CMA Community » Topic: Reputation Points -- How do they work?

CMA Community » Topic: Reputation Points -- How do they work? http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/topic/44 Sponsored by Credit Management Association en-US Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:06:54 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 <![CDATA[Search]]> q http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/search.php Michael Dennis on "Reputation Points -- How do they work?" http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/topic/44/page/2#post-381 Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:13:21 +0000 Michael Dennis 381@http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/ I agree with the comments/concerns about the word "Reputation." I think alternatives such as "Contribution" or even "Participation" points would be more descriptive and better than "Reputation." This is just my opinion. Michael Dennis MICHELLE ALJILANI on "Reputation Points -- How do they work?" http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/topic/44/page/2#post-208 Thu, 03 Sep 2009 01:11:24 +0000 MICHELLE ALJILANI 208@http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/ I'm posting a reply because I want my second point. Seriously though, I check the board occasionally and have found many answers without posting a question as someone else had already made the inquiry. I read this chain and did not need to reply and would therefore not get a point for reading. I found the discussion interesting and still do not believe the points represent anything of benefit to me. I am all in favor of the "found this article helpful" or rate it on a 5 star scale. I thought that was a good suggestion. In my own experience, I have posted a few questions and some of the answers missed the mark but at least someone took the time to read and respond and maybe it was the answer someone else was looking for but didn't initiate the inquiry. Guy Nishida on "Reputation Points -- How do they work?" http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/topic/44/page/2#post-204 Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:13:06 +0000 Guy Nishida 204@http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/ F.S. Wilson, Figuratively only, my survey shows that you are actually on top of Dina and the "heap". Basically, it's you, Dina, and Christine. Points totals as shown below your name at 42, 39, 38. As of this writing, there are a total of 193 posts and 44 topics. If the points allocation formula is 2 points for a question, the actual number of responses is reduced by the number of topics since it is not actually a one-to-one ratio. I can't be certain if the number of posts shown includes the extra point for starting a topic. But, for argument's sake, if I subtract out the number of topic points, the net responses = 149. Just you 3 have a total of 119 reputation points = 80% of the net responses. If my measly 13 points were added, our responses would total 88% of the total net posts. Granted, some of these points are based on the bonus point given for starting a topic. But whether the number of posts is 193 or a net 149, I don't think it overcomes my premise that the number of contributors is very small and we need the means to encourage others to respond and to keep the handful that are regular contributors from slowing down. F Scott Wilson on "Reputation Points -- How do they work?" http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/topic/44/page/2#post-198 Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:23:44 +0000 F Scott Wilson 198@http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/ Guy-- Interesting analysis of the commentators. That raises a whole 'nother (pardon my slang!) question of what the value is if only a handful of members accrue them. What would induce the top three to "trade away" their "hard earned points" (tongue *firmly* in cheek) to others who don't post as much? Besides Dina, who is probably at the top of the heap, or near there, who are the others in the top three or five? Guy Nishida on "Reputation Points -- How do they work?" http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/topic/44/page/2#post-187 Fri, 28 Aug 2009 21:56:05 +0000 Guy Nishida 187@http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/ Dina, Sorry for prolonging this string but I wanted to add a couple more thoughts. In an attempt to confirm that the conclusion I drew about the limited number of commentators to the site was not just my imagination, I looked at the Forum heading with the Main Themes. There are 41 topics with a total posting number of 178. I am assuming that the number of posts tallied would equal the number of Reputation Points awarded. A review of some of the individual commentators reveals that the top 3 in points account for 63.5% of the postings and that inclusive of 4 other posters with point amount ranging from as little as 5 to a maximum of 12, just these seven members account for 82.6% of the posts. I hope my assumptions are incorrect. If not, these numbers seem too reinforce my belief that the site relies very heavily on a few contributors and that if there was any departure of any of the top 3, the site would lose 20% or more of its postings. Keep in mind that you are one of the 3, and are not a member in the same sense. In my browsing of sites for research on products I contemplate buying, I often see reviews where a reader can vote on whether the review was helpful or not. These reviews are thereby rated, not unlike F. Scott Wilson's idea of a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down". Guy Nishida on "Reputation Points -- How do they work?" http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/topic/44/page/2#post-185 Thu, 27 Aug 2009 00:12:25 +0000 Guy Nishida 185@http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/ Christine, I'm not familiar enough with Anscers to address any other site or their members. It is interesting that you mention Michael, whose cogent comments have been missing of late. I don't know if that is because he is not part of our site, as you mention, or for another reason. Could he be an example of the cycle to which I referred? I hope not. But, I was not so much offering suggestions in attracting seasoned professionals to our site who are not already here as I was making the case that we need to recognize those already on our site who contribute now as well as proposing that CMA devise methods to encourage others on our site to contribute. And in both cases, CMA could design a program to keep the old and the new contributors active for the long-term. Whether this is accomplished by Reputation points, Activity Level points, special titles like Mentor, etc., or tangible awards are all possibilities that should all be on the table. All of this only makes sense if you agree with my premises. 1. The Community has been up for some time in one fashion or another. But over this time I have not seen any marked increase in the number of distinct responders. 2. The number of repeat contributors (generally speaking) is a small group. 3. It is natural that for controllable or uncontrollable reasons their responses diminish over time. 4. It is appropriate to recognize them in some fashion. 5. It is prudent to entice others to contribute. I have no solution for attracting more professionals to the site or in increasing the participation of those already on the site. I'm only attempting to bring it to CMA's attention that it might be a worthwhile project to build and improve positive momentum. Christine on "Reputation Points -- How do they work?" http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/topic/44#post-184 Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:50:56 +0000 Christine 184@http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/ I may be mistaken, but I think we have members of our other site who are not a part of this new one, such as Michael Dennis. I don't see how offering up an award for being an active member (via the points) would achieve the goal of attracting more seasoned Credit Professionals to our site. Guy Nishida on "Reputation Points -- How do they work?" http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/topic/44#post-183 Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:58:33 +0000 Guy Nishida 183@http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/ Christine, You get "reciprocation when I need assistance" because it has saved you time and money. You are rewarded with helpful information. But, those experts answering the questions may likely be inputting much more than than gain in that area. I am only suggesting that one way to ensure the continuance of the useful input is by acknowledging the contributions of the members who respond in a manner that is both appropriate and attractive. When those contributors were given titles such as gold member or super mentor, I believe that was a valued designator and, in fact, some members seek ways for their prior "ratings" to be brought forward in the new site because they saw those ratings as a badge of distinction. The present activity level indicator and how the points are awarded does not distinguish contributors assisting with answers. My own experience belonging to several hobby clubs is that the same few club members are always the ones contributing. In some cases they are chosen Member-Of-The-Year or are presented a Lifetime Achievement Award. But over the years, this group has shrunk and life/work or reduced energy/enthusiasm interferes where they no longer contribute as much, if at all. Who can blame them since they have done their part. I see this same phenomenon in other on-line forums. But I do not see replacements stepping forward. How do you encourage others to contribute? I am concerned that this natural cycle of activity and silence could visit CMA as well. Maybe not today; maybe not tomorrow. I do see it as food for thought, especially now since the reputation points system does not appear to be set in stone. I suppose if such a cycle were to occur, CMA would simply assign one of their staff to research and answer the questions with or without a charge. As these hobby clubs have lost volunteer contributors of articles and help at functions, they have had no choice but to charge club members more in fees. On the CMA site, I also see a core membership that can typically be counted on to post. When you are receiving assistance, has it been essentially from the same group or are you getting fresh viewpoints from an unknown member more cases than not? My non-scientific survey of the replies doesn't support that position. Christine on "Reputation Points -- How do they work?" http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/topic/44#post-182 Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:05:19 +0000 Christine 182@http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/ The only thing I need from posting to this great community is to have reciprocation when I need assistance. I have had many questions answered without having put in a lot of time researching problems, or going to our attorney over the years. This is award enough for me. I think the only reason the points were brought into play was because on our other site, the members had labels such as "member", "gold member" or "super mentor". Guy Nishida on "Reputation Points -- How do they work?" http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/topic/44#post-180 Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:25:36 +0000 Guy Nishida 180@http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/ Dina, While your response affirms some of the points previously made, it does not indicate any action plan. You can control how many points a post and reply are given, but you do not indicate whether a change is contemplated. You also note that you can control where the points come from but do not disclose how and under what circumstances that would occur. Quite honestly, this topic is not a major issue to me. But I truly sympathize with members who spend an inordinate amount of time giving of their time to assist other members with their only reward being the accumulation of points. I see a limited number of members who are extremely active where some form of gratitude is not unreasonable. I believe it is important to reward contributions so the momentum does not diminish over time as the same volunteers tire of the effort. They are adding value to the site and to the value of CMA membership. In some respects, they are uncompensated employees of CMA. At the same time, you want to encourage other contributors. What happens to this forum if the core contributors slow the number of their responses? Will other members step forward or will there be a many 2-point posts with no 1-point replies? And, I am still unaware of any value beyond qualifying the members' "activity level". I do not see any award program where a member who passes a certain activity level number is awarded a Starbucks coffee card, discounted membership, plaque/pin or anything of that nature. Members who actually provide useful information should have a designation that means more than merely a sign of their activity level. To a degree, the existing title "Reputation" attempts to address this but my point has been that the meaning is muddied and diluted when anyone can ask a question or give frivolous (but true) answers as I have above and still gain points. How special should your contributing members feel when they are lumped with everyone else? If I read the small print on some of the previous posts on this topic, the contributors see value in their ranking; they desire credit for the number of posts they made prior to the change-over in the site. It is obviously and justifiably important to them and I believe they earned credit for those posts because they put in time to create them. It cannot be that difficult to retrieve the data. What other recognition device does CMA offer? It is actually a better strategy for me to have started a new post with the same topic, thereby gaining 2 points and then I should wait for a reply and post a thank you for another point. Under the existing formula, perhaps it would be better to re-name the post totals as "Activity Level" and save the "Reputation" heading when a more meaningful measuring stick can be applied to show gratitude for the experts who do contribute with reasoned responses. Dina Amadril on "Reputation Points -- How do they work?" http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/topic/44#post-179 Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:16:55 +0000 Dina Amadril 179@http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/ Talking with the software designer of the Reputation plug in that we are using the "continuous evaluation" has been removed from the plug in and the reputation count is built strictly on posts, replies, and points awarded. We can control how many points a post and a reply are given - and I think Guy's point about a reply having as much if not more value that a post is very valid. Since every reply (even in the same post) awards points that is probably why they valued them less in the programming. The overall value of the Reputation system to the Community user is the knowledge of the activity level of the people responding or posting. We can also control the setting for awarding points - where they either come from your amount or they do not. Guy Nishida on "Reputation Points -- How do they work?" http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/topic/44#post-178 Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:01:33 +0000 Guy Nishida 178@http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/ F. Scott Wilson, Guess what? I added a point to my total. I expect this post will give me one more. This could be much easier than having to expend time to add a post of any substance. But it does seem to illustrate the perceived flaw in how points are gained. If I get another point for this, don't be angry; I'm just the messenger. Guy Nishida on "Reputation Points -- How do they work?" http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/topic/44#post-177 Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:57:30 +0000 Guy Nishida 177@http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/ F. Scott Wilson, This is an experiment to determine whether I can increase my point count by responding again to the same topic. I might also test to see whether I can increase my points simply by responding to the 40 or so listed topics with a "Thanks for the info" short reply and thereby add 40 points to my total. Then I'd wave so long as I passed you and your 39 point total. (Just kidding) F Scott Wilson on "Reputation Points -- How do they work?" http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/topic/44#post-176 Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:48:14 +0000 F Scott Wilson 176@http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/ I'm very interested in tracking the most active members, and the ones with the most credit background. I do, however, have to agree with Guy that it's not balanced that someone contributing to the understanding of credit has to do twice as much work, or at least twice the number of posts, to match someone asking questions regardless of the responses, or even whether the posts have any relevance to the community's interest in credit and collections issues. When one "pays" reputation points, it creates a disadvantage for the person who thinks to grant them, by lowering their own reputations. Other posters who like the answer could simply ignore the granting of points, so they don't "lose" points or reputation. I'm not really interested in turning the forums into a Facebook for credit, and the earlier plan, which rewarded responses only, at one point apiece, seems to be more appropriate. Also, why would (or should) additional points be granted, above and beyond what's granted for participation? Maybe a separate system entirely, for instance flagging posts "thumbs up" or "thumbs down", relating to comments/responses *only*, would be better for that purpose. Someone seeing the comment can see whether other credit professionals considered the reply appropriate, or a bad idea, and evaluate it that way. I'm definitely in favor of some sort of reputation system, ranking responders and their responses, but Guy has some excellent points himself about the system. Guy Nishida on "Reputation Points -- How do they work?" http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/topic/44#post-175 Mon, 24 Aug 2009 22:58:06 +0000 Guy Nishida 175@http://creditmanagementassociation.org/forums/ Dina, I found several of your remarks intriguing. You noted that the points are "consistently reevaluated". Who is doing the reevaluating, under what guidelines, and for what purpose? You also mentioned that there are two points given for starting a topic but only one point for responding. While I understand that points might be awarded as an incentive for using the Community forum, I don't understand why one would get more for starting a topic than responding. There is no benefit to starting a post if no one replies. So, if not more important, it is equally important to reward the replies. The member who started a topic is asking for assistance. They have a reason to ask a question. Those responding are taking time from their day to aid a fellow member. To me, that is more valuable and because it is more voluntary should be rewarded in like or greater manner. I see several members who consistently answer queries but according to your formula, one could ask half as many questions and accrue the same number of points and only because they need help while the responder has to assist two times to gain the same number of points. I don't understand how that encourages the more experienced and expert members to respond nor how it rewards them for doing so. It is their insights and advice that makes the site worthwhile. And because of their expertise, there are not as likely to ask a question. But while I try to reconcile my questions regarding how the points are awarded, quite frankly, I have no idea what the purpose of these "points" are. Are these points like my using my Albertson's/CVS card? It is supposed to be good for something but heck if I can figure out what that is. I think I get some sort of discount but my purchases never seem to qualify. If it is strictly for reputation points, perhaps this is how the points will be "consistently reevaluated". If a responder was willing to reply to all posts with input, they would have a high reputation count (read:expert) but in actuality it is conceivable they may have contributed very little of truth or value. Yet CMA has legitimized the importance of their statements based only on numbers. If their replies are being graded, that's a panel on which I would not relish being a member. But, again, it follows that although I may need the CMA Community to answer all my questions, I will actually appear as an expert with a high number of reputation points even though gained from questions and not answers. Finally, I'm not certain how one adds points to another member's profile? From what I can tell, I can add a point to another if I have points. But, if I am strictly using the Community as an instruction tool, I have no points to give even if I wanted to reward a member for providing some useful information. On the other hand, since points seem to have value, why would a member choose to give a point away? Perhaps the review panel can award points to members on it's own accord. Please elaborate on the points aspect of the CMA Community.