A New Approach to Determining Members to Recognize for Forum Contributions

[MichaelCorfman]

We first began recognizing members each month for contributing to the forums back in August of 2006. Since that time we have always done it the same way. We've looked at the number of posts made by members and also at the overall number of characters in their posts, and determined which members were the most active on that basis.

About a month and a half ago I said we would look at how to update the approach we use to recognize members in the following post:

This thread covers a number of topics, but one of them is the process for how we determine who to recognize as top contributors to the forum each month.

Currently we use a rather simplistic formula that is based on the number of posts made and the total length of all posts. The current approach does not take into account newly written content versus quotes of previous posts with small additions. Nor does it take into account the recognition by other members of the value of a post to them in the form of a thanks.

We will take a look at how to improve the process we currently use to recognize top contributors to the forum. Although this will probably take a little bit of time, since right now are engineering staff is backlogged with projects so is not immediately available until sometime after the ICE show.

Beginning with today's recognition of members for their participation in the forums in February, we are using a new approach. This new approach considers four different factors:

1. The total number of posts made is still an important factor, but it is now less important than it has been in the past.
2. The total size of all of the posts also remains an important factor, although also less important than before. And now we exclude tags and quoted material included within posts in determining their total size.
3. An important newly added factor is the quality of the posts that are made. We now estimate quality by looking at the number of thanks a member's posts receive and how that compares with the typical number of thanks the average post receives.
4. Finally, another important new factor is how many members thank a member over the course of a month for the posts they have made.

No method is ever going to be perfect, but I believe the new approach we are using starting this month much more accurately measures the overall quality and value of member contributions.

As you will see when I make the monthly recognition post shortly, TheGooner takes the top spot for the month of February. That only seems fitting to me. He is an active contributor to the forum and his posts are typically well thought out, detailed, and receive many thanks from our members.

Michael

[Scampi]

Using Thanks is the best metric, but you've only changed it because of one person, you should have just banned them. On another note, I'd prefer to see Likes rather than Thanks.

[TravG]

Like you said, there is no perfect way to calculate this, but one group who may get lost is members who contribute by asking questions (which this is my #1 place to ask how to questions) may not get many thanks, but still do contribute.

I am glad however you gave us the metrics you will be using as I will be more diligent in giving members "Thanks" who deserve it.

Also agree that "likes" may be more fitting if that were an option.

[Buddy M]

There are two key points that I really Like:

Point 1. Great idea to stop allowing quoted content and tags to count.
Point 2. Considering the thanks a particular post receives is probably the best indicator of how important the post is. I like it Mike.

As far as like vs thanks goes… There a lot of comments I like for various reasons, but thanking someone who wrote the post in my opinion is more valuable, because it indicates that the one who wrote the post, in some way actually helped the person who thanked him, so I would be for keeping "thanks."

[ocreditor]

Thanks Michael, Like the new approach, I believe it'll be much more beneficial for everyone

[PlayHunter]

There are two key points that I really Like:

Point 1. Great idea to stop allowing quoted content and tags to count.
Point 2. Considering the thanks a particular post receives is probably the best indicator of how important the post is. I like it Mike.

As far as like vs thanks goes… There a lot of comments I like for various reasons, but thanking someone who wrote the post in my opinion is more valuable, because it indicates that the one who wrote the post, in some way actually helped the person who thanked him, so I would be for keeping "thanks."

+1 Buddy M, I'm too with keeping "Thanks" vs changing it to "Like" ! Or we could go Facebook like and have all sorts of buttons to react to a post (joking) !

[marlies]

sounds like a good approach and should reward quality over quantity

[Roulette Zeitung]

"An important newly added factor is the quality of the posts that are made. We now estimate quality by looking at the number of thanks a member's posts receive and how that compares with the typical number of thanks the average post receives."

This is a fallacy in my opinion, and I can substantiate my claim.

Controversial topics will be thrown under the bus with that, because especially here in this industry controversial posts receives much less thanks than uncritical love, peace and harmony posts and brownnoser posts.

This generates not more quality posts but less real high quality post. If one writes a 3 word brownnoser post and receives 10 thanks he has more quality than a real high quality post, that will be read by many people but not thanked by many because it's too revealing?

One example: Sweetbet, who writes short but crispy, will not receive thanks when he writes news about Bitcoin in the Bitcoin threads, when this news are not so good for Bitcoin. Does that mean, his news do not have the same quality than good news for Bitcoin?

Hello?!

Another example: With high probability more than 80% of all members agree with the AffPwer/Income Access Case and other Income Access incidents public here, but will they give thanks to the content? Very rarely, because - understandable - they want not to support that openly because of different reasons, which I understand.

Does that mean, that all this revelations, supported by the silent majority, do not have quality because they will not receive so much thanks?

When Hillary Clinton writes Tweets which are complete nonsense, insane and lies but receives hundreds of likes, does this mean, she is writing quality?

I can tell you the real factor for quality, but then everyone is yelling: "Oh Leopold, you are only looking for your own advantage.".

No, I tried to be always a model for others in my life, and here on GPWA I was fighting for quality since the start of my membership and I want so hear that voice, that will say, that I do not deliver quality.

I will tell you something: In a forum there are two factors, that are really matters for quality, and it happens not by accident, that Google also is using this two factors for ranking (= quality):

Unique content (the same with Google)
and post/thread views (= clicks on the SERPs)

Leopold

[universal4]

Like you said, there is no perfect way to calculate this, but one group who may get lost is members who contribute by asking questions (which this is my #1 place to ask how to questions) may not get many thanks, but still do contribute.

Travis, we will always try to take into account those who ask questions, as it is the questions that often stimulate the best discussions.

The factors that Michael laid out in his post are the criteria that helps come up with the list itself, but we are also discussing additional criteria to look at and ways we can better tweak the list.

There a lot of comments I like for various reasons, but thanking someone who wrote the post in my opinion is more valuable, because it indicates that the one who wrote the post, in some way actually helped the person who thanked him, so I would be for keeping "thanks."

I tend to agree with this also Buddy, as I also think the "Thanks" is more appropriate and does show more appreciation to the member making the post.

Leopold I disagree that we will just toss the controversial posts, or those that are critical of ANY group, affiliate program, operator or property, providing the posts are "on Topic" in the thread they are contained, do not contain any personal attacks, flames or "digs" or attempts at generating responses from other parties that would lead to such.


Rick
Universal4

[PROFRBcom]

TheGooner takes the top spot for the month of February. That only seems fitting to me. He is an active contributor to the forum and his posts are typically well thought out, detailed, and receive many thanks from our members.

Here here! Gooner is one of the posters I first came to respect on GPWA. He, and posters like him who share their wisdom and knowledge with the community, is one of the main reasons I joined this forum years ago.

Kudos to GPWA staff for finally making some changes to the "best poster" system which was clearly being abused for nefarious purposes. I hope that the forum didn't suffer too much "brain drain" from guys getting pissed and leaving. I definitely noticed more traffic on AGD over the last few months and I suspected it was because of the goings on in the forums here...

[wonderpunter]

Not sure that "thanks" is a good idea, If I post a picture of a dancing squirrel I might get a whole ton of thanks, and of course there are some good quality threads as stated which go against the grain and would not receive a thanks due to it's unpopularity yet it creates a sensational buzz

[wjacob6]

I am glad however you gave us the metrics you will be using as I will be more diligent in giving members "Thanks" who deserve it.

[Progger]

In the end it is nice to see that,my vote weeks ago - has achieved something.

And what is with the "Recognition for Affiliate Program Manager" the same system,same rules ?
If yes, i would bet we never see Lapa and 1x on the list again...

Regards

[allaboutthebets]

Not sure that "thanks" is a good idea, If I post a picture of a dancing squirrel I might get a whole ton of thanks, and of course there are some good quality threads as stated which go against the grain and would not receive a thanks due to it's unpopularity yet it creates a sensational buzz

Where can I see a picture of this dancing squirrel 🤣

[MichaelCorfman]

And what is with the "Recognition for Affiliate Program Manager" the same system,same rules ?

Yes, the same system and rules are also being used for recognizing the contributions of Affiliate Program Managers.

Michael

[TheGooner]

You can call the button "Thanks / Like / Acknowledge" anything you want - I simply use it to acknowledge a useful view or thought provoking view - sometimes even when I don't like what the view is. I treat it as "thanks" for the post.

On the other hand we do have some bots out there (you know who you are) that automatically Thank their few friends for each and every post no matter how inane the post is. It appears that a "them and us" line has been drawn - and all pro-bot people thank each other profusely for any post.

EG. The first few anti-bitcoin posts were interesting, but when the poster starts a thread and goes increasingly "wacky wombat on it" then they are a dribbling diatribe / confused conspiracy and not worthy - apart to the bot of course - that runs through thanking it's mentor and only it's mentor.

No system will work 100% correctly, there is always going to have to be a bit of human interaction - but I think it would be silly to ignore an important signal such as the "Thanks / Like / Acknowledge" button - as it is usually a good indication. It's certainly a lot better than just looking at number of posts or the number of words involved.

Generally though, I've agreed with the 95% of the people appearing on the lists (both old and new) if perhaps not the order, so I don't really think the old system was too broken and it probably just needed a bit of human moderation. I'm sure the new system will be fine too - just keep the human involved in the final choice.

And finally .. may I present ... the dancing squirrel ...

[matthewt]

Could you assure bonus portals that they will be given a fair shot at being recognized? Like a simple statement somewhere?

[MichaelCorfman]

Could you assure bonus portals that they will be given a fair shot at being recognized? Like a simple statement somewhere?

I'm not sure what you mean. At least the topic of this thread is recognizing members for their contributions to the forum, which has nothing to do with portals.

Michael

[universal4]

Now see I really just HAD to thank Paul for the squirrel....ok ok what he said was thoughtful too....LOL

And Matthew, it has ZERO to do with what kind of portal you have, it has to do with the value your thoughts and posts add to the discussion.

Rick
Universal4

[matthewt]

I meant webmasters who have bonus portals in their signature or Homepage link.

Anyways, this works: "And Matthew, it has ZERO to do with what kind of portal you have, it has to do with the value your thoughts and posts add to the discussion."

Thank you!