Member ratings adjustment

Gearhead · 2009-10-04T07:54:30+00:00

Woowoowoo (some feedback) I just counted; apart from our moderators there's 24 Hero members. One becomes a hero member after 500 posts (although I do admit having posted too many posts and spending way too much time on the forum, I do not think I want to be called a hero just for that). As the forum grows older, it is going to become more and more common for members to become hero member, which I think warrants an adjustment of the status thresholds. Can we? ???

Heath

*raises hand*

RobK

Awwww!..and I was just about to become a Full Member :'(

You have my vote, though. ?

Wizard

Norio wrote ... also happy with downplaying the groups and making Karma more prominent.
... and make a large button to show off the karma rating and applaud bits.
All in favour...

Aye !!

You get what you measure.
The main measure must be a peer group voted measure, not a reflection of typing activity.

Shifting focus to karma would encourage the good behaviours of:
a) trying to help others more, and
b) remembering to recognise assistance received

inflames

I'm in! Go for it Norio!

[deleted]

On the promotion of karma, I have to add the caveat that assistance is not always properly recognised, and this might call for some way of sharing it out fairly. Many a time I've seen someone give advice well right off the bat, but when another member has paraphrased or reiterated that exact same advice later, the second person has been applauded or given the usual "+1". I'm not in any way advocating that people ought to forgo karma because they log on less often, but if advice is exactly the same, just worded differently, the credit probably ought to go to the first poster? (Of course, both views may be equally deserving of karma...but then anyone rewording the original post could be getting it.) Just a thought...

EDIT: And, of course, if karma becomes the main criterion by which people weight judgements, this system is obviously open to "abuse" where some members may be more inclined to karma along friendship/alliance lines, but I guess that's unavoidable unless we demand that the administrators alone award it. Cos, as Alan said, it's not enough of a going concern to spend that much time doing it.

Wizard

Stratisfear wrote ... given the usual "+1".

In terms of forum protocol, when does one use the "+1" approach vs. giving karma?
I suspect a shift to a recognition system needs to come along with some guidelines for usage.

As previously discussed, new members could be directed to a place where all this relevant type of stuff is explained.

racman

hey, just noticed the"karma" - I got none, but I guess no karma is better than bad karma!!!! ?

AlanRatcliffe

Wizard wrote In terms of forum protocol, when does one use the "+1" approach vs. giving karma?

"+1" is used merely to say you agree with what the poster before you has said. It's more reinforcing the point than giving kudos.

Sean

I say 'Yes' , woohoo 1 more closer to a 1000!

Wizard

I just noticed how many "members" there are who have never made a posting.
This presumably reflects many people who signed up for membership, then never came back again.
Is it not perhaps an idea to have a group for people on 0 itself ... and a promotion to [newbie] on their first posting?

Wizard thinks aloud: "Irrelevant point since you normally only see a person's status in respect of a posting they've made".

Renesongs

I say aye

AlanRatcliffe

Wizard wrote I just noticed how many "members" there are who have never made a posting.
This presumably reflects many people who signed up for membership, then never came back again.

Not necessarily. There are more readers out there than writers - shown by the fact that at any given time there are usually double the amount of "guest" visitors viewing the site than there are members. Some join up just so they can be logged in when they read or so that they can PM members about classified ads.

Is it not perhaps an idea to have a group for people on 0 itself ... and a promotion to [newbie] on their first posting?

I've actually considered that, but because it allows me to restrict access to certain boards. Specifically it could be used to stop people from signing up and immediately posting a YouTube clip on the "YouTube" board or a link to a site in "Sites" to promote themselves and then going away and never returning. I don't mind active members utilizing the site for SSP (Shameless Self Promotion), but I don't like it when strangers do it. The problem is that the forum merely hides the restricted board from those members, so they'll probably just post to the boards they do have access to (which means I have to moderate more).

Manfred-Klose

I am cool with it.
besides by this time next year we will have twice as my active members. ?

inflames

The problem is that the forum merely hides the restricted board from those members, so they'll probably just post to the boards they do have access to (which means I have to moderate more).

Great idea, maybe get more moderators?

Riaan

I'm cool witht the proposed adjustment.

AlanRatcliffe

The "restricted board" thing got me thinking, but I'll post my "thinks" in a new thread.

I've gone ahead with the change to the membergroup numbers already. We'll see how it goes when the "Internet from work" crowd get here tomorrow... (will there be wailing and gnashing of teeth, etc.?).

MikeM

I don't know about anyone else... But I don't really care about the user groups?

The restricted board however sounds awesome, although I don't know what we'll do with it?

CDee

I'm happy with the member group change. (Damn now I'll have to wear my underpants under my pants again :-\ )

FenderBender

Gotta keep raising the bar to promote motivation IMO. It inevitably makes us better at what we do ?

LOL@CDee

MikeM

HAHAHahahah nice one CD ?

« Previous Page Next Page »