Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Submission + - The Math of Gamification ( 1

An anonymous reader writes: The Foursquare blog has an interesting post about some of the math they use to evaluate and verify the massive amount of user-generated data that enters their database. They need to figure out the likelihood that any given datapoint accurately represents reality, so they've worked out a complicated formula that will minimize abuse. Quoting: 'By choosing the points based on a user’s accuracy, we can intelligently accrue certainty about a proposed update and stop the voting process as soon as the math guarantees the required certainty. .. The parameters are automatically trained and can adapt to changes in the behavior of the userbase. No more long meetings debating how many points to grant to a narrow use case.
So far, we’ve taken a very user-centric view of p-sub-k (this is the accuracy of user k). But we can go well beyond that. For example, p-sub-k could be “the accuracy of user k’s vote given that they have been to the venue three times before and work nearby.” These clauses can be arbitrarily complicated and estimated from a (logistic) regression of the honeypot performance. The point is that these changes will be based on data and not subjective judgments of how many “points” a user or situation should get.

This discussion was created for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Math of Gamification

Comments Filter:
  • The submission emphasized how FourSquare uses honeypots to validate good users, and prevent "bad actors" from corrupting the data. The actual post is much more readable than the excerpt, no offense intended to a harried (or lazy :o) Anonymous Coward. At least he took the time to submit it! Anyway, it lays out some of the math that FourSquare uses, mostly logistic regression, and then itemizes problems and workarounds. For example, FourSquare users like integers. Don't we all! FourSquare describes how they t

The unfacts, did we have them, are too imprecisely few to warrant our certitude.