This sorting order has problems.
There are people that post at least once a day. And they are entertaining and good.
Then there are those who post once a week and are outstanding.
So, by your sort order described, you end up with
fast[7]
slowNgood[1]
The one you really want to see is at the bottom of the list.
More effort needs to be placed in designing a sorting algorithm.
Agreed, and my first thought is that votes/posts fixes that pretty well. As soon as you pass over one of "fast" then the score is fast[6/7], slow[1] and fast can never catch up. A great solution would do much better, probably . And, as soon as you follow "fast" he goes on the other list and "slow" is back on top anyway.
At least it beats what I am doing now, writing people's names down on a scrap of paper.
LOL! The old "scrap of paper" management trick!