[steemit-idea] Adjust properly the REPUTATION numbers because they are missleading !!!
The account with the top reputation right now owns to @stellabelle with a reputation of 72.1 (check her content, she is for a reason at this place). You can see the reputation of each user next to their account name like this:
You can check easily all account reputations on this great site...
http://steemwhales.com/?p=1&s=reputation
The reputation system was implemented to the platform a couple of days back and it is currently calculated like this:
The website interprets the raw score based on max( 1, int(log10(abs(score))) - 8 )
If you have some programing skills you can review the open source code on github:
https://github.com/steemit/steem/blob/develop/libraries/plugins/follow/follow_plugin.cpp
And here is the "Brief Update on Reputation Score" from steemit's co founder Daniel Larimer @dantheman link:
https://steemit.com/steemit/@dantheman/brief-update-on-reputation-score
NOW WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?
The problem is that the numbers are misleading because of the way we are all thinking about them !
Anyone is expecting that the top reputation account would have a valuation of 100 not 72 (!) right?
We are all accustomed to see scores from 1-100 or 1-10 or from a-c etc...
Our mind believes that an average score is from 50-60 maybe (not from 30-50 like it is now) right?
look at the founders @ned and @dan reputation for example....
Wow that's sucks isn't it?
The founders of steemit with a reputation of 59 and 66 ??? 
That was just an example!
In reality this numbers are excellent but they seem lame because they don't adjusted the numbers is such way that the top account get's a reputation of 100 and all other accounts change accordingly/proportional !!!
The fix is easy !
Take the top steemit account ( @stellabelle for now) and find every-time the number that is needed to multiply it to current reputation to get the magic reputation number of .... 100 !!!
so at this time
... 100/72.1= 1.387
so the only thing that the platform must do today is to multiply all account reputation scores with 1.387
So that would mean practically that at this point of time ...
@stellabelle would have a reputation of 100 (instead of 72 )
@dan would have a reputation of 92 (instead of 66)
@ned would have a reputation of 82 (Instead of 59)
Is this not much better and easier to understand?
Would that not make all userbase happier?
Keep it simple....
You're right. Most people are used to 10 or 100 being perfect. That is not always the case and it can be confusing. Here in Switzerland the top mark in school is 6.0. Anything under 4 is a fail! Go figure. Either it will change or we'll get used to it.
Better we don't change people habits ;)
Right between @dan and @ned myself :) Not complaining!
I couldnt agree more!.. programmers have a tendency to do things complicated and assume that common people will understand!
Interesting idea. You are basically proposing that accounts be ranked competitively relative to each other. But you can't simply multiply by a constant to normalize the distribution as you are suggesting (that constant would have to change as the top account's base reputation changes). This scheme would require some comparisons to determine if a change in reputation has made a new account into the top account. It ends up being slightly more complex in that the hidden "base" value has to be kept track of in addition to whatever the current multiplier is. I favor simplicity rather than extra complication, but your point is valid in that it seems weird for the founders of Steem to not have the highest possible reputation. Although that just shows that the system is fair, I like that the founders have to play by the rules just like everybody else.
The founders will play with the rules with my recommendation also... In fact the relative score compared with others will remain the same... just it is another way to tell the same thing.
I don't say that founders have not a good reputation even with this output...I fact when you realize what reputation they have compared vs other they are still near the top... I say that the majority will fail to interpret the numbers properly in a glance because we auto compare what we see on a scale from 0-100
Good point, it's like there's something in our brains hardwired to interpret numbers on that scale. My first thought when I saw the new number next to my username was "interesting it's out of 100 now" not "hmm I wonder what the max number is?". I would not be opposed to your idea if it can be implemented in a straightforward way.
Also, thanks for the link to the steemwhales.com site, I love seeing these statistics and how all the accounts compare! Are there any more such sites for various stats, or is this pretty much the main one?
Title of your post? Took me a sec to realize what it is. But I agree with you that the reputation number is more difficult to understand than before. It is easy to compare with 1 to 10. But 1 to 100, hard to tell the difference, for example, between 55 and 60.
Totally agree, the rep should be normalized. It loses its utility if its difficult to interpret. A number without context has no meaning.
The scale is just OK.
There is a room left for growth for all of us. @stellabelle will grow from 72 to 100 in due time :)
No need for fixing what isn't broken.
I don't say to change the algo just change the output and have at all time 100 as the top 1 account!
are you satisfied more with a score of 57 or 79 ? ;)
PS let make the user base happy with Gamifying the plarform
I am OK with 57 :)
If it is 57 out of 100 it can grow more in the future :)
is it out of 100?
So @ned 59/100
and @dan 66/100
No way! it's certainly not like this! That's why I am saying the numbers are misleading!
I don't state that it is 100. I guess :) We'll just have to wait and see.
first of all, it's only a number. A lot of low rank people are more respectable then others have a high reputation.
We have to understand this system is a sort of author reputation. The more consensus you get by writing, the more are the chance to improve your reputation
votes on comments are also counting i think
Yeah, they are. Otherwise I wouldn't have any reputation, since I'm a new user with no blog posts and only comments so far, yet my reputation is already 25.
argh, nice info, thanks!
Good ,consistent is what counts
The reputation is increasing slowly. @stelabelle didn't get there for the moment therefore she das 72.
There is a difference between a max value on a scale and the best currently value.
Don't you agree ?
I am suggesting that any account that reach the first place must get a 100 and all other account's get calculated accordingly... (I don't say they should change their current algo, just tweak it to be more user-friendly)
Are you more satisfied with a reputation of 47 or 65 ?
Or to put it another way... what seems more fair taking into account the upvotes you have got until now? (comments & posts)
Yes, I understood, but if @stelabelle has 100 today, what should she have in 1 week ?
first account in the reputation list has always 100... as simple as this!
PS if another account outperform @stellabelle the other account gets the reputation of 100 and @stellabelle drops to 99.9 or 99.7 or whatever...