"Using median size as a reference it's perfectly possible to fit four ping-pong balls and two blue whales in a rowboat."
is an accurate representation of only the most ideal samples.
The main selling point of Median Node-Fu
and Median Node-Fu Product
is that you could check this for any user at the cost of, at most, two votes. This selling point is irrelevant to a behind the scenes
process as it is not limited in the number of write-ups it can check for reputation.
Here is my recommendation:
Divide the reputation sorted list of someone's write-ups into N sections. Find the reputation of the write-up in the middle of each section. Mutiply the value of these midpoints by 1/Nth the number of write-ups. Add these products together. The resulting sum is someone's contribution to E2.
Sound familar? It's an algorithm for calculating the area under a curve.
As you may recall from calculus, the accuracy of this measure increases with N (specifically in this case accuracy increases as N approaches #WU)
Node-fu would be calculated by averaging the the values of the midpoints. These methods can be refered to as MpNF for Midpoint Node-Fu and MpNFP for sum E2 contribution.
Some interesting things you may not have noticed
- When N=1 this method gives you MedianNFP and MedianNF
- When N=#WU this method gives you MeanNF (I.E WNF uncorrected for C!)
- As has been noted MNF and MNFP are generally more acccurate for users with large numbers of write-ups (due to a more ideal distribution of reputations). This is also true for MpNF and MpNFP. However, the expected accuracy of MpNF and MpNFP increase as N-->#WU... therefor noders with fewer WU can expect higher accuracy. The overall result is that MpNF(P) is generally accurate for all users
- The value of N can be the same for all users. Thus there is no greater computational overhead for figuring the MpNF of a Lvl10 noder v. a Lvl3 noder.
- The value of N can be adjusted for different levels. The tendency for expected accuracy to decrease can be corrected by increasing the value of N for higher level users. Because the number of users drops off as level increases this would also not produce a significant change in computational overhead between user groups.
- As with MNF and MNFP, skillfull selection of the value of N will allow radically up- and downvoted write-ups to be ignored in the calculations.
Random other considerations:
Two write-ups both have reputations of 1. One has (+35/-34). The other has (+1/0). Have they contributed equally? Do they both have equal Node-fu?
When the value of recieving C! or the number of votes alotted is changed should XP be recalculated to reflect the changes?
How do you encourage voting but not vote dumping?