Rank by Contribution

Discussion and suggestions regarding the site and/or forum.

Moderator: Forum Moderator

Post Reply

Which version is better?

Poll ended at Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:53 pm

Version 1
2
29%
Version 2
4
57%
Leave ranks to the posts!
1
14%
 
Total votes: 7

User avatar
Sobuno
Developer
Posts: 2589
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 2:17 am
Contact:

Rank by Contribution

Post by Sobuno » Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:53 pm

So, as some other developer said at some point in the past (Think it was Slyvampy), we've talked about making people get rank by resource contribution:

Version 1:
  • Every week sometime during the night at some specific weekday, your contribution points will be calculated
    These contribution points would replace your post count (Which means you would have no idea how many posts you've made)
    Next week you would then have a completely different post count (Could have risen or fallen depending on your activity)
Pro:
You can see how active a person is

Version 2:
  • Every 14th day sometime during the night at some specific weekday, your contribution points will be calculated
    These contribution points would add on top of your current points
    Next week you would then have a higher post count/more points
Pro:
You can see how much you actually contributed to the site in the past, even if you already stopped playing


Because we don't want to mess too much with the internal workings of the forum, each and every post would still grant 1 point


Post count won't be generated for SWGCraft Parser though (As it would get very many points each week + it would require extra work :P)


Poll will run for 31 days (I do not have much more development time before then)
Last edited by Sobuno on Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Zimoon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4817
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 6:55 am
Location: Stockholm, SE
Contact:

Post by Zimoon » Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:25 am

Actually I think Trokk came up with a decent mix of points for contribute to the resource database.

It rewarded active contributors. Points were added immediately, but I do not know when the "start-over" happens. I would like to see that sliding, having for example a 2 or 3 week window and a daily cron job adjusting for what's fallen to old.

Keep the forum separate from the resource contribution. The two are simply not comparable. I know a few heavy posters at SWGCraft.com that have not contributed a single resource over the last years. Some of them not even constructive posts but chat :P

Chat is nice in its own way, constructive posts in another fashion. But do we need to reward people for the difference? If so, how? Grading of posts, as we have seen on other forums? To me it simply doesn't matter, I am self confident in myself 8)

Again, thanks for the great job you guys do.

User avatar
Sobuno
Developer
Posts: 2589
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 2:17 am
Contact:

Post by Sobuno » Wed Jul 04, 2007 11:53 am

Zimoon wrote:Actually I think Trokk came up with a decent mix of points for contribute to the resource database.

It rewarded active contributors. Points were added immediately, but I do not know when the "start-over" happens. I would like to see that sliding, having for example a 2 or 3 week window and a daily cron job adjusting for what's fallen to old.

Keep the forum separate from the resource contribution. The two are simply not comparable. I know a few heavy posters at SWGCraft.com that have not contributed a single resource over the last years. Some of them not even constructive posts but chat :P

Chat is nice in its own way, constructive posts in another fashion. But do we need to reward people for the difference? If so, how? Grading of posts, as we have seen on other forums? To me it simply doesn't matter, I am self confident in myself 8)

Again, thanks for the great job you guys do.
We do have the resource contributors page up and running (For some time now I might add), and it counts points for actions done within the last two weeks (Just as SWGCraft.com does)

http://www.swgcraft.co.uk/dev/resource_ ... 0&planet=0

User avatar
Zimoon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4817
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 6:55 am
Location: Stockholm, SE
Contact:

Post by Zimoon » Wed Jul 04, 2007 2:43 pm

Impressive!! :D

So, then the poll is only about number of posts on the forum. Hmmm :)

User avatar
Cerceuil
Forum Moderator
Posts: 89
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 12:27 am
Location: behind you...

Post by Cerceuil » Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:45 pm

Me...Ive never given one iota of thought to either number of posts or forum rank. A persons "stature" in a community, if one cares to put thought into it, will be determined by the people in community itself. Most of the people ive run across that actually care about post counts and forum ranks tend to post drivel or over post things just so they can reach some arbitrary rank.

you see it at the official forums often enough with register dates...then theres teh number of posts. I dont view person A's posts any different than persons B's posts regardless of their join date or post count. what matters to me is what you post.

whichever you guys choose to do is fine with me, though...
Image

Rackle
Apprentice Crafter
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:15 pm
Location: Baltimore, MD

Post by Rackle » Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:36 pm

doing it by number of posts gives people a reason to post crap.

I like rank by time as member.
Image

User avatar
Zimoon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4817
Joined: Mon May 14, 2007 6:55 am
Location: Stockholm, SE
Contact:

Post by Zimoon » Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:27 pm

Rackle wrote:doing it by number of posts gives people a reason to post crap.

I like rank by time as member.
Or both, as the former SWG/SOE forum did, less weight for number of posts and higher weight for months as member.

Personally I give a glance to number of posts only when I see a reply from somebody I haven't noticed before, but normally that never makes me think differently as I am a content-rules guy.

At any forum, the old SWGCraft included, there were guys with outlandishly many posts that always gave half replies and often, though not complete answers, they were partly incorrect. Beat that 8) Others were just nonsense (instantly recognized) and could be ignored from that. Yet others were/are great, thorough replies that also included replies to the inevitable follow-up questions.

There will also always be some guys with a modest number of posts being great contributors when they hit the submit button.

However, having a very low number of posts while still being an oldie giving great responses, is that worse than humongous posts of low or no quality from another oldie? The permutations of the involved factors are quite many, but ...

Whatever style you guys choose, rank could never really reflect the truth since content cannot really be measured objectively by machines.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests