CMA Community

1. Guy Nishida
   Member

   Reputation:65

    

   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.

   Posted 2 years ago #

2. Guy Nishida
   Member

   Reputation:65

    

   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".

   Posted 2 years ago #

3. F Scott Wilson
   Member

   Reputation:267

    

   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?

   Posted 2 years ago #

4. Guy Nishida
   Member

   Reputation:65

    

   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.

   Posted 2 years ago #

5. MICHELLE ALJILANI
   Member

   Reputation:2

    

   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.

   Posted 2 years ago #

6. Michael Dennis
   Member

   Reputation:173

    

   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

   Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.