Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Think about Loose Coupling
 
PerlMonks  

Canonization Without Representation

by trippledubs (Deacon)
on Mar 17, 2017 at 06:58 UTC ( #1184973=monkdiscuss: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

If you look at Saints in our Book, you will find that there is systemic discrimination against younger monks.

Most "Saints" have been here since 2002 and there is a standard deviation of 3. If I remember correctly from the stats class I took twice, that means, I'm probably being screwed. The Median User Since Year (MUSY) is even less than the average (AUSY), but still in year 2002. This indicates a central tendency and predominance of Saints that locked eyes on their future spouse over spilled punch cards; spare me.

If PM is to survive and enter the prefigurative age, we are going to need link. Empower the younger generation to carry on the torch!

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Canonization Without Representation
by davido (Cardinal) on Mar 17, 2017 at 09:34 UTC

    The minimum XP to get listed in the Saints in our Book page is 3000, and has been 3000 for many years. Just because there are individuals who have contributed thousands of posts over well past a decade doesn't mean your contributions are not worthwhile, nor are you excluded from the silly Saints list, when you attain the same number of XP that 700 other people attained to get listed there. The list grows on demand, whenever someone reaches 3000.


    Dave

    A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
Re: Canonization Without Representation
by LanX (Cardinal) on Mar 17, 2017 at 08:15 UTC
    Being in the saints list means practically nothing, we have no feudal hierarchy here

    Please take into consideration that:

    • the longer you participate the more xp you're able to aquire
    • the number of participating monks declined over the years
    • in the early years it might have been easier for good posts to attract more votes (because the electorate was bigger)
    updates
    • some old posts are somehow often referenced classics and keep attracting votes
    • voting gets rewarded, and some (silent) monks came back every day to cast all their votes

    Cheers Rolf
    (addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)
    Je suis Charlie!

    A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
Re: Canonization Without Representation
by Your Mother (Bishop) on Mar 17, 2017 at 18:52 UTC

    XP was easier to come by back in the early days. Site was busier, content was jumping, gurus did abound. Saying XP CONSIDERED DISCRIMINATORY and that it should be fixed is a bit like saying one should be allowed to buy Google at $50 a share because it used to sell for it and it's not fair to newcomers. The thinking is divorced from reality; a regressive, strange kind of conservatism.

    You say you're being screwed. There is a monk in this thread who has been here 4 months who already has more experience than you; another whose first monkday is tomorrow. Taking XP as a measure of accomplishment, you are, so far, the least accomplished monk in this thread; a veritable Perl toddler is ahead. Taking number of posts as the bar, you are second to last. Taking your five years into account... The monks in the top 100 on the Saints page represent a huge amount of CPAN, Perl publishing, and core Perl code. Some of them have six-figure XP on StackOverflow too. Where is your CPAN dir? When are you presenting at a Perl conference? Where is your github repo for sharing the tools you've written? Where are your tutorials? Where is your free Perl book's PDF online?

    The only thing that seems to be screwing you is your attitude. PM is, ostensibly at least, a meritocracy, not an equal opportunity grievance board. It's also got its own culture and generally that culture looks on XP complaints unfavorably.

    Update: bumped SO XP number to unambiguous level I intended.

      I said I'm PROBABLY being screwed. Being screwed is a certainty, PROBABLY deserves careful study. Only wise monks like you are certain that two monks indicate central tendency
    A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
Re: Canonization Without Representation
by 1nickt (Abbot) on Mar 17, 2017 at 10:44 UTC

    Ray: "E-excuse me ... uh, I don't think there's anything wrong with the action in this piano."

    Trust me, it's quite possible to have one's name recorded in The Book with some alacrity.

    But, as the 'Ranking the Saints by XP Efficiency' script shows, many of the greybeards continue to visit the monastery, which not only places them in the top 25 ("by efficiency") even when it is limited to those here in the last week (-r 1), but also continues to extend their total XP simply thanks to attendance, and possibly, extend it more by voting.

    perl XP_efficiency.pl -r 1 -s age -o desc -l 25 +--------------------------------------------------------------------- +-----------------+ | Pos | St. | Monk name | XP | Level | Age | XP/Age | +Posts | XP/Posts | +--------------------------------------------------------------------- +-----------------+ | 1 2 BrowserUk 167,270 Pope (28) 5,399 35.2752 +23,348 7.0486 | | 2 4 ikegami 128,977 Pope (28) 4,601 31.8605 +19,892 6.3682 | | 3 3 Corion 134,154 Pope (28) 6,211 24.4172 +11,147 11.7564 | | 4 8 moritz 65,986 Cardinal (24) 3,587 20.7075 + 6,425 9.9911 | | 5 36 Athanasius 32,618 Chancellor (21) 1,780 20.6191 + 1,724 18.4037 | | 6 5 GrandFather 75,136 Sage (25) 4,308 19.6062 + 6,740 10.8282 | | 7 26 choroba 36,924 Chancellor (21) 2,540 16.2414 + 4,411 8.0830 | | 8 19 toolic 44,862 Bishop (22) 3,558 14.0118 + 3,704 11.6315 | | 9 43 kcott 29,742 Canon (20) 2,367 13.9612 + 2,743 10.4114 | | 10 79 Laurent_R 19,631 Abbot (19) 1,650 13.1911 + 2,444 7.6948 | | 11 11 davido 58,411 Archbishop (23) 4,972 13.0169 + 4,885 11.4483 | | 12 28 LanX 36,491 Chancellor (21) 3,116 12.9717 + 5,531 6.3159 | | 13 7 merlyn 71,195 Sage (25) 6,169 12.7776 + 6,323 10.7719 | | 14 16 ww 49,909 Bishop (22) 4,693 11.7279 + 3,726 12.7650 | | 15 288 1nickt 6,612 Vicar (15) 643 11.3203 + 790 7.9627 | | 16 10 dragonchild 58,467 Archbishop (23) 5,764 11.1605 + 5,989 9.2812 | | 17 18 marto 45,357 Bishop (22) 4,796 10.3659 + 4,764 9.0174 | | 18 31 Gavin 35,545 Chancellor (21) 4,027 9.6351 + 600 55.8858 | | 19 20 CountZero 44,803 Bishop (22) 5,296 9.2123 + 4,382 9.6200 | | 20 45 Perlbotics 29,213 Canon (20) 3,484 9.1244 + 387 70.9845 | | 21 33 syphilis 34,020 Chancellor (21) 4,075 9.0836 + 2,955 10.8232 | | 22 48 AnomalousMonk 28,424 Canon (20) 3,495 8.8338 + 3,559 7.4955 | | 23 147 hdb 11,895 Prior (17) 1,472 8.7685 + 1,534 7.2744 | | 24 51 FunkyMonk 27,156 Canon (20) 3,615 8.1141 + 1,024 24.7544 | | 25 154 soonix 11,097 Prior (17) 1,511 7.9186 + 508 20.3573 | +--------------------------------------------------------------------- +-----------------+
    I don't know much about statistics but I reckon if we just keep posting and voting, us young'uns will make the list soon enough :-)

    Hope this amuses!


    The way forward always starts with a minimal test.

        Three is no reason to worry yet. In the Vatican, they have 4.5 (per square kilometer).

        Four. The script skips vroom ...


        The way forward always starts with a minimal test.
Re: Canonization Without Representation
by hdb (Monsignor) on Mar 17, 2017 at 08:25 UTC

    Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise.

    What results do you get if you also include the number of posts into your statistical analysis?

      That it will take me 64 years to overtake browseruk

        And I should be complaining that while you and I are PMs for about the same time that I only got 7.5 times the XP with 10 times as many posts.

        it will take me 64 years to overtake BrowserUk
        How long will it take BrowserUk to overtake vroom? Will he live long enough? Does he need to switch to a low cholesterol diet?

          A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
Re: Canonization Without Representation
by atcroft (Abbot) on Mar 19, 2017 at 21:22 UTC

    trippledubs,

    It has been far too long since I sat in a statistics class, and thus I remember too little to comment on your theory from that perspective. I can, however, comment on my time here.

    As others have stated above, PM is primarily a meritocracy. As one participates (in discussions and threads), one is judged by their peers (the body monktorate), who may decide that their contribution is worthy of reward, or requiring of penance, or neither. There is no requirement that a monk view the site with a particular frequency, nor that they view any particular thread. As a result, neither reward or penance is a requirement, nor a guarantee. To expect that posting "requires" a reward of XP will (and should) result in disappointment. Instead, you should consider doing "the work" for its own sake.

    I will admit that when I wore a younger monk's robes (boy, were they mad when they found out), there were times when there was a bit of excitement as I noticed the approach of a level's threshold, and that it sometimes encouraged me to look for ways to participate more. Having been helped by so many so often (that I cannot recall them all, but hope I remembered to thank them at the time), I have found that I want to pay that debt forward by offering assistance when my (limited) experience could add to the quality of the site, not just the quantity. I still find myself learning something new quite often when I visit the site (even after almost 16 years). When I can craft a answer of (at least some) quality to the assistance of a fellow monk, that has become its own reward. If an answer I post receives positive feedback, it is nice, but not a requirement; if negative feedback, I do not take it personally but try to learn from any comments that are made about it so I can improve my abilities-both on and off the site.

    Marcus Aurelius reminded himself that "[a]mbition means tying your well-being to what other people say or do", while "[s]anity means tying it to your own actions." You cannot control the environment, only your response to it. Strive for your own improvement, let doing good work be enough, and I suspect you will find the time much more enjoyable.

    Hope that helps.

    (Disclaimer: As I posted this, I found (to my surprise) I was currently 105th on the list in question. Learning that did not change any of the thoughts above.)

Re: Canonization Without Representation
by AppleFritter (Vicar) on Mar 20, 2017 at 13:12 UTC

    It doesn't actually take that long to become a Curate (not a Saint, that's level 26; and yes, "Saints in our Book" is misleading in that regard).

    I signed up on April 27 2014 and became a Curate on September 4 2014; that's barely more than 4 months. (I've since largely abandoned PM, but that's a different story.)

    So being a recent user doesn't really hurt much. And 'sides, what does becoming a Curate really give you, other than an extra daily vote or two? PM has its flaws, but those are social in nature and unrelated to levels, XP, votes, Curates, and Saints.

      And curiously, the SioB list does not (at this moment) include any of rank Saint!

      I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.
Re: Canonization Without Representation
by marto (Archbishop) on Mar 17, 2017 at 13:58 UTC

    "If I remember correctly from the stats class I took twice"

    Did taking it a second time help?

    Once we can export XP for BTC you will have a valid point. I can only assume from the terms and arguments used in your responses that this is satire.

    A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
Re: Canonization Without Representation
by huck (Parson) on Mar 17, 2017 at 07:43 UTC

    heh, so who ever did "spill punch cards". Raises hand. But never the two boxes that had Adventure translated from dec to ibm fortran! I made sure they were serialized anyway

Re: Canonization Without Representation
by 1nickt (Abbot) on Mar 17, 2017 at 18:25 UTC

    Else where in this thread you said:

    the longer you've been ABLE to participate is a distinct and obvious advantage

    I hard-coded your data for you into the Ranking the Saints by XP Efficiency script since you have not yet been inscribed in The Book.

    The data appear not to support your proposition, I am afraid. Quite a number of the Saints are around your age, or younger. (limiting to top 25 + trippledubs)

    perl XP_efficiency.pl -r 1 -s age -f trippledubs -o desc -l 25 +--------------------------------------------------------------------- +-----------------+ | Pos | St. | Monk name | XP | Level | Age | XP/Age | +Posts | XP/Posts | +--------------------------------------------------------------------- +-----------------+ ... | 5 36 Athanasius 32,619 Chancellor (21) 1,781 20.6159 + 1,724 18.4040 | ... | 10 79 Laurent_R 19,635 Abbot (19) 1,650 13.1914 + 2,444 7.6964 | ... | 15 287 1nickt 6,626 Vicar (15) 643 11.3401 + 793 7.9502 | ... | 23 147 hdb 11,898 Prior (17) 1,473 8.7686 + 1,535 7.2713 | ... | 25 154 soonix 11,097 Prior (17) 1,511 7.9170 + 508 20.3573 | ... | n/a n/a trippledubs 1,585 Hermit 1,717 0.4897 + 164 4.4299 | +--------------------------------------------------------------------- +-----------------+

    Now I am no statistician, as I mentioned earlier, but it does seem to me that the number of posts made has something to do with the game.


    The way forward always starts with a minimal test.
Re: Canonization Without Representation
by perldigious (Priest) on Mar 20, 2017 at 20:46 UTC

    This indicates a central tendency and predominance of Saints that locked eyes on their future spouse over spilled punch cards...

    That sounds very romantic, I've never watched the show but maybe it would have made a great episode of How I Met Your Mother. :-)

    Seriously though, what you are describing did sort of irk me when I started using this site more heavily. If I recall my exact thoughts on the topic were, "I swear some Monks could just post a reply that says '*cough*' or '*sneeze*' and get more upvotes than a less known/newer Monk who posts a well thought out and helpful reply." And yes that is an invitation for some of the senior Monks to reply to this with "*cough*" or "*sneeze*", I always prefer humor than a lack of it.

    I got over it pretty quick based on the fact that a lot of those monks have contributed so much, not even just in terms of helpful nodes, but in terms of being janitors, pmdevs, etc., that they deserve 10 times the fake internet points than they already get anyway. There are times where I think a node (Monk) deserves several upvotes, so I'll pretty much upvote anything they say (within reason and good conduct) in the thread to compensate for the limitation of one per node.

    As far as attracting new members, I'm not sure how much the XP game plays in to that, I don't think it's a forgone conclusion that it's a primary or even determining factor for most users... and that's coming from a self professed XP Whore and younger youngish late arriving Monk. :-)

    Just another Perl hooker - And definitely not the kind with any $class whatsoever.

      I believe that ensuring COUGH xor SNEEZE would be safer, since I/O deadlocking is a known risk on most compatible hardware.

        Did you try turning it off and resuscitating it?

        Thank you for the laugh SuicideJunkie, exactly the sort of humor I was hoping for. I bestow the title of "Winner of the Internet" on you... for today... well, so far, maybe someone can still top that.

        Heaven help us if people start deciding to throw in other semi-voluntary bodily functions and given-when if they want to get 'experimental' and risk possible bodily decompression of some sort. :-)

        Just another Perl hooker - And definitely not the kind with any $class whatsoever.
      haha. It irked me too so I acted. People use the word terrorist and 5 year old but I like to think about what people say. I have been to places where thinking does not matter. In these places might makes right and they affect my world view. This is probably true for many millenials. I see the Marine Corps cannablizing its female recruits in the news and I will not even silently sanction such behavior. Maybe no one will ever care that I don't, but I will speak nonetheless. A little tricky marketing to MAYBE get people to read what I say and get my message out is only because I care about these issues. I will get over my negative XP, in this social media age, we cannot let a little embarrassment let us become jaded or lazy. Thanks for participating in my XP whoring thread :) negative xp get links too hahaha. I've been here for five years, I wonder how many READUPS I have and if this compares to the saints
Re: Canonization Without Representation
by choroba (Archbishop) on Mar 20, 2017 at 21:38 UTC
Re: Canonization Without Representation
by GotToBTru (Prior) on Mar 17, 2017 at 12:57 UTC

    I was already an older monk when I first got here. But it took me only 1639 days.

    But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8 (NASB)

      Well, there has been at least one benefit to this thread: when I looked to see how far I'd progressed -- almost 59% of the way to being in the Book -- I discovered that tomorrow is my first monkiversary. I'm about to turn 1! Yay! I feel young again. :)

        For hysterical porpoises: 556d to #709.

Re: Canonization Without Representation
by stevieb (Canon) on Mar 18, 2017 at 04:22 UTC
    A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.
Re: Canonization Without Representation
by shmem (Chancellor) on Mar 19, 2017 at 19:44 UTC

    I had a hard time, it really really really itched me, but I resisted to downvoting almost every post of yours in this thread. I managed. One moment... lemmie check trippledubs->"Your votes"...

    "Total of 11 ++ and 0 -- votes = 11"

    All positive *phew*

    But... why didn't I upvote all other posts of you (total 179 at the time of writing) not belonging to this thread which I didn't upvote?

    Negligence, I reckon. So unfair.

    perl -le'print map{pack c,($-++?1:13)+ord}split//,ESEL'
Re: Canonization Without Representation
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 17, 2017 at 11:40 UTC
    Once again in English please?
      My response was reaped to this, I'm not sure why. I take this as an ad hominem attack and annihilated it with prejudice. I must not understand, what does this mean? If this is ad hominem attack as well, it was reaped too low and this should be reaped as well or explained.

        My response was reaped to this, I'm not sure why.

        Ok, I see you say M-A-T-H, B-I-T-C-H!

        I imagine that got reaped because its short/loud/cursing,

        but reaping has been overused lately

        I find that quip funny even if non-responsive,

        but also kind of disappointing considering your admirable and amzing willingness to respond in this thread ; its like you're here to discuss for really real

        I take this as an ad hominem attack and annihilated it with prejudice. I must not understand, what does this mean? If this is ad hominem attack as well, it was reaped too low and this should be reaped as well or explained.

        Hmm, ad-hominem, is that pre-figurative? musy generation?

        I take mine with ausy and a donut.

         

        Do you see ?

         

        "Once again in English please?" sounds funny to me

        Better may have been  Once again in simple English please? or  please explain it to me like I'm a two year old? Can you dumb that down any?

        But its not exactly as flippant

        Hehe, this response his taking some half hour to compose, "How do you like them apples?"

        See I watch movies too

         

        If PM is to survive, if Perl is dying ... if I'm having strong feelings , have to save the universe, have to full fill the prophecy, You ruined the prophecy....I made it up.

         

        nawmean?

         

         

        Now don't feel bad, you care, you want stuff to happen....

        Look at this post from the year 2000 Parallels Between Perlmonks.ORG and Religious Cults

        Interesting huh?

        I always liked that guy even if he took perlmonks a little too seriously or just let loose sometimes

         

        I feel for you buddy

        Things are

        And I'm like

        Right there with you

        And then you lost me

        And I'm like

        Where am I?

        Oh OK

        Naah

         

        nawmean?

        nawmean

Re: Canonization Without Representation
by Anonymous Monk on Mar 21, 2017 at 12:32 UTC
    Are you 12? And banned for 4chan/reddit?

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://1184973]
Approved by 1nickt
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others scrutinizing the Monastery: (8)
As of 2020-07-09 12:30 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found

    Notices?