New York City Metro Coalition
New York City Metro Coalition (many organizations, see profile)
See Below For:Who We Are:Purpose, Mission and Goals:Initiatives:Leadership:About our Icon:Who We Are: We are a Coalition of metropolitan New York region networks and organizations whose missions and goals are similar to those of WiserEarth.org and the vision of Paul Hawken and his associates. ...learn more
GROUP DETAILS
Created: Apr 01, 2008
Updated: Aug 27, 2009
Membership: Open To Apply
Semi-Private
Recognize Users contributions / review content +6
Problem Statement:
1. How do we showcase the best content in WiserEarth that could provide value for community members?
2. How can we compliment and recognize good contributions by community members and encourage further contributions?
Suggestion:
1. The content review system will do this. It should encourage wiserearthlings to also post high-quality content, or at least to make thoughtful content additions, beneficial edits, make effort to produce helpful/informative comments, and encourage collaboration in and between groups.. Overall, to encourage contributions that will enrich content, interaction, relationship and collaboration.
2.The user compliment/recognition/reputation system will do this. It will signal engagement and reputation of passionate and committed community members. It will also encourage new wiserearthlings to provide valuable contributions to the community.
Original Post:
One thing I believe WE is under leveraging is the ‘star’ system where people are recognized / rewarded for participation. In WiserEarth’s world that would be something like +2 points for creating content and +1 point for editing content. It’s a bit narcissistic and not something I really go in for but it’s clear that it works on other sites.
Some ways to recognize user contributions:
- Colored stars for status – novice, intermediate, expert, jedi!
- Auto intro to editor status after number of edits
- Auto invite to key WE gatherings
- Most active contributor roll – and their content/profile on the WiserEarth homepage
- Suggestions / Requests to administrator are lent more weight
Some ways it benefits WE:
- Signals engagement and reputation on platform – more likely to trust an Expert or Jedi
- Encourages greater participation from the user
- Focuses WE programming
Emerging Ideas for recognizing user contributions and rating content for WE:
Summary: We promise to recommend to you relevant and high quality content, we will use the tool of content rating and user recognition, the bargain is you have to contribute for it to work.
- Reviewing content, Recognizing Users, and Providing Value to users through recommendations all inter-relate - we probably can't do one without the others.
- Reviewing content is distinct from recognizing people related entities. We should review: Resources, Organizations, Wikipages, Discussions, Events and Jobs.
- We should not review people (not sure about groups). They will be rewarded instead. - An emerging standard seems to exist (Amazon.com / Netflix) for content oriented sites: five stars, comments, rating of comments (helpful vs not-helpful), simple initial info with more detail a click through - we might want to adopt something close as users are familiar with UI.
- Badges are a great way to recognize users (Amazon 'Top reviewer', Yelp 'Elite', Ebay Star Levels) most are gained automatically through various metrics measuring contribution, some are applied for. Ebay uses an aggregate number for contributions but translating the number into a level is probably more powerful since it will be more easliy comprehended - e.g. is 3,000 good, 10,000? We may want to have a way of removing badges for bad actions that violation spirit of WiserEarth Principles and the Community Guidelines, or through long periods of inaction / dormancy on the platform.
- Allowing users to comment but not have to review as a default probably makes sense. To encourage reviewing we need a 'Review / Comment' Action in the right hand column - suggest that review require a comment which appends at the bottom of the page like any other comment. Presumably you can review content only once per person but be allowed to change that review / number of stars as the content evolves (better or worse).
- Reviewing comments themselves as 'helpful' vs. 'not-helpful' (and flag) seems to be standard but on WE we may want to take a more positive approach (such as Yelp) and have a 'Compliment Button' with optional comment field for rewarding good contributions. The same button could feature on a user profile. Compliments could generate in-mail to notify user. A variety of compliment buttons might be considered specific to our community.
- Limiting compliment quotas based on simple specific # allowed per person, per period would assure that power users don't have too much say and the compliment currency isn't debased. Alternative you could grant a certain # of compliments to bestow based on X number of contributions a user makes (a la ned) but this would concentrate reward giving with the power user community which seems a bit anti-commuity. Suggest we set a high quota of compliments allowed to be bestowed per month per person to limit power user bias a little (20 might make a nice number?)
- Icons showing contributions by type on the user profile might be useful - #s of comments, # of ratings, # of new content, # of connections made, # of peer reviews etc. With click throughs to lists.
- The power of ranking / rewards system will only be recognized if it pervades the WE UI and provides a tangible benefit to users. Profile sections, Top Lists (top rated, most recent, most discussed, and most viewed etc), and recommending content based on user browser hostory (e.g People Who Viewed This Also Viewed) etc are needed to make the whole thing work.
Ideas for Implementation (Phases)
Phase #1
User Recognition: Use 'all activity' option from user profile to provide total contribution number - laying the ground work for Top user badges. We may want to weight some contributions higher in value than others. For example successfully recruiting a new user seems a more valuable than making a comment. For transparency and simplicity sake though we probably should go with the raw 'all activity' number.
Content Rating: Provide 5 star rating for content (Resources, Wikipages, Discussions, Events and Jobs), one rating per person per content (no rating of people, or groups?), rating can be changed anytime. High limit of total ratings allowed per person per time period (60 per months?).
WE UI Improvements:
Allow Rating as an icon in Action box to right of page
Better display total contribution number on profile - along with other stats breaking that number down
Showing ratings on content: Average rating and Number of Ratings
Show highest rated content on homepage
Allow browse and advance search by rating level
Phase #2
User Recognition: Calculate badge awardees based on total contribution number (rolling tally over one year period calculated monthly, sticky for three month period if you drop out). Grant an absolute number of badges - Top 1, Top 10, and Top 50 for now. Grant Top 100, 250 and 500 badges when the user base expands to 25-50K,
Content Rating: None?
WE UI Improvements:
Phase #3
User Recognition: Yelp like 'Compliments' can be granted by any user to any other user by pressing a button on user tagged content such as a comments. Alternatively you can grant a compliment straight from the user profile. Compliments are categorized "e.g. Great idea, Great collaborator, Good networker etc" come with an open field for comments. Down the road these compliments become a way for the community to surface particular skill sets useful for the movement.
Content Rating: None?
WE UI Improvements:
Total number of compliments shows up in user profile
Total number of compliments show up next to user name wherever that shows.
Most complimented roll call per period on WE Homepage
Compliments generate an in-mail to person complimented with link back to content
Sample rewards / recognitions approaches
Below is data gathered from different websites on various examples of rewards / recognition approaches:
1. YELP
2. eBay
3. ned
4. Amazon.com
5. Netflix
6. .......
_________________________________________________________
Site Name: YELP
Site Address: www.yelp.com
Sample Profile: Walker S
Type of reward / recognition:
Profile lists the total number of reviews (contributions) they have made, the number of "fans" they have, photos they've uploaded, total events submitted, etc...also lists "Compliment buttons", Useful/ Funny/ Cool ratings for all reviews. Red 'elite' badge.
Purpose of reward / recognition:
To reward users who take the time to contribute to the site and write quality reviews, to send compliments, quickly give feedback (anonymously), help users identify those who are particularly useful/funny/cool, to flirt
How it works:
The profile displays the type of contributions a user made on yelp with mini-icons. Also, users can click on one of these buttons on the bottom of each Yelp review to provide feedback: Useful | Funny | Cool. On the top of every member's profile page, the number of useful/funny/cool votes they have received is also listed, along with the number of reviews and contacts they have. You could also go to a profile page and send a "compliment button" (Thank You, Hot Stuff, Write More, Great Lists, Cute Pic, Just a Note, You're Cool, You're Funny, Good Writer, Like Your Profile, Great Photo) that will appear on their page. The most active users can apply to become Elite (see '07 Elite' badge in top right hand corner of profile). This is granted for acombination of: lots of reviews, profiles that really sing, real picture for profile, real name, personal pizazz.
Implications for WE:
Reward and recognize comments, users, and organizations or events in a very simple and effective way. WiserEarth could think about other "compliment buttons" that are more relevant to the site. I don't think WiserEarth would need too many... We should make this process transparent. It'd be useful to see right away how many new orgs/resources/events/jobs someone has added to WiserEarth.
_________________________________________________________
Site Name: EBAY
Site Address: www.ebay.com
Sample Profile: Standard User / Power User
Type of reward / recognition:
Feedback stars are awarded to eBay members for achieving 10 or more Feedback points. Feedback stars are displayed next to the member’s User ID and the total lifetime number of feedback points collected and a ten-level star icon (details in the "How it works" section. The example below is the third-from-top-level star icon).
A more complex Feedback profile can be reach by clicking on the user’s feedback number. For the regular user this shows: a tally of positive, neutral, and negative feedback against 1 month, six months and 12 month time periods, and actual comments tabbed by source type (seller or buyer).
For the power user the Feedback profile shows: Lifetime # of Positive and Negative feedback comments, Feedback aggregate score, % of positive feedback, and then details 1-5 star average rating results for four criteria: Item as described, Communication, Shipping time, Shipping and handling charges. It also shows specific feedback comments from most recent backwards.
Purpose of reward / recognition:
To provide a quality signal - comments and ratings are aggregated into a valuable indicator of personal reputation as a buyer or seller on eBay
How it works:
Feedback stars are awarded to eBay members for achieving 10 or more Feedback points. Feedback stars are displayed next to the member’s User ID. Here's the details on how the feedback works. In brief:
Members receive:
+1 point for each positive comment and rating
0 points for each neutral comment and rating.
-1 point for each negative comment and rating.
Here's what the different stars mean:
Implications for WE:
Simple and intuitive system that quickly tells a user how experienced a user is base on a lifetime number. Perhaps lifetime contribution of the user is the most valuable indicator than most active during a recent period of time. However, I also like the simple Feedback profile of a standard user which shows feedback comment tallies against different time periods, and aggregated comments by source type.
_________________________________________________________
Site Name: ned
"Ned.com is a global, all-volunteer, member-governed, online social network (in combination with real-world locations) that is made up of social entrepreneurs, activists, artists, social purpose enterprises, grassroots nonprofit, non-governmental, and community-based organizations, and is collaborating and taking action locally, nationally & globally, in order to make the world a better place."
Site Address: www.ned.com/home/
Sample Profile: Mark Grimes (also a WiserEarth community member @ markgrimes)
Type of reward / recognition:
Profile list the number and types of positive(+) / negative(-) feedbacks received and given. The feedback system not only applies to users, but also to other entities (workspace/wikipages, discussions, comments, groups).
Purpose of reward / recognition:
In general:
- By giving positive feedback, members can "bubble up" items of interest to the rest of the community.
- Conversely, by giving negative feedback, members can reduce the prominence of things on ned.com.
- If the feedback score of a topic, comment or workspace turns significantly negative (is much less than zero), the item runs the risk of becoming suppressed (still available but requiring an extra click to access) to anyone on ned.com.
- If the feedback score of a member is pushed significantly lower than zero, that member will lose privileges on ned.com
How it works:
You can change the feedback score of anything on ned.com by assigning it points from your feedback bank. Anywhere you see a "+|-" link, you can give feedback by clicking on the appropriate link (either "+" for positive or "-" for negative) to give feedback. The total feedback score is displayed beside the username in all pages, comments. etc. See here for the details of how the feedback system work.
The feedback bank is interesting and seems to encourage active involvement in discussions, editing, etc. Here's a short explanation of it:
|
When you join ned.com, you start with a feedback bank of 10 points. Your feedback bank can be given away, one point at a time, as either positive feedback or negative feedback to any member, workspace, comment or discussion.
As you use ned.com, your feedback bank will increase, based on how you use ned.com, and what you do. You basically get more "credit" in your feedback bank the more you contribute. If you simply "lurk," which means you don't ever post a comment or start a discussion, etc., your feedback bank will grow far more slowly. If you are an active discussion participant, and you contribute to a group's workspace, your feedback bank will grow more quickly. In fact, even the act of giving feedback will help your feedback bank grow. If someone gives you positive feedback, your score will increase by one and your feedback bank will increase by one-half. |
suggestion.
Note: the tagging system looks interesting and something that can add to the ongoing discussion on implementing tagging here in WiserEarth. In ned.com, tagging applies to people too! Click here for more about their tagging system. And there's also a section on listing "popular" items, voted through the same feedback system. Check it out >>
ned is based on open source software open-gon (might be a fork from Plone) using Ruby on rails so some of the code might be accessible for WE adoption / adaptation.
Implications for WE:
ned.com's feedback system seems simple and intuitive enough (weighted + or -) and applicable across entities (people, comments, groups, pages, etc.), which is something that should prove attractive for WiserEarth. Combined with the "compliments buttons" (for user/people) from Yelp and the "star icons" indicating "lifetime rating" from eBay, we may have something quite suited for WiserEarth.
_________________________________________________________
Site Name: Amazon.com
Amazon.com started as an on-line bookstore, but soon diversified to product lines of VHS, DVD, music CDs, MP3 format, computer software, video games, electronics, apparel, furniture, food, toys, etc. Amazon has established separate websites in Canada, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, China, and Japan.
Site Address: www.amazon.com
Sample Profile: Content: Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing Without Organizations by Clay Shirky
Personal: Robert Steele
Type of reward / recognition:
Average Customer Review based on average on all reviews using a five point scale with the number of reviews along side.
Users can earn the following badges: Top reviewer (various levels #1, Top 10, Top 50, Top 500, Top 1000), Real Name (confirmed that you are who you are), The (Confirmed that the person making comment is the celebrity whose name this is), and Community Forum 04 (participated in a key forum).
Purpose of reward / recognition:
- Five Star ranking provides user-generated feedback on the quality of a product. Presumably rankings feeds into product purchase recommendations made to individual users by Amazon
- Badge recognizes and incentivizes user comments
How it works:
Any user can create a comment and rank a product – as many as they like but only one per product. Each comment can then be ranked by users by using helpful / not helpful buttons and separately through an open text box. Comments ranked ‘most helpful favorable’ and ‘most helpful critical’ rise to the top of the comment page for a given product. A histogram of all comments is easily accessible by clicking on the average customer review.
According to Amazon: “You can earn badges by creating good content on Amazon.com. Some badges may be temporary, like Top 10 Reviewer. Other badges, like the Real Name badge, you earn once and get to keep as long as you use your Real Name.” The user page profile aggregates a user name, photo, badges, latest reviews, latest purchases (with rss), location, and rank number amongst all reviewers
Implications for WE:
- Very intuitive and easy to understand system. Reward is easily comprehended and comments system taps into user enthusiasm (or passionate dislike) of a product.
- Amazon’s system helps users make purchase decisions and encourages honest feedback about products. This is quite distinct from a social system like WE where users would feel more circumspect about providing negative reviews to another community member / org / group etc.
- Most survey expects dislike three and five point scales because people often chose the middle point simply not to offend. Their preference is for a four point scale where people are forced to choose on either side of neutral. An alternative is simply to make the ranking optional by having a no ranking option and then the star choices to the side. Netflix has this kind of system. I do think we should allow users to make verbal comments without making a ranking – if they so choose – but that they are encouraged to make a ranking by default.
- Comment on products are themselves subject to ranking based on 'helpful' 'not helpful' buttons. In WE this might be equivalent to a Yelp compliment button.
- Amazon makes a distinction between its ranking system for products and Users. Products get a simple average ranking while users have a Top reviewer badge. WE probably wants to make the same distinction between content review (orgs, groups, AOFs, resources, jobs, events, wikipages), and user rewards (i.e. people). But I dont think given WE content focus that we can have user rewards without content ranking. So I suggest we fold this suggestion into another: Recommendations, Ranking, and Comments on content
- The user profile page shows dynamic content based on activity of user. We might want to show most highly ranked content created by user, and most high regarded comments by user as part of the WE profile.
__________________________________________________________________
Site Name: Netflix
Site Address: www.netflix.com
Sample Profile: Content: Mansfield Park User: Zephyr
Type of reward / recognition:
Unlike other sites we have reviewed so far the seem to be few community wide recognition/reward mechanisms. There is a reviewer ranking but it is not prominently displayed or used on the site. Films are ranked with a five point system.
Purpose of reward / recognition:
The key reward for users are that rating helps discover films you will like, and reviewing/sharing watched list lets you express yourself to your friends who may want to know what you are watching.
How it works:
When a user joins the site they are actively encouraged to rate a large number of movies to establish a set of preferences for content. The film initially shows with red stars the average ranking of all users on Netflix. Then you can either rate the film from 1-5 stars, say you are not interested in rating (No symbol - as in No Smoking), or clear the review. Once ranked the stars shown are yellow and the average user ranking displays as small numbers below (see example of Mansfield Park above). Based on your ratings you are recommended specific films. Similar to Amazon.com users can rate reviews using a simple 'helpful' 'not-helpful' system.
Users can create profiles for public view and share their rankings and reviews with friends and through Netflix's matching (X% similar to you) with a wider audience of like minded people.
Implications for WE:
- Netflix rating model appears to loosely follow that of Amazon.com - five star rating, reviews, rating of reviews (helpful/not-helpful). Perhaps WE should simply adopt what appears to be something of a standard UI - at least it will be intuitive for many users.
- The power of recommendation - other users sourcing together the best films (content) for each other would seem to have a powerful analogue for WE. How can we make it easier for like-minded people to find each other and each other's favorite content. Presumably we need so sort of system that makes recommendations based initially on user defined portions of the profile and over time their browsing history on WE. See these related suggestions: People Who Viewed This Also Viewed.. and 'Who should I know and connect to' tool ________________________________________________________________________________________
Comments (1 - 20 of 57)
|
|
Good point, Bowo. I think I've just subconsciously considered that before. Sometimes a comment summarizes well the previous comments. Hence, if you can easily read the top-rated comments first, it is likely you can quickly get an idea for the best/most-relevant remarks concerning the article (was that a tautology?). Anyway, I just think it would be a nice option to have. Plus it might encourage people to summarize once in a while where needed.
PS: I believe the same rating system as is suggested for articles should be used for comments: thumbs up/down. Here's what I think of user statistics regarding this: "anybody curious about the record of a user should be able to check out the comments that user made in the past (via that user's page) and see how those comments were rated (if at all) by others. I'd even recommend that there be a statistic on the user's page (in Activity Reports, perhaps) that shows the average rating of all the user's comments (in the same 5-star system as for articles and comments) as well as the total number of the user's comments and the total number of times these comments were rated by others." |
|
|
Comment rating would work to some extent I think. It's working well on Slashdot threaded comment system for example, also on Amazon's customer review section.
Not sure we can find much use of sorting comments based on ratings though, as comments usually happen in a context and a flow of a discussion (unlike Amazon's product review). Taking it outside of that context and flow would pretty much render the comment--however high ratings it receives--not quite understandable.
Another good way to make use of comment rating would be to showcase the ratings on the users profile. e.g. Have made x number of 'interesting' comments, y number of 'insightful' comment, z number of 'helpful' comments, etc. That is if we can find a good and useful comment rating system. |
|
|
Hi Michael,
Yes, I can see your point concerning my-so-called "idea-rating system". That is probably not the best way to describe what I mean, actually. What I most directly mean is just a way to rate articles and comments. We already have that for articles, but not comments yet. Along with a way to sort based on rating, this will allow for what the people on WiserEarth think are the most important/relevant articles or comments to be viewed first. You could view this as a democratic process for articles and comments, or as an information management system to make most prominent the best-thought-of content.
I don't think that the people on WiserEarth would use this system to try to castigate or repress alternative but relevant viewpoints. But I do think it would, additionally, give some feedback to the people writing them. |
|
Oo I like the recent comments on here.
What I like about recognizing user contributions (on a user's profile), is that it helps a new user immediately get a sense of what the community is about (I think this is true for sites like Yelp or Amazon). As for WiserEarth, in my opinion, if someone were to visit the profile of a highly active user such as... Janine, the visitor would have little sense of how she has contributed to the WE community. They might confuse the site with yet another social networking site... as her profile would include the typical features... a bio, "groups" she is a member of, and her network of WE connections. They might never see what lurks behind "Activity Reports" or learn that the "People" page includes statistics of user contributions.
So..I think there is a NEED to more strongly distinguish the WiserEarth profile from other websites, and to better convey the purpose of WE through the profile and the user's site-wide activity.
@sicjedi "Am I an "Untouchable", a "Freshmen", or a "Level 3 Jedi"? Who cares?" - Hahaha point taken.
"Haphazardly introducing competitive incentives into non-competitive contexts can create problems and may cause a schism within the community." - Great quote. The issue is finding a user-recognition system that is super-relevant and appropriate for WiserEarth. I am optimistic that there is one. Perhaps it'd be a much more simple system than the one we are used to on other sites. Or perhaps WE has to flesh out the other features of the site first. I agree with you, simplicity is important to keep in mind, and that it'd be challenging figuring out a system that does not discourage or alienate others.
On WE, there are currently categories like "Editor" and "Administrator", but perhaps in the future there can be more? Perhaps there can be a way to simply symbolize these roles or the volume of contributions someone is making? These are tough questions...I think that this is a suggestion that might take a long time to figure out completely. As you explain, it'll have to be in line with WE's spirit.
I would be hesitant adopting a idea rating system though. I think such a system is more appropriate for a news or politics site, which naturally fosters debate. WiserEarth is more of a discussion site, and I think rating ideas has the potential to discourage and offend people. In the process of discussion, people often change their minds and learn new things ... so my concern for an idea rating system, is that if people were to rate ideas (especially opposing ones) they might judge too quickly, or react to negative feedback too strongly, and close themselves off from a constructive discussion. |
|
@sicjedi: There are lots of problems with 'rating' people which is why we didn't do it right off the bat with the existing five star rating system. The question is as you say - is there a need (yes/no) for recognizing people (as contributors) rather than their specific contributions (a wikipage for example)- and if so how do we do it. Looking forward to continuing the dialog as this comes up.
|
|
|
@angusparker: As that link reports, "each designed model of participation and reputation embodies its own set of biases and incentive structures..." And on this page, "Haphazardly introducing competitive incentives into non-competitive contexts can create problems and may cause a schism within the community." Another page states that "a sizable portion of your community won't want to be identified with frivolous, insulting or just goofy-sounding labels..." There are additional problems. For example, "Amazon's #1 Reviewer and her phenomenal (unbelievable?) review rate that averages seven books a day in an apparent effort to stay at the top of the reviewer leaderboards..."
I'd also like to say that some people's ideas are not popular, but not for any good reason. To illustrate, take a person who was against racism in the Deep South in the 1950s. Many geniuses, in fact, are not understood properly by most people. I'd hate to see a user-rating system that would have the effect of permanently discouraging these people from making their contributions.
In short, if there is not a specific NEED that you must address (such as in Ebay's situation), it does not seem wise to attempt to categorize or rate users in a public way: it is a dangerous thing to do. All "contribution-recognition" systems, while perhaps encouraging to some, will be discouraging to others by the same token. Who exactly are you alienating? Why? Is that consistent with the goals and methods of WiserEarth?
That being said, with the idea-rating system I describe below, anybody curious about the record of a user should be able to check out the comments that user made in the past (via that user's page) and see how those comments were rated (if at all) by others. I'd even recommend that there be a statistic on the user's page (in Activity Reports, perhaps) that shows the average rating of all the user's comments (in the same 5-star system as for articles and comments) as well as the total number of the user's comments and the total number of times these comments were rated by others. This should solve the problem of determining, for some, who to trust.
Sound cool? Let's hook it up! :) |
|
|
There is a great resource on how to show reputation online - its key to motivating people and helping people find others to collaborate with. See here.
@sicjedi: While for some it's enough to contribute (me for example!) there are many who want to be, and legitimately should be, properly recognized for their contributions. Plus it helps members sort out who is a serious contributor to the community and this should be trusted versus say a spammer. |
|
|
Let's tackle the two main questions, one by one.
How do we showcase the best content in WiserEarth that could provide value for community members?
This, of course, involves the rating system. As Sheri wrote, "simplicity and elegance" are well-established design principles. Let's not confuse people and put them off with a complex rating system. The WE site is complex enough without adding in something unintuitive.
Here's a simple suggestion, which was commented about recently.
Now, to tackle the question directly, showcase the best content by sorting based on rating: by the average positive vote percentage, the highest average first. Using the average, instead of total number of positive votes, allows the highest quality content items to rise to the top.
(A sort based on total number of positive votes discriminates based upon when the content item was created. For example, imagine a content item created ten years ago that always provokes a vote but only 10% of the people actually vote thumbs up. Such a content item, although overwhelmingly bad, would be almost always showcased, as it would be very difficult for other, especially new, content items to overcome its total number of positive votes.)
Note that content should also include comments; each comment should be able to be rated. Further, comments should be able to be sorted based on rating. Thus, you could read the most valuable comments first--according the the votes of the WE users. This will further showcase the best, most-relevant content in WiserEarth.
How can we reward and acknowledge good contributions by community members and encourage further contributions?
I have no problem with publicly available statistics on user pages, but to give official badges, points, compliments and such is really not in the spirit of WE, as I understand it. Again, you want to rate ideas, not people. A new user's comment can be just as valuable as somebody who comments all the time. Classifying people is just not a good idea (and can be manipulative and open to tricking). Am I an "Untouchable", a "Freshmen", or a "Level 3 Jedi"? Who cares? The issue is what is the content and quality of what I wrote in each instance.
Having the knowledge that I have contributed to WiserEarth should be enough. But to answer the question head-on, making a positive comment about a valued contribution is both direct, normal, and human. Let's just stick with that. |
|
A very valuable discussion, and useful collection of what is out there now. Thanks for that folks.
|
|
@ Angus: Agreed, I think the Owl is a great symbol and a good way to commend expert contributions.
|
|
|
@ Ian: Great points. Having a set number of points / qualitative compliments to give out gives them some value - also we could have a 'use it or lose it' time period before they expire to encourage people to come on the site. My main concern and reason for limiting points per person per time period is to not over emphasize the opinions of power users on the site - but in some way this really may not be much of an issue since a single user could only have one active rating per record and we really want as many ratings across the site as possible.
As for more qualitative compliments I think that is a great idea - we could create a series of categories - funked up owl logos - it would be fun to determine what awards we want to bestow as a community. One that I am keen on seeing is a 'wise or expert owl' award for making a particularly expert contribution. Using these awards the community can help identify and thank the thought leaders. But I can imagine multiple awards types. Perhaps this should be its own suggestion / discussion thread. We could even highlight it on the homepage and ask for modified owl icons and vote on them! Could be a lot of fun. |
|
|
Sounds like the discussion has pretty much reached the point of consensus before I read this, but Slashdot has a really nice points based system, called Karma. Each registered user is allotted the same number of points per week, and they can "spend" them on rating the comments of other users.
They can be "+1 informative" "-1 flamebait" and the like. These points effect a user's overall Karma, but what is being judged by the community of editors is the comment itself, so it avoids directly judging a person (which is impolite, I think).
Also, for more qualitative awards, Wikipedia has a really nice nonhierarchical encouragement system, where anyone can add a "barnstar" to a persons profile. The stars relate to what type of contributions that person has made:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BARNSTAR
Examples are "The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar" and "The Tireless Contributor Barnstar." It is simple, but allows a diversity of contributions to be recognized, without creating any tensions about one contribution being more valuable than the other.
I don't think the two systems are mutually exclusive either. You could have the quantitative Karma points, then special awards for particular acheivements.
Really good to hear so much thought go into this, I look forward to seing how it pans out in development.
@Everyone:
|
|
|
Take a look here
Nice way of graphically showing a user’s contribution and their reputation. I could see:
Compliments Made Compliments Received Connections Made – this is key to the site’s effectiveness and something we need to encourage more, these can be passively made connections….i.e. when new content is developed Edits Made
Anything else? |
|
|
@JTHESSERT: Thanks for your comments. As an Editor (i.e. member of the WE community not paid or part of NCI) let me lend you my thoughts and reflect back on what I think I'm hearing from you:
1) Rewards
I think the word can be misinterpreted to mean some form of financial compensation. This is not intended to be the idea. The WE community basically operates on the 'put something in / take something out'. No one is likely to pay for contributions - nor should we set-up that expectation which could not be met in any case. The rewards are recognition for a person's contributions. This is precisely the way how most sites - commercial and non-commercial operate. Perhaps we should rephrase with 'Compliments and Recognition' - I think that does better
2) Ratings
I think, but I'm not sure, that you are suggesting that somehow NCI is going to censor content using ratings. Am I completely misunderstanding your point? Perhaps! Anyway, the point of ratings is that anyone who is a registered user can rate any content (only once - it's not vote often and early like in Chicago!). No one user has any more power than any other. What's great about this approach is that all WiserEarthlings help each other surface great content that should be highlighted and brought to the attention of the community. To make sure that power users don't unbalance the system we have talked in this wiki of limiting the total number of ratings (and compliments) anyone one user can make in a month.
3) Governance
More generally you raise the issue of ownership / governance of Wiserearth. This is indeed a difficult issue for any new community. In my work with networks I have seen it take numerous years to get a well functioning system up and running. I know that NCI is very keen to see an orderly transition over to community ownership - at the same time, like you yourself said, they have developed a great tool and are responsive to suggestions. I would bring up these concerns in another forum on WiserEarth - its a much bigger subject than this specific suggestion.
Hope that helps and thank you for the compliments! |
|
This comment was removed by a WiserEarth editor for the following reason:
This comment was removed for violating WiserEarth's community guidelines. Please be polite and civil in your discussions with others. Use of defamatory language is inappropriate and harmful toward building a community. |
|
@ Angus
Thanks, Angus, for exploring what content on our the site would merit a rating system. I have a feeling people will eventually want to rate organizations, or leave testimonials in some way. In some mockups we had done previously with the organization profile, we had allotted room for such a rating system, and it's good thing you brought this up and reminded me that we had considered this before.
I could definitely see the application of ratings for discussion threads and wikipages, since those are very information heavy, whereas a resource page might be quite spartan and simply be a website link. Jobs not so much, since it's difficult to rate a job unless you've either done it before, and most people would looking at our job listings to search for one, rather than to help promote it within the community. Perhaps we may try rolling this out first for our discussions, since it is long overdue that we overhaul our forums and make it a much more advanced and robust space.
|
|
|
I just wouldn't want it to get to the point where NCI feels they can indirectly censure an individual, or hide a group on an individual's profile or anything like that.
We certainly wouldn't want it to go that far. Indirect Censorship. We would hope NCI would have the integrity to simply send a polite direct request using the "send message" tool .... if they had any concerns/ requests.
That would be the right thing to do. That would be consistent with the values of the community. That would be communicating effectively.
Or maybe NCI thinks they can decide what is WISER and what is not?
Do they feel they can make this decision because they are the "loci of power", because they have power?
If you write a book, make a speech, develop a website about an idea -- does that give you power to define / limit the growth of the idea? (even if the defining/ limiting is a direct contradiction to the idea's central theme/core?)? Does it give you power to abuse truth? To manipulate values/ ideals? To indirectly censure? To treat/communicate with those not in the 'loci of power' with a condescending / snobby tone/ manner?
I promise you that I don't need -- and will not need -- anyone in Sausalito California (or anywhere else) to tell me what is right and what is wrong.
And I am sure most everyone on WiserEarth would agree. |
|
|
First, I am not nearly as computer tech savvy - at the moment - as the majority of contributors here, so thanks in advance for your patience (thus my comments come with appropriate humility)...
So this is a "layman"s perspective...
And I love the wiserearth site, find it to be truly educational, an awesome resource! Thanks NCI!
And I might be feeling the temptation of the dark side... of is it the force telling me to be truthful in the face of superficiality? = In other words I am fully aware this comment might not win a wiserpopularity contest but I kind of feel it needs to be said ( I am not trying to be rude: though this might seem like venting... I believe the comment is wrote with the questioning/ critical spirit that NCI/wiserearth markets/ advertises eloquently in several mediums...):
Check out:
http://www.wiserearth.org/resource/view/77eb5dc2698468bf40533f14334a6f82
JPMS wrote: " At some point NCI might even consider offering some of these some sort of compensation for their commitment to the community"
My thought is :
Forget about compensation! Who cares who edits 4 million times ( though that is certainly a valuable contribution...)?
How about NCI remembers their purpose! (qouted from the NCI site) : We believe that we are moving from a world that is created by the privileged, to a world created by community. This change in the loci of power calls for a new system of awareness, support, communication, and collaboration. That is WISER’s purpose.
There also are some qoutes in this group about rewards for solutions?... Solutions for some fix on this website???
Or solutions for a fix in the real world??
I checked out some of Dbells comments in the Hypercar Group and felt like screaming at someone -- in POWER -- to coordinate with him to make the appropriate networking/ connections necessary to bring that vision to fruition...
If that kind of thing happens (creative ideas with real-world applications are born here on this site...), and someone employed from NCI / Wiserearth can't lift a metaphorical finger to give more than a two-line reply??
How does that reflect on what is being advertised here? What is that supposed to make someone who has no background in the social/environmental justice non profit world think?
Why should someone bother to contribute to a community networking website that is run by an organization where person X does not seem to make an effort to honor the values / purpose being advertised?
Why should anyone care if they get a jedi mark for 4000 edits? Or if they get x amount of money for x edits?
How about good idea Y gets support and gets put into action!
Does it really matter how good / tech-enhanced the website is... if ....
the whole thing is fake and talk -- like much of the world -- it kind of undermines what everyone on this site is supposedly working toward right??
If it comes down to it -- and you get a shot at honoring the words you advertise, you get a chance at honoring the values of the community, you get a chance at networking an idea into reality that could transform the world into a just and sustainable world created by community -- and you can't even lift a finger???????????????????????????????
Kind of makes the layman -- from his layman's perspective -- 'arch a metaphorical eyebrow'.
Not trying to be a difficult/ or a jerk, I will let you all go back to your discussion about jedi marks.
But just remember about the real world -- that is what the purpose of the website is: to facilitate change in the real world right?? (I didn't write the purpose/ mission of NCI; I don't take ownership/responsibility for the diction/ syntax/ language used).
Words mean nothing if they don't get backed up with actions!? Right?!?
I would hope NCI/ wiserearth would be pleased that someone would hold them accountable in, what I hope, was just a slip??!
Because if this kind of thing goes further and we dont nip it in the bud now: non profits like NCI basically take a role that is analogous to the governments they criticize; check out that linked article again!
Maybe its all about power? Maybe its fake? Maybe the existence of the website is a subtle way to absorb power and influence?
Can you prove it isn't?
Can you prove the purpose of your organization will be honored in a "moment of truth"?
Will you try to make me into a Darth Vader for questioning?
Am I Luke Skywalker standing up to the Empire?
Are you slaying the evils of the government... just to see your own face look back out at you from beneath their helmet?
Am I Darth Vader?
Or am I Luke, begging Darth Vader to remember who he was... before the Dark Side swallowed him...?
I don't want to have to reach for my lightsaber (shakes head). Too much is at stake. But if it comes down to it -- for the republic -- I will do what must be done.
peace
|
|
|
@ Honore: Your question is a great one to ask: "I'm curious what our users would find compelling to rate (orgs, jobs, resources, etc). Possibly resources, I think."
For me personally I would be keen to rate most everything. For sure the very content heavy entities so perhaps in this order: Solutions (not yet existing), Resources, Wikipages (imagine, we could do away with our +1 in the titles in Suggestions for a start!), Discussions, Events and Jobs. It's becuase if the community rates stuff, I can rely on the wisdom of the crowd in deciding what is worth looking at. It will also help me browse content and select content for a group. It also gives me a sense of purpose in being part of the community - I am doing work and helping others by rating and bringing attention to stuff I care about. In fact, I see rating as essential for efficiently filtering content for our community.
Then the question becomes wich of the people related entities do we rate? Those being Organizations, Groups and People.
People: To my mind rating People is off-limits - it just isn't constructive.
Groups: Rating Groups also seems unnecessary - first because its a collection of people and who wants to be part of a group that is low rated - and second because it would encourage group admins to create private groups and hide away from the wider WE community. Also, the content of a group can be rated - so you can see with a brief glance of the home tab how much high rated content (and high rewarded users) are part of a group. Organizations: So, the final question is do we rate organizations? On that point I would lean towards 'no'. Again WE is in part a directory of organizations and we want people connected with them to update their listings, also many users have affiliations with these organizations as employees, board members etc.
My question back to everyone is might we consider 'compliment' rewards for organizations and groups? |
There's an interesting idea by Gary of Transition Network who were involved in UK's online version of open university for a long time.
"A ‘summary’ message, is an ordinary message, indicated in some fashion, such as a different coloured border. It’s use (purely social, no attempt to enforce it through software controls) is to summarise recent messages. Thus users wishing to get an overall sense of the thread can scroll through, looking for the summaries. At the head of a thread should be a ‘show summaries’ button, changing to ‘show all’ when pressed. When pressed, all messages that aren’t summaries should be greyed out to make summaries stand out clearly.
Still an idea at the moment, more at Gary's Software Spec (also read the comments).