All about MilPoints

[George Wallace]

Where is the link to the Statistics, other than in this Topic?

Some links:

• The MilPoints FAQ
• Your MilPoints detailed history
• Statistics
  

Enjoy!
Mike

 

[Strike]

I'm thinking that it's just starting today, and you've just hit your first hour online since it began (no backdating of points it would seem). Mine says this:

2008-08-29 16:29:59    George Wallace    20    Congratulations! You've been online for 6,460 Hours!

Vern...don't think it will take too long for you to hit the top spot in the leader board.  ;D  Wonder what you will be up to by tomorrow!

 

[Shamrock]

Where is the link to the Statistics, other than in this Topic?

Do a search.

 

[George Wallace]

Do a search.

How many minus points was that?    ;D

The link is in this topic, and in a topic that is also accessed through this topic.  Where else is it? 

 

[Mike Baker]

This is cool! I like it ;D


-Deadpan

 

[NL_engineer]

Do a search.

Didn't you just say that you should loose points for posts like that  ???

 

[Shamrock]

Ignore the man behind the curtain!

 

[Burrows]

This is an interesting concept.  The fact you lose to reward others might help to balance out people.

 

[Mike Baker]

This is an interesting concept.  The fact you lose to reward others might help to balance out people.

It is. It's better then the +1 an -1 of before (or Karma, as on other forums).


-Dead

 

[navymich]

The link is in this topic, and in a topic that is also accessed through this topic.  Where else is it? 

It would make it easier to view if it was in a drop-down menu, maybe with the admin or information features?  Also, it would be nice to be able to access one's own MP history through our profiles instead of having to look at a post to click on 'MP' there.

As well, looking at the statistics, the links for everyone's 'MP' is dead.

But for being a year in the making, it's looking very well Mike.  Heck, it took 10 years for the new ruck and look where that's at. 

 

[armyvern]

It would make it easier to view if it was in a drop-down menu, maybe with the admin or information features?  Also, it would be nice to be able to access one's own MP history through our profiles instead of having to look at a post to click on 'MP' there.

As well, looking at the statistics, the links for everyone's 'MP' is dead.

But for being a year in the making, it's looking very well Mike.  Heck, it took 10 years for the new ruck and look where that's at. 

I don't see a link in there to "everyone" ... but holy crap!! Chapeski is at -5 already.    Supply Techs ... always pissing people off.  >

 

[George Wallace]

These types of rankings, no matter how honest they seem, can be "false indicators".  We can have an arsehole online for a long period of time, gaining points merely for being online, and starting or posting crap and at the same time we can have a poster who posts occasionally, isn't online that much, but whose posts are thoughtful, enlightening, and interesting, but still not in the high percentile when it comes to ranking.  

In the end, one will have to look at the posts that a person makes to judge their merit.  Even a newbie, with less than 100 points, can make a post that is brilliant; while a longtime member can make a series of extremely poor posts.

'But then again, what percentile of the readership is going to pay attention to either the ranking, or a person's posting history?

 

[navymich]

I don't see a link in there to "everyone" ... but holy crap!! Chapeski is at -5 already.    Supply Techs ... always pissing people off.  >

Okay, not 'everyone', but all the people that are on the lists!

Notice too, that those with the same totals are in a different order on each list?

 

[Mike Baker]

A year in the making?! I missed that when Mike posted.

Most have been really Opsec, since I have bombarded him with things that could be added to the site and stuff

These types of rankings, no matter how honest they seem, can be "false indicators".  We can have an arsehole online for a long period of time, gaining points merely for being online, and starting or posting crap and at the same time we can have a poster who posts occasionally, isn't online that much, but whose posts are thoughtful, enlightening, and interesting, but still not in the high percentile when it comes to ranking.  

In the end, one will have to look at the posts that a person makes to judge their merit.  Even a newbie, with less than 100 points, can make a post that is brilliant; while a longtime member can make a series of extremely poor posts.

'But then again, what percentile of the readership is going to pay attention to either the ranking, or a person's posting history?

I agree with that quite a bit. (Funny I thought about myself when I read that ;D)

-Dead

 

[armyvern]

These types of rankings, no matter how honest they seem, can be "false indicators".  We can have an arsehole online for a long period of time, gaining points merely for being online, and starting or posting crap and at the same time we can have a poster who posts occasionally, isn't online that much, but whose posts are thoughtful, enlightening, and interesting, but still not in the high percentile when it comes to ranking.  

In the end, one will have to look at the posts that a person makes to judge their merit.  Even a newbie, with less than 100 points, can make a post that is brilliant; while a longtime member can make a series of extremely poor posts.

'But then again, what percentile of the readership is going to pay attention to either the ranking, or a person's posting history?

So true that ...

Date User Amount Description

2008-08-29 16:40:31 Chapeski -15 DELETED Post: Re: Introducing MilPoints
2008-08-29 16:39:23 Chapeski 10 Re: Introducing MilPoints

And it turns out that Chapeski nailed himself by deleting his post that Mich quoted earlier in this thread --- or did one of you mods delete it!!??  >

:-*

So there's another question for you Mike,

If a mod deletes a member's useless post -- is the mod losing points for that ... or is the member??  ???

As a test case ... a mod should delete some useless post of mine --- just so we can see how it shows up. I'm quite OK with that.   ;D

 

[George Wallace]

So true that ...

And it turns out that Chapeski nailed himself by deleting his post that Mich quoted earlier in this thread --- or did one of you mods delete it!!??  >

:-*

So there's another question for you Mike,

If a mod deletes a member's useless post -- is the mod losing points for that ... or is the member??  ???

As a test case ... a mod should delete some useless post of mine --- just so we can see how it shows up. I'm quite OK with that.   ;D

I already split off one of my posts and a "double post" from another member.  When I deleted that "New Topic" I lost 30 points, as did that other member.

 

[George Wallace]

Well.  That worked.  I deleted Vern's post as she requested.  She dropped 15 points, and anyone who wants can check her "standings" by clicking on the "MP".  My score was unrewarded.....  :-[

(I wonder if Mike was subliminally thinking of Military Police when he thought this up?  ;D )

 

[armyvern]

2008-08-29 20:46:55 ArmyVern -15 DELETED Post: Re: Introducing MilPoints

No, that's good. At least it didn't deduct points from you too for deleting the post!!  >

 

[George Wallace]

No, that's good. At least it didn't deduct points from you too for deleting the post!!  >

I suppose that I can "promote" you for being such an understanding member and such and such and replenish your points for the little contribution to the topic by conducting this experiment and all......  ;D

 

[armyvern]

I suppose that I can "promote" you for being such an understanding member and such and such and replenish your points for the little contribution to the topic by conducting this experiment and all......  ;D

Spread the wealth ...