Surely ... I hope that is not directed towards me. :oP
A very, very big inside joke to those that know me. I believe Geri has a separate server just for my commentaries et al, lol. Less is not more in my case. More or less. (Oh ya ... I got a million of them. :oP)
On a more serious note ...
I am of the opinion, that much like how some other 'numbers' are created/formulated here on the site ... there is probably a weighting to each of the three factors that are now at the forefront. How that is determined is solely known by the administrators.
Prior to, it was not just sheer number of words. It was the quality of those words. Imagine compiling a list of words that adhered to the guidelines as to what constituted a 'good review.' Cross reference those words against a commentary posted and ... a number was produced.
I am thinking that to some extent, at least in the past, words such as "great" "fantastic" and other superlatives similar, were not given as much 'credit' as "perspective" "composition" and so on. Just some thoughts.
p.s. See what I mean? Er, write? Ohh, I shall never be brief, lol and as stated by another member; "Ditto ... boxers for me." :oP
There is no tricky math with the comments field. It just counts the number of letters in all your comments over the last week. I consider this an improvement over just counting the number of comments (which encourages short comments).
The ordering of the list is sort of a weighted system. I rank every member in all three catagories and then order the members according to the sum of the three rankings. This results in a weighted sort without having to worry about assigning weight values to the three catagories. It also doesn't allow someone to dominate the list by scoring an extreme number in any one field. In other words it promotes well-roundedness.
The other small change is that it will highlight your username in red if you are on the list.