The ACF Score

[LacieLaPlante]

Whenever I get a bunch of thanks my score goes down. Stupid math.

 

[hornygods]

The system is odd. It's basically saying that if the thanks you've gotten 60 days ago were more than the ones you've gotten today, then you start dropping in score.

 

[RedHerby1]

The system is odd. It's basically saying that if the thanks you've gotten 60 days ago were more than the ones you've gotten today, then you start dropping in score.

hahaha, oh this is so good, a ACF member who complains that the 60 days wrap is not fair

but good that you remember me to it, I have put a note in my agenda, it looks like that The-Big-Offline-Thanks-Tip I did give to Jolene 2 days ago did put Jupiter back to place 2, I must do it again over 58 days

 

[Jawbs]

 

[BoltEyeAm]

The system is odd. It's basically saying that if the thanks you've gotten 60 days ago were more than the ones you've gotten today, then you start dropping in score.

Not odd at all In that case the score will accurately reflect your decrease in activity or thanks. The score attempts to show a recent trend not an accumulation of everything. If you want to see the accumulative values just go to the Gratitudes page

 

[hornygods]

That's true. Question - does thanks take precedence over postcount/thanks given?

 

[BoltEyeAm]

That's true. Question - does thanks take precedence over postcount/thanks given?

It appears by the weights Jawbs quoted that the thanks received is the bulk of the score.

• in a nutshell taking the values from the last 60 days...
  TotalPost * 41.4% + ThanksReceived * 50.6% + Thanks Sent * 8%

So if you have 100 Post, 100 thanks Received and 100 thanks Sent then your score will be 100

Perhaps a good way to illustrate how much each is weighted is to show how a score is effected differently if 100 is added to each section.
If you add 100 Post: 82.8 + 50.6 + 8 = 141.4
If you add 100 Thanks Received: 41.4 + 101.2 + 8 = 150.6
If you add 100 Thanks Given: 41.4+ 50.6 + 16 = 108

So Yes the thanks received is is the largest factor accounting for about 50.6% of the overall score while the total post accounts for about 41.4% and the thanks sent 8%.
It is also important to note how each of these variables are obtained and in what quantities. Firstly to receive a thanks you must make a post. If you make spam a bunch to drive up your post total but no one thanks any of them you will receive score credit for only 45% of them. Inversely if you make a few post and you receive a lot of thanks for them then the value of your post go up.

While skimming a few people's in this thread the number of post made and the number of thanks received is relatively equivalent. If it was extremely common to receive 10 thanks per post then the formula would benefit from having these percentages adjusted.

The Total Post and Thanks received is the primary way of measuring the quality and amount of your participation. The thanks Sent is extremely disproportional in order to help prevent abuse. You want to have motivation for people to use the thanks button but you don't want them to thank every post to drive their own score up.

Here's my version (script and output included): https://gist.github.com/bac2da6d69b841eec92a

the base score is the same formula that BoltEyeAm came up with, but just looking at the last 60 days of activity:

( totalPost(w)(y)+thanksReceived(x)(y)+thanksSent(z) ) / ( daysMember < 60 ? daysMember : 60 )

then to try to make it a little more interesting, I calculate the score of each thanks received based on the base score of the user who sent the thanks. This way thanks that come from users with a higher base score are worth more than those with lower.

thanksReceivedBonus += thankersBaseScore * z

then I use the same calculations as the base score, adding the thanksReceivedBonus to thanksReceived to get the final acf score:

( totalPost(w)(y)+(thanksReceived + thanksReceivedBonus)(x)(y)+thanksSent(z) ) / ( daysMember < 60 ? daysMember : 60 )

I take no credit in any of this.. BoltEyeAm, RedHerby, Kradek, and others came up with this fun idea and formulas. Having said that, if any models would like a higher score, we can get on skype and work something out...

I'll implement this into the site sometime this weekend along with a top 100 page.

 

[camstory]

Just wanted to point out big flaw IMO about ACF score. DookJones with 12 post, 1 thanks sent, and 2 received, now ranks 25th. I don't know how you fix that, but only that it is broken when such #'s gain such overall high score.

 

[Mirra]

I suspect it's because he has all of that in 1 day. By tomorrow his score will probably fall by 50% unless he keeps posting, thanking, and getting thanked at this rate. I notice a lot of new models shoot up the rankings into the 20s or 30s their first week on the boards but as their activity levels off they fall back down into a more consistent average.

 

[AmberCutie]

The way this works is sort of keeping true to the way we are used to camscore working. Like Mirra said, it will even itself out over time, just like how a new model may shoot up to a great CS on day one after making better-than-average tokens, then the CS averages out once she adds more days to her 60-day average.

Working as intended.

 

[camstory]

The way this works is sort of keeping true to the way we are used to camscore working. Like Mirra said, it will even itself out over time, just like how a new model may shoot up to a great CS on day one after making better-than-average tokens, then the CS averages out once she adds more days to her 60-day average.

Working as intended.

Yes I knew why it was so high. I guess here as on e-bay I would be an advocate for no ranking of noobs. I have positioned E-bay admin expressing the fact that it didn't seem correct that a person with 4 sales at 100% was ranked at the same level as someone with 150 sales who also had 100%. The same way here, or even with CS I suppose, that I would back the idea of not ranking those who did not have the experience, or days of membership, or # of sales, or time on cam, that it made the average #'s work a little more like they should.

 

[Mirra]

Heh... unlike MFC, the ACF rankings won't likely affect your paycheck so I wouldn't worry too much about it. That said, it's also an indicator of activity over time. If someone busts in this forum with 30 posts on their first day and their posts are good enough to earn them an average of 1.5 thanks per post then they deserve their rather impressive one day score based on that activity. It's unlikely they can keep it up and they'll fall into whatever their average contributor rating (ACF score) should be over time... as you are aware. For MFC or eBay those ratings have the potential to affect income which is exactly why MFC has the New Model tags and initial 1000 camscore to give new models a chance and yet a 1k cam score isn't going to get them listed anywhere close to the top models on a typical day. As for eBay, maybe they do need to adjust. I don't know.

 

[Chamaeleon]

I'm waiting for offline tips to make mine higher. :thumbleft:

 

[camstory]

Heh... unlike MFC, the ACF rankings won't likely affect your paycheck so I wouldn't worry too much about it. That said, it's also an indicator of activity over time. If someone busts in this forum with 30 posts on their first day and their posts are good enough to earn them an average of 1.5 thanks per post then they deserve their rather impressive one day score based on that activity. It's unlikely they can keep it up and they'll fall into whatever their average contributor rating (ACF score) should be over time... as you are aware. For MFC or eBay those ratings have the potential to affect income which is exactly why MFC has the New Model tags and initial 1000 camscore to give new models a chance and yet a 1k cam score isn't going to get them listed anywhere close to the top models on a typical day. As for eBay, maybe they do need to adjust. I don't know.

Yeah there is a huge difference in AFC vs MFC or e-bay. And the fact is, it proly works just fine even for noobs. Just must have been me. I have been making an effort to make better post the last few months, but have never really cared or watched ACFS much. Well recently I have paid more attention for a # of reasons, and watched mine climb with out trying to focus on it. Well today I guess it just bothered me a bit that someone who had posted a bunch of shit I didn't like, had only 12 post, w/2thanks for less than 17%, somehow was at 25 while I was at 27. So it was no doubt as much a personal thing as any.

That said I still contend that with so few post that it can skew the average, the same any average is skewed by insufficient #'s that those averages are based on.

 

[LadyLuna]

I have been making an effort to make better post the last few months, but have never really cared or watched ACFS much. Well recently I have paid more attention for a # of reasons, and watched mine climb with out trying to focus on it. Well today I guess it just bothered me a bit that someone who had posted a bunch of shit I didn't like, had only 12 post, w/2thanks for less than 17%, somehow was at 25 while I was at 27. So it was no doubt as much a personal thing as any.

The trick with camscore is not to pay attention. When I paid attention, it dropped down to 800 and then 600. I stopped paying attention and one day I got to 1200.

Welcome to our world.

 

[AmberCutie]

I have been making an effort to make better post the last few months, but have never really cared or watched ACFS much. Well recently I have paid more attention for a # of reasons, and watched mine climb with out trying to focus on it. Well today I guess it just bothered me a bit that someone who had posted a bunch of shit I didn't like, had only 12 post, w/2thanks for less than 17%, somehow was at 25 while I was at 27. So it was no doubt as much a personal thing as any.

Now maybe some non-models will understand our frequent frustration with camscore. :lol:

Work for months to get camscore to a certain level. Wake up and see that ModelABC just signed up3 days ago and has 3000 camscore more than us. :shock: It feels weird, yes? But nothing we can do about it, and in the end is has nothing to do with us personally.

 

[RedHerby]

yeaahhhh !!! I'm back, as godfather of the ACF score, I must ofc have a place in the ACF Score Top 100 !!!

hmmm, pretty nice sandwich btw.

 

[LadyLuna]

:shock: I'm number five! How the fuck did that happen!

Damn I wish that it had anything at all to do with income. x.x

 

[Shaun__]

I went and looked. I have fallen far since the last time I checked. I had some good posts loaded down with thanks, and I guess they fell off. Easy come easy go.

 

[Jupiter551]

yeaahhhh !!! I'm back, as godfather of the ACF score, I must ofc have a place in the ACF Score Top 100 !!!

hmmm, pretty nice sandwich btw.

Pff, in the same way Richard Nixon was the 'godfather' of democracy maybe A change of name can't erase the memory of Herbygate...

 

[mynameisbob84]

I'm in the Top Ten??

Haiiiiii faiiiiiiive :-D

 

[Jo_Bunny]

i sure wish my MFC cam score was as high as my ACF score...

 

[HarmlessSquirrel]

Interesting, my score went up by nearly 300 points when I was offline due to the hurricane. Is the universe trying to tell me to shut up? :shhh:

 

[AmberCutie]

:shock: You prompted me to look at the list, and I realize I'm at #1 for the first time. Ever.

The universe is in a weird way right now.

 

[mynameisbob84]

I just checked my rank too. I've fallen off the Top Ten. I'm a sad panda now

 

[LadyLuna]

Just a little something for conspiracy theorists

I just checked and I found: (names shortened where I don't think offense will be taken)

Amber
JoJo
Evvie
AllisonWilder
Me
AnaVictoria
Jup
PlayboyMegan
Blackrose
Brown Fox

translates to:

Admin/camgirl
camgirl
camgirl
camgirl
camgirl
camgirl
vip/member
camgirl
camgirl
camgirl

nope, no bias here

 

[Shaun__]

Just a little something for conspiracy theorists

I noticed that as well, and I think it is a reflection of how active the models are on the forums. You ladies make this place special.

 

[mynameisbob84]

It's a conspiracy!

Nah, it makes sense, I think. Models have the models only forum section to post in which, members don't - so it makes sense that the group with access to the extra section would have (generally) higher ACF score than the group that don't. Extra posts, extra thanks recieved, extra thanks sent.

 

[LadyLuna]

It's a conspiracy!

Nah, it makes sense, I think. Models have the models only forum section to post in which, members don't - so it makes sense that the group with access to the extra section would have (generally) higher ACF score than the group that don't. Extra posts, extra thanks recieved, extra thanks sent.

That theory has supporting evidence. The one member who is in the top ten has access to the VIP section, where he can make more posts and receive more thanks.

More supporting evidence, all the models in the top 10 are actually active outside the model's only section.

As I do not have access to the VIP section, I cannot say if the top few models have access to that area or not.

 

[AmberCutie]

It's a conspiracy!

Nah, it makes sense, I think. Models have the models only forum section to post in which, members don't - so it makes sense that the group with access to the extra section would have (generally) higher ACF score than the group that don't. Extra posts, extra thanks recieved, extra thanks sent.

That theory has supporting evidence. The one member who is in the top ten has access to the VIP section, where he can make more posts and receive more thanks.

More supporting evidence, all the models in the top 10 are actually active outside the model's only section.

As I do not have access to the VIP section, I cannot say if the top few models have access to that area or not.

I am pretty much the only one who posts in the VIP section.