RE:SH Reputation Ratings
A flawed measure of reputation.
As this measure of reputaion is simply a Sumof(Thumbs up) rather than Sumof(Thumbs up)/ Total Number of Posts it doesn't measure the average quality of the posts, but more about the frequency of, err, "worthy" posts. Hence infrequent quality posters (say BeardownAZ) can easily be surpassed by frequent but less worthy ones. The new system started in February(ish) this year, no score is allocated for any previous posts.
If you click the "History" link on the Reputation page you can review the scores for each post, this allows you to "eyeball" the quality of individual posts.
The old system was better in that it was appaently more of an average (and seemed to measure more than just the posted message scores). Jdstox acually had a surprisingly low reputation in that system, well lower than mine when I last looked (I was surprised, but no proof available I'm afraid). So that system obviously wasn't working well either.
But if we ran a trial to compare two drugs, one given to a 1000 people and one given to a 100 and simply compared the number of total responders I'm sure jdstox would agree it was a completely useless comparison?
MD