Forum Rank Change Proposal

[Cory_K]

I dont think only logins is a good idea, because it is easy to logon/logoff repeatedly to boost that very quickly.

I dont think only length of membership is a good idea, because as mention before, what if someone joins 10 years ago, posts twice, then never shows up on the forums again?

My recommendation would be maybe a combination of the above 2? 

I think the names are fine, those represent the metric well.

[JackDunaway]

In response to Cory K: 

It seems like the "participation metrics" have thus far been simple bulk counts: How many this, how long that. For the last bar, don't simply use account age or total number of logons - take a ratio! Logons per month is a MUCH more accurate metric than either two individually.

Consequently, you cannot use JUST a cumulative ratio - a user who just signed up a week ago and has checked the forums three times a day for a response to his "Pressing Question!!!" would have signed on 21 times, or about 84 logons/month. This is by no means a Veteran, compared to the Real Gurus who logon one time at the beginning of the day and never log off!

The logons/month idea would automatically derate versus time if the user did not continue to participate. Alternatively, only take the last 1 year of data into account... a user who posted avidly 5 years ago... but who has been neither seen nor heard of since then... would be derated to 0 logons/month after a year of inactivity.

[Ben]

---

mechelecengr wrote:

In response to Cory K: 

It seems like the "participation metrics" have thus far been simple bulk counts: How many this, how long that. For the last bar, don't simply use account age or total number of logons - take a ratio! Logons per month is a MUCH more accurate metric than either two individually.

Consequently, you cannot use JUST a cumulative ratio - a user who just signed up a week ago and has checked the forums three times a day for a response to his "Pressing Question!!!" would have signed on 21 times, or about 84 logons/month. This is by no means a Veteran, compared to the Real Gurus who logon one time at the beginning of the day and never log off!

The logons/month idea would automatically derate versus time if the user did not continue to participate. Alternatively, only take the last 1 year of data into account... a user who posted avidly 5 years ago... but who has been neither seen nor heard of since then... would be derated to 0 logons/month after a year of inactivity.

---

As someone who will never see fifty again I have to ask, "If one of our most active contributors is called home to met their maker, SHOULD their ranking decline to nothing?" I look back at Greg McKaskle's (who to the best of my knowledge is still with us but not active on the forum) posting and still find them useful. His current lack of participation does not make his previous efforts less valuable.

I'd like to the that bar implemented as a maximum. Contributors can work to increase but it never decays.

Ben

[Laura F.]

I'm not certain about the feasibility of a ratio of multiple metrics in any of the categories.  We will consider this as we work out the details.  I definitely like the sentiment but do agree that it should not decay. If the answer to your question was posted 3 years ago by a person that is no longer visits often, it does not decrease the value of that person's contribution.  You should still be able to tell that the forum member had many valuable contributions when they were active.

Thanks,

Laura

[JackDunaway]

---

Ben wrote:

As someone who will never see fifty again I have to ask, "If one of our most active contributors is called home to met their maker, SHOULD their ranking decline to nothing?"

---

Absolutely not, excellent point. Once you reach a certain point, that should never decline - a taddle-tale needle. In an attempt to find a solution for the "Veteran" who made one post 8 years ago, I discredited the greatest contributors.

[Ray.R]

I used to contribute often to the forum... Now I just casually visit.  Over the last year, that would have made me a rookie.

Glad that we're not having a declining rating.

What's the problem with the number of posts versus # logins/etc?  Let's keep it simple.  If 2 bars are better, then so be it.

Message Edited by Ray.R on 08-13-2009 01:08 PM

[muks]

I accept that too. A vetran can be misleading at times

[Coq_Rouge]

Why is tagging important at all. The basic idea of tagging is good. But as in any forums tagging is somewhat "abused" so most of the tags do not have any value. That is my opinion.

[Ben]

---

Coq Rouge wrote:
Why is tagging important at all. The basic idea of tagging is good. But as in any forums tagging is somewhat "abused" so most of the tags do not have any value. That is my opinion.

---

I agree that individual tags have little value. The taging system is only as good as we make it. When I do my tagging I attempt to cross link new tags with exisiting ones. I use thses tags frequently to find threads using a hierarchial approach. Let me try to show you how to use my tags to do the same thing.

I start with my profile here and click on the "View All".

 

Which shows my Tag Cloud. I can then click on LabVIEW.

Which take me to all ot the tagged message that used the word "LabVIEW" as shown below.

 

Next I will click on "LabVIEW_Performance".

Note:

The number of times a tag has been used determines the boldness of the link. The term "VI" has been used as a tag 49 times (C) while the word "Nugget" has been used 34 times (B).

that takes me here and again I click view all.

 which takes me here.

 

Now you could say that "Ben, I can do that by just searching!" My reply is, the serach engine is leveraging off the tags that we put there!

The above is just one path through the LabVIEW Tree of Knowledge. With time there will be more branches with even more fruit.

That is about the best I can do for making a case for tags.

Ben

[tsunami]

I am not sure of your system although I have perused your FORUMS over the past year & 1/2.  I have made a number of posts & have gathered from the responses that many are more versed in NI way of making things work vs others.  I am an outsider from academia but my impressions were that much of the responses to my postings came from a narrow group of individudals which I assumed were NI employees in trainiing.  This made sense to me since those who could solve problems over emails are those who you want to eventually pay top dollar to solve critical field problems.

If I am getting feedback from simple users of NI instead of employees I AM ABSOLUTELY IMPRESSED because I have gotten very informative help instead of insulting comments which are prevalent in many other FORUMs.  Either you guys police the FORUM well or U have very professional enthusiast!!!!!!!!!!!!!!d

Keep it working but don't make the rankings a PRIORITY!!!!!!!!