• Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  

+5 for following

This topic is 1894 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts


[quote name='jbadams' timestamp='1352806822' post='5000531']
and "mark as answer" functionality (which doesn't get used much)

That would be because no one knows where it is.[/quote]

It was only made available to moderators and staff for testing purposes, with the intention that we would later roll it out to members with particularly high reputation scores if it seemed successful, but it now looks like we're more likely to simply remove it at least for the time being.


Speaking of being in the top 25, the Top Members list is very wrong.

I think the list is updated on a regular time interval (perhaps daily or weekly) rather than per-view, which may account for some discrepancy, but again that's something Mike would have more information on and can probably more accurately determine whether it's working as intended or needs to be fixed. Thanks for the report!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement

Speaking of being in the top 25, the Top Members list is very wrong.
As of writing, my rating is 2,538 and it shows me as #17, but #18 is Ashaman73, with a rating of 3,057.
ApochPiQ should be #3 but is listed as #6, etc.


I'm not certain why this is happening.. it's something I need to look into. This doesn't happen all the time and eventually it gets ironed out typically so something is updating member scores incorrectly temporarily. The daemon that updates users ratings is running constantly, but takes a while to cycle through all the users. It has to recrunch everyone's yearly, quarterly, monthly, and weekly scores as well as their overall scores into a cached format that is very quick to access.

Like when I look at ApochPiQ now he is #3 like he should be. Edited by Michael Tanczos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Servant of the Lord and staff,


I look at it this way: Many first timers will not return to post again so it does not really matter that they get a +5. Giving them a +5 might be what some people need as a kind of ego boast and encouragement to continue being involved in the community. If they don't deserve a +5, then view yourselves as the generous and benevolent leaders which you are - a boast to your egos, not that you need it.

What is a few points going to matter in the long term? Feel free to be generous.

Clinton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Servant of the Lord and staff,


I look at it this way: Many first timers will not return to post again so it does not really matter that they get a +5. Giving them a +5 might be what some people need as a kind of ego boast and encouragement to continue being involved in the community. If they don't deserve a +5, then view yourselves as the generous and benevolent leaders which you are - a boast to your egos, not that you need it.

What is a few points going to matter in the long term? Feel free to be generous.

Clinton

I doubt many new members discover the reputation system and understand its purpose right away, though. I don't think they would have even noticed the extra points, though the new reputation notifications might change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bacterius,

In a very competitive world - things competing for everybody's attention - I feel that the +5 credit is going to be noticed and appreciated by some. In the business world, the more successful the enterprise then the more the organization is looking for cumulative attractions. The sum of many very small attractions is part of the overall synergy which every community needs including this one. The cost is nothing but will stroke the right ego once in a while - a win-win tactic. This is Marketing 101.


Clinton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bacterius,

In a very competitive world - things competing for everybody's attention - I feel that the +5 credit is going to be noticed and appreciated by some. In the business world, the more successful the enterprise then the more the organization is looking for cumulative attractions. The sum of many very small attractions is part of the overall synergy which every community needs including this one. The cost is nothing but will stroke the right ego once in a while - a win-win tactic. This is Marketing 101.


Clinton

I guess it's your perspective. To me the reputation system is not to stroke ego nor a marketing tactic, but I can see why some people would see it this way. I don't know much about marketing and do not wish to turn this thread into an argument war. To each his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is a few points going to matter in the long term? Feel free to be generous.

The issue in this case is that some longer term members are being turned off from using a potentially useful feature -- the "follow topic" feature -- because they don't want to give points to others who they don't feel deserve them. Encouraging beginners is great, but we don't want to do it at the expense of making life more difficult for the more experienced members who are able to answer beginner's questions.

We do have some rewards specifically to encourage new members -- they are given +100 for signing up, and earn +1/day simply for logging in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='3Ddreamer' timestamp='1352949538' post='5001084']
Bacterius,

In a very competitive world - things competing for everybody's attention - I feel that the +5 credit is going to be noticed and appreciated by some. In the business world, the more successful the enterprise then the more the organization is looking for cumulative attractions. The sum of many very small attractions is part of the overall synergy which every community needs including this one. The cost is nothing but will stroke the right ego once in a while - a win-win tactic. This is Marketing 101.


Clinton

I guess it's your perspective. To me the reputation system is not to stroke ego nor a marketing tactic, but I can see why some people would see it this way. I don't know much about marketing and do not wish to turn this thread into an argument war. To each his own.
[/quote]

Hey, I respect your difference of opinion.

I am totally convinced that the reputation system can have several purposes and accompaning advantages for staff who are willing - "Where there is a will, there is a way."

Yes, that is true: "To each his own", but the perspective of high achievement leaders is to advance the impression of personal generosity as well as organization generosity. It is a highly beneficial way of operating which blesses everybody. Of course this must be sincere benevolence and not contrived, so if staff is not willing then I would recommend that they follow their will rather than faking it and elliminate the generous +5 gift.

I merely wish to bring matters to higher consciousness.

Clinton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='3Ddreamer' timestamp='1352948916' post='5001081']
What is a few points going to matter in the long term? Feel free to be generous.

The issue in this case is that some longer term members are being turned off from using a potentially useful feature -- the "follow topic" feature -- because they don't want to give points to others who they don't feel deserve them. Encouraging beginners is great, but we don't want to do it at the expense of making life more difficult for the more experienced members who are able to answer beginner's questions.

We do have some rewards specifically to encourage new members -- they are given +100 for signing up, and earn +1/day simply for logging in.
[/quote]


jbadams,

I understand the conscience aspect of this. How can we expect people to vote against their principles?

On the other hand, do you really want to yield to the pressures in the world, being as it is turning into "meritocracy" more each day, to systematically discourage personal generosity? The +100 for signing and +1 for logging is systematic whereas the +5 for following is more personal.

A strong leader who has the final say could agree with me and say that personal generosity will be encouraged here in the +5 for following a topic and long term members are being asked to consider it a matter of benevolence and not merit.

Whatever is decided will be supported by me, but I tried to elevate standards here.


Clinton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is a few points going to matter in the long term? Feel free to be generous.

I am very generous with the points I give out... but it's not generosity when I don't get to choose whether I give it or not.


On the other hand, do you really want to yield to the pressures in the world, being as it is turning into "meritocracy" more each day, to systematically discourage personal generosity? The +100 for signing and +1 for logging is systematic whereas the +5 for following is more personal.
A strong leader who has the final say could agree with me and say that personal generosity will be encouraged here in the +5 for following a topic and long term members are being asked to consider it a matter of benevolence and not merit.

Nothing is personal if I don't personally choose to give it.

I don't mind giving people +5. I give people +4 very frequently. It's not a matter of "deserving" - the points I give are frequent and offered as encouragement to people trying to be friendly and helpful (which is the whole point of the rating system). But I do not want to give +5 to encourage the OP of a thread when the OP is engaging in behavior that is counter-productive to the long-term health of the community.

The rating system is about users being able to decide (since algorithms and AI cannot) what attitudes and interactions benefits the community as a whole, and to present a psychological "thumbs up" thank-you to the posters that we feel strengthen the community.

When a rating feature is *broken* however, is when I don't get to decide who gets to be "thanked", and my name is attached to it. "Servant of the Lord followed your topic. +5". The GameDev.net system is sending "thank yous" with my name attached to it, to users who I am not thanking or encouraging.

I'm fine with users getting points for logging in. I wouldn't be fine with it saying, "Servant of the Lord thanks you for visiting GameDev.net. +1 point".
If every time I logged in, 10 random private messages were sent to people saying, "Servant of the Lord says thanks for being awesome!" - that may make the ten random people feel good, and it may seem personal, but it's be a flat out lie (I wasn't thanking anyone, and it wasn't personal), with my name attached to it.

I wish it *did* say, "Servant of the Lord upvoted your post. +3" when I upvote something, because that'd make my upvotes more personal (Instead it only shows a thread title without the name of the user who upvoted).
But I only want people to be benefited from me when I choose to have them benefited by me, and I certainly don't want my name attached to it if it wasn't sent by me explicitly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a rating feature is *broken* however, is when I don't get to decide who gets to be "thanked", and my name is attached to it. "Servant of the Lord followed your topic. +5". The GameDev.net system is sending "thank yous" with my name attached to it, to users who I am not thanking or encouraging.

QFE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When a rating feature is *broken* however, is when I don't get to decide who gets to be "thanked", and my name is attached to it. "Servant of the Lord followed your topic. +5". The GameDev.net system is sending "thank yous" with my name attached to it, to users who I am not thanking or encouraging.


I would like the keep the system and atmosphere positive as much as we can so that's why I err on the side of positive personal interactions with people. In my mind if you see "Michael Tanczos followed your topic" that just means.. well, that I followed your topic. Following a topic gets a fixed point value reward. Does following a topic equal thanking a person? Is it better if I take the name off the event? Or.. do you also think it's more common that members are getting points they shouldn't than members are getting points they deserve?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

do you also think it's more common that members are getting points they shouldn't

We've only had 32 members respond to the poll thus far, but the votes cast seem to suggest this is the case. "Keeping track of valuable topics" is the only listed reason where an OP would really deserve a rep boost for having their topic followed, and it's currently only the 5th most popular option out of 7 choices. It seems from the feedback people are posting that a lot of people are against giving these points when they don't mean to, and in some cases they're actually planning to stop using an otherwise useful site feature because of it.

I don't use the feature at all personally, favouring browser bookmarks and the "my content" page instead, but I originally would have assumed like you that it would usually be indicative of valuable or interesting content. Looking at the feedback we're getting however, it seems pretty clear that in the majority of instances that just isn't the case, and that there's some pretty strong feelings against giving undeserved points. I'm now in favour of removing the rep boost for a topic being followed.

Perhaps we could consider instead giving an extra boost if the original post of a topic reaches a certain threshold value of say +5, or +10?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Servant of the Lord' timestamp='1352956777' post='5001114']
When a rating feature is *broken* however, is when I don't get to decide who gets to be "thanked", and my name is attached to it. "Servant of the Lord followed your topic. +5". The GameDev.net system is sending "thank yous" with my name attached to it, to users who I am not thanking or encouraging.


I would like the keep the system and atmosphere positive as much as we can so that's why I err on the side of positive personal interactions with people. In my mind if you see "Michael Tanczos followed your topic" that just means.. well, that I followed your topic. Following a topic gets a fixed point value reward. Does following a topic equal thanking a person? [/quote]
Upvoting equals thanking, following does not equal thanking - but following gives upvotes, and upvotes equals thanking.
If it has my name attached, and you get points, then it implies that I gave those points. If you said, "Servant of the Lord followed your topic" but didn't give any points, it wouldn't be thanking, and wouldn't be a problem - even with my name attached. It's name attached + points attached together that means I explicitly thanked you. My name on its own just means I explicitly followed you.

I would be happy for explicit post upvotes to have my name attached (which it doesn't currently): "Servant of the Lord upvoted [your post]. +3". It'd make upvotes even more impactful psychologically and much more personal.

It's definitely not a big deal, and if the +5 is left as it is it won't be catastrophic. It's just been a (very minor) personal annoyance that I've noticed multiple times over the past several months that finally I had to comment on. Whether the system actually changes or not, I don't particularly care (I'm sure GameDev.net has more important things to work on) - just as long as I've voiced my opinion about it so the staff is aware of it and have the opportunity to fix it if they choose to (you can't address unvoiced complaints if you wanted to).

Is it better if I take the name off the event?[/quote]

I'm fine with the name if you add a checkbox when following giving me the option to back out of the +5.

58643833.png

I don't care if it's checked by default (and it probably should be checked by default since the average user doesn't bother rating). Maybe in your user control panel, have an option to check/uncheck it by default - but I wouldn't care either way, just as long as I can uncheck it when I need to manually follow.

Also, if I could explicitly uprate the OP +5 for a valuable thread, even after auto-following, that would be nice also. Sure, I could +3 the OP's post, but I'd forget to do that (and other users won't know they should do that) unless there was a "Mark thread as valuable" next to the "Follow this topic" button.

Or.. do you also think it's more common that members are getting points they shouldn't than members are getting points they deserve?[/quote]
Is this thread above-average in value compared to the rest of the site, that the OP should receive +5 for it? You gave him that +5.
The average value of threads on this forum is amazingly high. +5 points should go to above average.

Sometimes a user should get the +5, but in my personal usage, I follow threads that aren't yet valuable, but have the potential to later be. This one didn't meet that potential. He got +5 anyway. Threads that are already valuable, I usually post in, which auto-follows, which doesn't get the OP anything.

So I suppose it varies from how a user uses following. But why should auto-following be different? Maybe a user should get an automatic +5 for every 10 posts a thread receives. Non-lounge threads probably don't go much beyond 15 unless they are valuable and interesting (I'm guessing).
An OP should get +5 * ((postsInThread - 5) / 10). So +5 at 15 posts, another +5 at 25 posts, another +5 at 35 posts, and so on. Edited by Servant of the Lord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've only had 32 members respond to the poll thus far, but the votes cast seem to suggest this is the case.


Well in that poll 4 of the 7 choices are implications that there is something meaningful about the topic worth revisiting. That was the point of voting up the topic, to imply that the author created a thread that is somehow interesting or worthwhile. For a person to follow it even to reply later has meaning. You don't do that with threads you don't care about being involved with. Now if people used it more for moderation that would be totally different.

Also it's +3 now.. which is equal to one upvote (but isn't an upvote). The points count towards the "Author" category as well, which isn't based out of their knowledge of anything but their contributions to the community. By comparison, you can earn up to 150 points for writing articles vs 3 points for creating a post that gets followers.

I guess what we are looking for is implicit ways of rating vs purely explicit.. I know we have upvotes, but following with an upvote box available to me is the same as just simply upvoting the topic. Edited by Michael Tanczos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in that poll 4 of the 7 choices are implications that there is something meaningful about the topic worth revisiting. That was the point of voting up the topic, to imply that the author created a thread that is somehow interesting or worthwhile.

I think the issue though is that the "somehow interesting" is apparently often at odds with "worthwhile". Only 1 of the 7 choices specifically calls out the content in question as "valuable", and the fact that people want to keep track of topics for other reasons does not seem to be related to the value or interestingness of the topic. We've got people trying to use the feature to keep track of their own content, people using the feature for moderation (or amusement), and people wanting to continue participation in a conversation -- but not necessarily because the topic at hand is an interesting one; they might want to ensure they continue to reply because they think the OP is spreading misinformation that needs to be countered, or they might be interested in a tangent that arose out of a meaningless or boring topic.

Looking at the votes and responses, it looks to me like only in a small minority of cases does following a topic imply worthwhile content, and that most uses have no bearing what-so-ever on the value (or lack there-of) of the original post.

These are not the responses of users who want to imply that a topic is "interesting or worthwhile" when they follow it, and their responses seem to be typical of normal usage:

It's annoying that each time I "follow" a thread, the thread creator gets +5 points.
Very rarely when following a thread, does the OP deserve those +5.


[quote name='Servant of the Lord' timestamp='1352752633' post='5000315']
I don't want to implicitly rate people, only explicitly.

QFT.
I auto-follow every thread I post to, but still one needs to follow threads on occasion. In particular, I sometimes follow threads that I am worried will descend into flame wars, and in this case I definitely do not wish to give a rating boost.
[/quote]

But this just doesn't seem right. Following a topic is not equal to giving credits to a topic.

Had no idea following gave +rep.
I follow threads for all kinds of reasons, but it's rarely because its particularly valuable... If posts are valuable I +rep those.
I think I will have to stop using the explicit follow function for now, because +rep:ing when doing it is not my intention.


In general I also do not believe that following a thread means it's actually interesting by itself.

I auto-follow on reply, so the only threads I manually follow (and thus rating boost), are those that aren't actually interesting enough to warrant a reply.



I think we should at least take on board SoTL's suggestion of removing the user's name from the points, but to me it really looks like the majority of our community -- or at least those willing to speak up, and we've only had one objection -- would rather not give those points at all.

I think the reputation system is great, and that it's a fantastic way of helping to recognise and thank people for contributions -- but it won't hold that meaning if our community aren't happy with the fact that the points are being given, or disagree with the reasons behind it. Edited by jbadams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we should at least take on board SoTL's suggestion of removing the user's name from the points, but to me it really looks like the majority of our community -- or at least those willing to speak up, and we've only had one objection -- would rather not give those points at all.


Yeah I'm fine with that. Like I said, I'm just looking for implicit ways of rating someone as well. I will admit though that the original reasoning behind wanting implied voting was because the upvotes were not as prevalent and people weren't being recognized for their contributions. When we switched to the reddit-style upvote widget that changed quite a bit. I liked the idea of "following" originally because you can't really ask people to follow your post.. they have to want to and be interested enough to.

I am certainly open to modifications though.. but I want to make sure whatever we do is carefully thought out. And more importantly, at the end of the day I want to ensure that people are getting some type of recognition for contributions to the community. The rep system in it's current state is a start but we have a lot more we'll be doing in the hopefully near future. Edited by Michael Tanczos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know we have upvotes, but following with an upvote box available to me is the same as just simply upvoting the topic.

In my mind, there is a huge distinction between the overall contribution of a thread, and the contribution of the person who started the thread.

How many really interesting topics evolve out of an ass-hat OP? The majority of truly idiotic posts in the technical forums are quickly overwhelmed by intelligent, non-confrontational replies.

When you talk about up-voting a thread, I envision providing a small ratings boost to all participants, rather than the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many really interesting topics evolve out of an ass-hat OP? The majority of truly idiotic posts in the technical forums are quickly overwhelmed by intelligent, non-confrontational replies.

QFE. Some of the neatest things I learn from threads where the OP is some idiot/troll and receives a bajillion downvotes; however, our decent, brilliant members might be extolling some great wisdom in such a thread. If I were to follow a thread like this, it's not because the OP asked a great question or was a great participant, but because the rest of the community is so freaking awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='swiftcoder' timestamp='1353078862' post='5001552']
When you talk about up-voting a thread, I envision providing a small ratings boost to all participants, rather than the OP.

[/quote]

That's an interesting take on things. I can agree that we've had some pretty awesome discourse come out of some crap posts. (and believe me I'm playing a ton of devil's advocate in these replies I write) Do you think we should also assume the OP is an ass-hat in not awarding the points?

Unlike the auto-follow attached to replies, I think hitting that button on the topic takes a much more deliberate thought process. But I guess I'm trying to attach some meaning to it. I think it's *good* when you follow a reply in that it's almost like putting a little emphasis * on it. If 30 people were to follow one topic, I would think there was something special about it.

Here are some top followed replies.. VERY few posts get more than two followers. We have 637 posts with more than 2 followers, 2,294 with exactly 2 followers, and 10,862 with 1 follower.

Top 5:
http://www.gamedev.n...cture-question/
http://www.gamedev.n...windows-8metro/
http://www.gamedev.n...s-constitution/
http://www.gamedev.n...t-based-entity/ Edited by Michael Tanczos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='swiftcoder' timestamp='1353078862' post='5001552']
How many really interesting topics evolve out of an ass-hat OP? The majority of truly idiotic posts in the technical forums are quickly overwhelmed by intelligent, non-confrontational replies.

QFE. Some of the neatest things I learn from threads where the OP is some idiot/troll and receives a bajillion downvotes; however, our decent, brilliant members might be extolling some great wisdom in such a thread. If I were to follow a thread like this, it's not because the OP asked a great question or was a great participant, but because the rest of the community is so freaking awesome.
[/quote]

Exactly why we can conclude that the vast majority of threads which get an initial +5 for following are worth it, based on merit, and the few others should be considered as part of the risk of being kind hearted. "Inocent until proven guilty", so how about considering a thread worthy until time and posts show otherwise, besides the gesture of a benevolent staff added to this?


Clinton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement