I have discovered a small bug that may, for some users, cause a few snarkmarks to be deducted.

hahah, a code "bug" that gives the coder a gazzilion snarkmarks.

We believe you mate.

Ok, found an easy way to make it happen m8! woo!

Now implemented, maps are 100 * rating as a percentage (rating is unrounded, eg 4.5 stars would give you 90 snarkmarks for that map)

Articles and dls at 25 * rating % until we figure out what they should be!

Might be a few unusually high totals (like mine) for a while as some of the aggregate ratings were snafu'd by a code bug a few weeks ago... will fix!

Hmm yeah you're right, I did miss that and I didn't consider that it could be a bit unfair for people who make maps for less popular mods.

Hmm... I would have to make some non-trivial changes to make it practical to do this... although thinking about it they could have a few other benefits too... hmmm...

What are other people's thoughts? I think fishy's way could be a good adjustment...

I know I chunterred on a bit about the snarkmarks, so you might have missed;

fishy said:
Could the $M be multiplied by the rating of the submission? Like a map gets rated 4/5, then the mapper only gets 80$M from the possible 100$M, or a poor 2/5 article only gets 10$M from the possible 25.

This might be a bit fairer to people that upload quality maps for an unpopular mod.

By simply adding the values of all rating, then 10% of the playerbase giving a cs:s map a rating of 2 would give a much higher score than 10% of some random mod's playerbase scoring a map as a 5.

aww, thought you just didn't wub meh anymore

Hope everything went ok m8!

Spruced up the edit profile page.

Wow! Nice awesome color palette! Quite impressive! I'll have to respond more later on the snarkmarks and stuff, but I just got through moving this past weekend and didn't think I wouldn't have internet; that explains my absence for the past couple of days

Implemented snarkmark scores based on the aggregate rating thingy explained above... I think it's an excellent way of rewarding the best content while avoiding any potential for abuse as Aaron described.

Aaron and fishy are pwning everyone thanks to their forum spam

---

Reformatted the stats on the profile page along the lines you suggested Riven.

---

Default avatar system added (check the edit profile page. Also added little 'L plate' icons for new users

---

I like the hall of fame thing but might leave it to add until I've got this new site done and dusted as we seem to be adding endless stuff (I don't mind! Just want to define some sort of finishing point ).

Apart from finishing off changes to the private messages bit of the cp, redoing a few remaining button graphics and bug fixing/IE compatibility is there anything else that really needs sorting d'ya think?

Riven said:
...could you add an auto "color" tag (err, I mean colour* ) to all posting forms and have either a list of all the colors with names (which I've found here) or a little drop down list box that has all the colors available and you just select which one you want to use in the post.

Please to be finding a magical colour table chart thing Mr Riven Sir!

If the palette doesn't appear when you click the 'colour' button, ctrl+f5 to refresh your stylesheet

Some further thoughts on snarkmarks.

Instead of having fixed values, calculate them using the ratings system.

For example, when a map gets uploaded at first it is unrated. If someone rates it as 5 stars it has an overall rating of 5. If someone else gives it 4 stars it has an overall rating of 9 - this is an aggregate value that is recorded behind the scenes already.

Simply add the aggregate rating as snarkmarks.

So, if I have a map which has ten people give it 4 stars, I'd get 40 snarkmarks.

For downloads and articles we can apply a percentage modifier, eg x0.25 perhaps, to lower the number of snarkmarks you get from them.

This would mean that you get snarkmarks for uploading high quality, popular content rather than the quantity of things you upload.

Possibly post count could be added too, maybe at x0.01? (ie 1 snarkmark for every hundred posts?)

I think that's a good way to go... opinions?

Don't get hung up on the numbers... they can be worked out/changed (eg we could double up the rating scores first to widen the gap between high and low ratings).