Our forums are currently in maintenance mode and the ability to post is disabled. We will be back up and running as soon as possible. Thanks for your patience!

General discussion


First revised thread display mock-up

By Jay Garmon Contributor ·
This link will take you to sMoRTy71's first mock-up of our revised top-level thread display.

The major new feature here is the rating meter. We've been developing a community member "quarterback rating tool" for lack of a better term. It tracks certain key data points in community, weights them, a derives a score. The rating would use a 30-day rolling track of these stats, so being on top wouldn't mean you can rest on your laurels to stay on top.

This is our first stab a creating a more useful member rating system than TechPoints. We may as well get into that debate now.


This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Some sample scores

by Jay Garmon Contributor In reply to First revised thread disp ...

The tool is still pretty rough, but here's a sample of some notable scores I ran last week.

Maxwell Edison: 188
EdLockett: 80 9
ozi Eagle 50
TheChas 233
CG IT 139
sgt_schultz 318
GuruOfDos 0
HAL9000 229
Oz Media 533
BFilmFan 691
James Linn 100 541
statykserver 363
willcomp 277
ReWrite 232
Garion11 114 53

The system values Tech Q&A activity over discussion activity, which is why some of our heaviest posters may have scored low, and some quiet Q&A helpers scored high.


Collapse -

Wow, now THAT'S WHACK!

by Oz_Media In reply to Some sample scores

Hey Jay, I know you explained how the participation level works, but Max scored WAY below me and he has been offering his help here for years longer than I with a points score way above my own, Colin (Hal9000) is a hardware GURU in comparisson to myself (I usually email Colin my own problems when stuck) and I know he is pretty active in Q&A.

Are you sure the results are reasonable? I scored in the top three and only hold an MCNE and know nothing in comparisson to most of these guys. While I'm somewhat flattered at the results, I still must be honest enough to question them.


Collapse -

Corporate Philosopy Rating System

by willcomp In reply to Some sample scores

Kind of a "what have you done for us lately" rating system. The merit is that it rewards those most "effective" over a given time frame.

Hopefully, these ratings over whatever period you choose will not reward question askers more than question answerers which now seems to be the case.

And I certainly have no idea how I and some others came out on top of TheChas.


Collapse -

Me to

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Corporate Philosopy Ratin ...

As almost every question that I place an answer to has already been visited by Chas and he has left a perfectly acceptable answer, which from my reading sounds correct.

It hardly makes it worth the effort in answering anything particularly when you see The Chas comments rejected for what appears no good reason and quite often no reason at all given.


Collapse -


by BFilmFan In reply to Corporate Philosopy Ratin ...

A lot of times I search the database for issues and see what some of the rest of you folks suggested to resolve issues. 99% of the time, I don't have to search any further.

About the only time I am in first is when it is an Active Directory freaky question. I am beginning to think that should be my nickname here "Freaky AD Question Guy."

Collapse -

Mock up and ratings

by TheChas In reply to First revised thread disp ...

The mock up page looks great.
I love the better navigation buttons.

With the improved graphics and images, how is the page load time for our members on dial-up?

As to the ratings, I see a problem if your criteria is activity. One could theoretically get high scores from posting gibberish.

For starters, you should throw out activity in the "off-topic" threads when ranking individual activity. That way, the activity rating would be of more value to those looking to judge the merit of a posted opinion.

Compare Max and myself. Even though my rating is higher because of my activity level in the T Q&A section, I would trust an answer from Max over my own. Also, Max has a much better writing style than I have.

My point is that it would take a serious amount of data mining and number crunching to make any ranking system have true meaning and merit.

Sure, it was a real "kick" to break into the top 5 T Q&A points earned.
Still, I know that I got there mainly from persistence and spending a lot more time on the site than I really should.

I guess I would like to know what the goals are for your ranking system.


Collapse -

Goals of ranking system

by sMoRTy71 In reply to Mock up and ratings

While the algorithm still needs to be tweaked (as most have suggested), the goal behind the meter is qualification of our members.

While it shouldn't be the only metric that readers of the boards take into consideration, we think that (when we get it right) this will be used along with other data points like the "member since" date, the "Interests" and "Technology Supported" sections of the profile page, etc. to let readers know more about the person posting.

One of the things we have heard from members who read the boards a lot (but don't post) is that they feel like they don't know enough to post.

We're hoping that things like "Interests," "Technology Supported" and some sort of activity/status meter will help those non-posting members see that not everyone who posts in our boards is a guru and that there input is valuable to the community.

Collapse -

Q&A Suggestion

by maxwell edison In reply to First revised thread disp ...

(duplicate post - but I should have put it here in the first place.)

Okay, it seems that we're on a Q&A tangent; there have been a couple of discussions started recently about it; and, I suppose, I've been spending a little more time in the Q&A, and I'm noticing some things.

Rating and recognizing the members answering the questions, however they're rated, is great (and open to further discussion). But I've thought for a long time that you should also rate the people ASKING the questions - the acceptance rate, either by total answers accepted/rejected or questions with any answers accepted.

If, for example, a person has received 100 answere to various questions, and only one (or none) were accepted, that person would score very low, only 1 (or zero) percent. On the other hand, if that same person would have accepted all of them, he would be rated at 100 percent. So somehow rate the person asking the question.

Using ebay as an example, both the buyers and the sellers have ratings as well as buyer/seller comments that can be reviewed. If a person asks a question that might take a little time and/or research to answer, I think we need to know if that person is prone, based on past history, to reject most or all answers.

I'll bet a dollar to dirt that the following guy will reject ALL answers provided to this question:

His previous questions (some, not all):

Out of those 4 question, 5 answers were provided, and all of them were rejected. And in my opinion, they could have - or should have - ALL been accepted. They were perfectly acceptable answers.

This guy would probably have an "answer accepted" rating of around 10 percent or less. Some people would be zero percent. Contrast that with my "answer accepted" rating, which might be 99 percent. (The only answers I've ever rejected were from a guy or two that really pissed me off.)

Moreover, you might want to rate a member according to the points awarded. Again, in my case, I'll bet I've given away over 200,000 points. And many other people are generous with their points as well.

In short, recognize a members:

1. Contribution Factor (like you do now).
2. Generosity Factor (points given away).
3. Appreciation Factor (percentage of accepted/rejected)

Collapse -

Funny you should mention that

by sMoRTy71 In reply to Q&A Suggestion

Jay and I were just discussing that very topic this morning. We are definitely going to look at the activity of the person who asked the question.

In addition to the things you mentioned, we also discussed factoring in how many questions they leave open longer than 30 days.

Thanks for the good suggestions,

Collapse -

What also would be a good idea

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to Funny you should mention ...

Is as Maxwell pointed out elsewhere those who post far too many questions and then either answer them themselves or have the same person constantly answering them.

Some of these seem to only remain open for a few minutes and appear nothing more than a points gathering exercise for those involved.

Incidental how did I get a higher ratting than Max as that is obviously incorrect I suspose you only took one days figures into account to get a basic view on things for the project.


Related Discussions

Related Forums