the old number of points that they would have got just through edit quantity alone. Possible 'standard' edit sizes could perhaps be 20, 25 or 30 bytes, or something like that. The final result would then be rounded down to the nearest integer. The formula for points from TC edits would be as follows:
where
Note that the user's average edits size, , would have to take into account all edits across all articles and name spaces, even those not related to WP:WPTC. This is because it would be effectively impossible to find the average edit size for only TC articles. Also, the constant, , in the formula refers to the number of TC article edits per point awarded that you originally specified in the criteria. This can of course be changed, with a higher number resulting in fewer points, and vice versa.
Thanks again for all the work you've put into this. I think it is a wonderful initiative. ChocolateTrain ( talk) 00:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | Weather: Tropical Project‑class | |||||||||
|
@ Hurricanehink: Here is rough draft of point accumulation and leveled awards. Noah Talk 13:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Hurricanehink: Clarified that it is lifetime edits. FYI, I could technically add more levels beyond this (with much more difficulty) if need be. Noah Talk 19:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Hurricane Noah: First of all, great work on everything you've done here so far! You've clearly been putting in a heap of effort. I have a suggestion for an amendment to the TC Edits criterion. At present, very small edits such as adjusting the punctuation in a sentence, or updating the infobox of a current cyclone, or adding words here and there, etc., are weighted the same as edits which take a significant amount of time and effort to do. This results in a disproportionately high number of points for people who have many small edits compared to those who often contribute with large edits. For example, I often make edits with more than one hundred bytes, and it is not uncommon for me to make edits with more than 1000 bytes of information. I think an excellent amendment to the system to take this into account would be to include a multiplicative scaling value to the total number of points achieved through TC edits. For example, the average edit size of a user could be divided by some number (this number would represent a 'standard' edit size), and then the quotient could be multiplied by the old number of points that they would have got just through edit quantity alone. Possible 'standard' edit sizes could perhaps be 20, 25 or 30 bytes, or something like that. The final result would then be rounded down to the nearest integer. The formula for points from TC edits would be as follows:
where
Note that the user's average edits size, , would have to take into account all edits across all articles and name spaces, even those not related to WP:WPTC. This is because it would be effectively impossible to find the average edit size for only TC articles. Also, the constant, , in the formula refers to the number of TC article edits per point awarded that you originally specified in the criteria. This can of course be changed, with a higher number resulting in fewer points, and vice versa.
Thanks again for all the work you've put into this. I think it is a wonderful initiative. ChocolateTrain ( talk) 00:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)