My opinion on changes to Contest layout
-
I don't really like the whole
n * v = t
change. Makes a bit more disorienting as they all seem to run together. If you want us to see the amount earned Do the earning amount instead with a note in the title
ex. Article table
Contribution (25pts)
25
50
...
4 Star Vote (4pts)
8
12
...
5 Star Vote (5pts)
35
10
...
Just doesn't look clean as is now.
Again this is my opinion.
-
Agree we need to change things a little.
Personally I'd like to see the moderate items (articles, FAQs, Case Studies, scripts) get much more weighting than posting. Posting is too easy to "fakes", but we'll take this under advisement.
Love to hear other suggestions.
Steve Jones
-
I agree with Antares about the new layout, I'm not a big fan of showing the formulas. As far as the weighting of each item, I can understand how it might be easy to fake out by creating multiple posts, but up to this point we've not had such a case, and it would be fairly easy to catch. Also, even if we just adjusted the values, that would mean someone trying to cheat would just end up posting more of the same garbage.
K. Brian Kelley
http://www.truthsolutions.com/
Author: Start to Finish Guide to SQL Server Performance Monitoring
http://www.netimpress.com/shop/product.asp?ProductID=NI-SQL1
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley -
I agree if the issue is bad posts and posting to articles that are extremely old then their are better ways to deal with it thasn just changing the weight. Of course this means legitimate posters would pay for the sins of others and like Brian states it would mean the abusers would just increase the amount of posts them make, making a real mess of the forms. However adjusting after caring for the possiblities could make things more iteresting for those who post a lot to the forums anyway as they have to consider what happens when a real good article comes out. But then does a real good article have as much bering on the sites overall impact as the forums. There are lots of arguements for both sides here.
Of course you could do what ExpertExchange has done and have users with points devise a question they need answer, set a point value and whoever answers to their needs is awarded the points. Still however ways to cheat that and it doesn't mean another posters option was as valuable or that they might jsut award to the first one along when the next one is a much better solution. My problem there is that it then discurages posting comments the moment points are awarded.
And then look at code guru. They do it based on voting for forum feedback like we do with FAQs, Scripts and Articles. This too could be interesting and is probably the least likely to have much cheating in there. But then again votes are subjective and the user asking the question may vote great for the first solution that comes along and not even consider later posts since the vote is theirs not all users. And then all users may just ignore anyway like I am sure happens with FAQs, Scripts and Articles on this site.
Overall, the potentially for cheating is essentially high and methods should be looked at to make sure someone doesn't come in during really good prizes and just run up the forums posts with "X" in all but a few. But anything done as a preventative should be considered thoroughly as not to push users away and to keep the quality of the site as high as possible.
Ok this got long but I dislike cheating and try to make sure all my posts have legitimate bering, delete duplicate inccidents (the ones where the internet seems to have stopped and you press submit again), edit posts where the moment I finish I realize I forgot something, refrain from very old threads, and try to keep my chatter on topics within topics or of an individual nature to a minimum.
Maybe a group thread should be started to explore ideas and suggestions with this major concern, since we all know 100s of 1000s of heads are better than 5 or so.
(oops there I go ranting again)
-
If a change needs to be made in points how about this: the winners from one month can't win the next month? Seems pretty simple enough. Finish in the top three and you take a prize home. Next month, you're ineligible.
I don't post and write to win prizes, so it doesn't bother me too much who does. But I'm sure there is some discouragement among new members because the "regulars" are constantly posting (especially since they are often asked directly for advice), which only makes sense since every forum site needs its gurus and it's these gurus who make the difference. I don't think anyone would complain terribly if a no two-month in a row rule were in effect. Most radio stations that do prizes have a 30 or 60 day rule.
Another thing that can be done is if someone is a moderator over a forum, that person is ineligible for prizes, as part of a moderator's responsibility is to post and try and solicit help when no one has. I discussed this briefly with Brian when prizes started, but it wasn't a big concern then. While I know there aren't a lot of different moderators, that might help as well.
K. Brian Kelley
http://www.truthsolutions.com/
Author: Start to Finish Guide to SQL Server Performance Monitoring
http://www.netimpress.com/shop/product.asp?ProductID=NI-SQL1
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley -
That is a good solution as well. I know I post a lot and some would say I have the biggest grip because I have the most to gain. But I don't really do it for the prizes (they are a plus). I do it becuase I love a challenge and helping others. However making inelegible for two months in a row will not prevent potential abuse during really good months, so even if applied it may not be the entire solution.
-
quote:
Agree we need to change things a little.Personally I'd like to see the moderate items (articles, FAQs, Case Studies, scripts) get much more weighting than posting. Posting is too easy to "fakes", but we'll take this under advisement.
Love to hear other suggestions.
Why not just randomly pick a member and give your prizes out? Then everyone has an equal chance. I just found this site and really like it a lot. Not sure if it was from google or what. Having all the forums available to READ without a signon would be helpful in increasing exposure. Make folks signin onlyif they want to respond.
I've probably learned 3 new things since Dec 3rd just reading all the q's and a's.
I'd like to see the site owners take a more active role in identifying and answer FAQs either in the FAQ section or through articles.
To me, I get the feeling it's being used to cull material for the next book.
¢¢
-
quote:
I'd like to see the site owners take a more active role in identifying and answer FAQs either in the FAQ section or through articles.I don't follow this one at all. Brian, Andy, and Steve post in the forums all the time helping out with questions. Andy's article is up for today (Dec 11) and Steve has another article coming later in the week.
K. Brian Kelley
http://www.truthsolutions.com/
Author: Start to Finish Guide to SQL Server Performance Monitoring
http://www.netimpress.com/shop/product.asp?ProductID=NI-SQL1
K. Brian Kelley
@kbriankelley -
quote:
Why not just randomly pick a member and give your prizes out? Then everyone has an equal chance. I just found this site and really like it a lot. Not sure if it was from google or what. Having all the forums available to READ without a signon would be helpful in increasing exposure. Make folks signin onlyif they want to respond.You don't have to logon you view, unless this a recent change.
quote:
I've probably learned 3 new things since Dec 3rd just reading all the q's and a's.I learn new things all the time from Q and A that is generally the case.
quote:
I'd like to see the site owners take a more active role in identifying and answer FAQs either in the FAQ section or through articles.To me, I get the feeling it's being used to cull material for the next book.
They are constantly putting out articles. This really is a user group more than anything so it requires everyones input in every manner possible.
Note: I noticed the page is back the way it was with what I suggested, thanks I can read it again.
-
Well, let me get a few words in on this interesting topic!
When Brian Knight first proposed the contest based on points my initial concern was that we'd junk up the forums with a lot of 'me too' posts. All in all, has been far from the case and it has increased our visibility. I don't post for points either, so I'll admit to not seeing changes/problems from that point of view - but that doesnt mean Im not open to discussion on it.
I like the idea of random giveaways for books and stuff - in addition to some targeted contests. Nice to have a chance to just win, nice to be able to work at it and compete. I think the point that users with less free time or knowledge are out of the running is worth considering. If you look at our contests so far, even making the winner ineligible for the next month would still keep the big prize going to say the top 5 people over the last six months or so. Probably could fix that by extending the ineligibility period. Downside is that then our very frequent (and good I might add) maybe will not post as much? Dont know.
Our goal is that you should have to login to view anything. Probably some gaps, but that is our goal. Why? One thing that allowed us to survive over the last 18 months was being able to say to advertisers we have x users, up from y users over the last however many months. Being able to show almost constant growth...AND prove it, has made vendors realize we're a site with discussing anyway. Most other things up for discussion, on this point we're pretty firm. We have tried to make the sign up process painless. Possibly we can do a better job of explaining 'why' we require the sign up. Note also that we don't sell the info to anyone. They can advertise with us, thats its.
On the book comment. You'll see a few articles from Steve and I (and others, though I dont keep track) that originated from forum discussions. Of the three of us, only Brian is working on a book right now and I believe its targed at Oracle users moving to SQL. Next year we may do a Yukon book together, forums not much help there. That said, if we...or anyone else...wants to browse the forums to find ideas for a book, go for it! I don't expect to see verbatim extracts, but I would expect if someone is doing a book our forums would be a resource worth looking at.
Steve and I try to do one article a week. We're pretty good on that, once in a while we get bogged down at work and miss one, or sometimes we just have so much other content that we need an extra day here and there to get it all out to our readers. Brian writes less often these days because he is tasked with the sales/admin end of things.
Steve and I have also reduced the number of posts, though I read almost all of them every day. Right now I have 3800 or so posts, Steve around there. In the beginning we were almost the only ones answering, we wanted everyone to get at least a reply, so we did. Now that we have more a community (and a contest going), we post to topics if...1, no one else has yet, 2, its a topic of real interest to us, 3, it looks like the topic is getting off course, 4, we see someone has posed a good question or done a good job of answering one. Nothing more important to us than being an active, visible part of operations. If we're not achieving that...or explaining that, we're failing, and I'd appreciate comments on that in greater detail.
Finally, I think the key to our success so far in the forums is that we run a pretty tight ship as far as off topic junk. Im not interested in censoring replies, but those who go to far hear from us, we just try to do it offline. Believe me, they hear from us!
And thats my mini rant for the day.
Andy
-
Please don't screw up a valuable resource.
I have used this forum regularly since I found it. It has a better wealth of "how to" and "why" posts and articles than any place else on the web. I believe everyone who answers posts currently does so because they think they can add to the discussion, I hope anything done to change the weighting of the contests doesn't alter that.
Conversely, I have often felt it would be neat to "get into" the contests with some well thought out articles on the few things I feel qualified to write about. One look at the past results shows me that it would be virtually pointless to try. A few folks who must have a lot more time available than I do win them on a regular basis. All in all, that's probably not a bad thing, as long as their frequent articles and posts are on topic, informative, and add to the value of this resource. So far, I believe they do.
In summary, if anything could be done to alter the weighting, I'd put more emphasis on user ratings so that a few really good articles would generate more points than a lot of ho-hum articles.
Again, please be careful while tweaking a truly excellent resource. Sometimes, change is bad because your current product is good.
Student of SQL and Golf, Master of Neither
Edited by - BobatDBS on 12/12/2002 07:59:39 AM
Student of SQL and Golf, Master of Neither -
Thanks for the excellent comments Bob. I think it's a great idea to maybe do a parallel contest where anyone that submits a article that receives more than 200 views and rates above 4 starts gets in for a random drawing. We're looking right now at re-weighing articles.
Brian Knight
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/bknight
Brian Knight
Free SQL Server Training Webinars -
My suggestion - Pick two areas that are going to be the focus for giveaways each month. From those two areas pick the BEST post and award the prize to that poster. Give the last prize away to a random poster (whether it be forum, FAQ, Article, whatever).
Simple solution that encourages the highest quality, gives everyone a chance and eliminates any concern that you have for the "Thanks" posting (definitely not a problem from what I have seen to date).
Just my opinion.
David
David
@SQLTentmaker“He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose” - Jim Elliot
-
Wow, some nice posts and thanks for the comments and kind words.
Mostly agree with Andy's post, so I won't repeat.
Like random drawings, but also the "earning" prizes. Maybe some combination of them. You can "win" a prize and then you're ineligible for the next xx months, probably 3-6. Then maybe everyone above some #, maybe the mean?, get's into a drawing to win.
Personally I'd like to see the contest out of the forums and into the "moderated" areas. FAQs, scripts, case studies, articles, etc. Like to let people "vote " with their reads and by votes. Too much for me to do. Don't have time to "pick" the best, and don't want to make the decision that bkelley is better than Antares or anything like that.
Anyway, enough from me. Good suggestions, keep them coming and we'll do something.
And thanks to everyone who answers a post. We really appreciate it.
Steve Jones
-
Well here goes my thoughts.
I think the site and the contests work really well at the moment because it hasn't got too huge. I was really into expertsexchange about 3 years ago and got to number one, but that took a rediculous amount of my time to post answers, probably the same amount that Antares686 must spend on here. The fact that he wins a prize every month, I think, is valid because he is giving so much to the site. EE started to get shitty because people were posting crap, which devalues the site and just clogs everything up, which lead to all sorts of etiquette rules, and people reporting users. The amusing thing was that this wasn't for any prizes, just virtual points. Ok we have received prizes but we didn't know about them until EE gave them away, which was nice.
So what I think I am trying to say is that, to ensure the quality of the site the contest should be changed to be not related directly to the number of posts, articles etc. I think more along the lines that you get chances at winning (like most people above have suggested). This still will mean Antares686 will have 20 times more chance of winning than most people but it will be a lottery.
I also think that splitting contest into 2 one for the forums and one for the other posts (articles etc). This should try and encourage more people to produce these, and as they are reviewed will ensure quality.
Well not sure whether I got my point across.
ps The apress pack I won was a top prize and could possiblly have been split into smaller prizes so more people get something.
Simon Sabin
Co-author of SQL Server 2000 XML Distilled
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1904347088
Simon Sabin
SQL Server MVP
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/simons
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply