The Next Level
Personally I have no reading list , and do not care if I am on anyone's...I read what I want , when I want , and would only
expect others to do the same...
As far as veganism , I was a vegan in 1978 , after being a juicerian for a year...ah , the early years !
expect others to do the same...
As far as veganism , I was a vegan in 1978 , after being a juicerian for a year...ah , the early years !
This thread was a good question originally. An issue that was a serious issue and one that should be discussed. However, it has become mainly off topic and makes some personal derogatory comments
please keep the comments on topic to avoid the thread being locked
please keep the comments on topic to avoid the thread being locked
Jade-Pandora said:
Here you go 🍇🧀🥖
And I feel your pain.
Danka!
Blackwolf said:Personally I have no reading list , and do not care if I am on anyone's...I read what I want , when I want , and would only
expect others to do the same...
As far as veganism , I was a vegan in 1978 , after being a juicerian for a year...ah , the early years !
I had a few friends in the 70's who were jucerians! That never appealed to me - I love the meat of fruit way too much ( though I do like to juice as well ).
In regards to the Reading Lists, that's the beauty of DU - options for a diverse membership.
Here you go 🍇🧀🥖
And I feel your pain.
Danka!
Blackwolf said:Personally I have no reading list , and do not care if I am on anyone's...I read what I want , when I want , and would only
expect others to do the same...
As far as veganism , I was a vegan in 1978 , after being a juicerian for a year...ah , the early years !
I had a few friends in the 70's who were jucerians! That never appealed to me - I love the meat of fruit way too much ( though I do like to juice as well ).
In regards to the Reading Lists, that's the beauty of DU - options for a diverse membership.
The reasons for the limit on the number of reading list entries are as follows:
- To keep it special, meaningful and more of an accolade than a "like".
- To keep the list to a manageable size, particularly as they are shown to other members on your profile.
One idea I'm thinking of is to be more generous with the reading list allowance and add a "must reads" feature to address the second point. The "must reads" would be a certain number of poems which you recommend to others. They would appear on your profile. By default, it could be the most recent 10 poems you added to your reading list. However, you could optionally select up to 10 from your list. For example, if you picked five, it would be those five and the five most recent additions (not including the five you picked).
My only concern with this is adding complexity and introducing some kind of infinite scale upon which poems receive accolades. Therefore, I'm not proposing that a "must read" is considered as anything more than a standard reading list entry anywhere except the profile of the person who chose it.
Does anyone have any feedback on this idea, or any similar idea they want to share?
- To keep it special, meaningful and more of an accolade than a "like".
- To keep the list to a manageable size, particularly as they are shown to other members on your profile.
One idea I'm thinking of is to be more generous with the reading list allowance and add a "must reads" feature to address the second point. The "must reads" would be a certain number of poems which you recommend to others. They would appear on your profile. By default, it could be the most recent 10 poems you added to your reading list. However, you could optionally select up to 10 from your list. For example, if you picked five, it would be those five and the five most recent additions (not including the five you picked).
My only concern with this is adding complexity and introducing some kind of infinite scale upon which poems receive accolades. Therefore, I'm not proposing that a "must read" is considered as anything more than a standard reading list entry anywhere except the profile of the person who chose it.
Does anyone have any feedback on this idea, or any similar idea they want to share?
Not to intercept Johnny's request nor potential suggestions on this; however, what I would love to see implemented is a more accurate reflection of Honest Critiques to earn Reading Lists. In the last week alone I have spent at least 45 min plus on three separate poems offering requested critique. That's almost three hours of earnest critique on just three poems vs short comments on, say, 30. Yet the one with 30 plus comments gets credited as an honest critiquer by earning RL's. While the honest critiquer has to work 10 times as hard to earn RL's.
I don't know how to communicate this to where it doesn't sound like all we care about are RL's, because we don't. And I don't want to sound like I don't make short replies, because I do. I would just like to see more of a differentiation between comments and critiques, and what they earn. Checks and balances, per se. Though I have NO idea how you would implement that.
I don't know how to communicate this to where it doesn't sound like all we care about are RL's, because we don't. And I don't want to sound like I don't make short replies, because I do. I would just like to see more of a differentiation between comments and critiques, and what they earn. Checks and balances, per se. Though I have NO idea how you would implement that.
admin said:The reasons for the limit on the number of reading list entries are as follows:
- To keep it special, meaningful and more of an accolade than a "like".
- To keep the list to a manageable size, particularly as they are shown to other members on your profile.
One idea I'm thinking of is to be more generous with the reading list allowance and add a "must reads" feature to address the second point. The "must reads" would be a certain number of poems which you recommend to others. They would appear on your profile. By default, it could be the most recent 10 poems you added to your reading list. However, you could optionally select up to 10 from your list. For example, if you picked five, it would be those five and the five most recent additions (not including the five you picked).
My only concern with this is adding complexity and introducing some kind of infinite scale upon which poems receive accolades. Therefore, I'm not proposing that a "must read" is considered as anything more than a standard reading list entry anywhere except the profile of the person who chose it.
Does anyone have any feedback on this idea, or any similar idea they want to share?
It sounds like a good idea. Mostly increasing the RL allowance would do. I seem to be the only experiencing or concerned with the difficulty lately. No one else has chimed in.
As long as it is easier than earning an RL for every 20 comments. I don't understand where the increase suddenly came from. Last and first time I raised the issue, it took 12 comments.
I am all for Ahavati's suggestion!
- To keep it special, meaningful and more of an accolade than a "like".
- To keep the list to a manageable size, particularly as they are shown to other members on your profile.
One idea I'm thinking of is to be more generous with the reading list allowance and add a "must reads" feature to address the second point. The "must reads" would be a certain number of poems which you recommend to others. They would appear on your profile. By default, it could be the most recent 10 poems you added to your reading list. However, you could optionally select up to 10 from your list. For example, if you picked five, it would be those five and the five most recent additions (not including the five you picked).
My only concern with this is adding complexity and introducing some kind of infinite scale upon which poems receive accolades. Therefore, I'm not proposing that a "must read" is considered as anything more than a standard reading list entry anywhere except the profile of the person who chose it.
Does anyone have any feedback on this idea, or any similar idea they want to share?
It sounds like a good idea. Mostly increasing the RL allowance would do. I seem to be the only experiencing or concerned with the difficulty lately. No one else has chimed in.
As long as it is easier than earning an RL for every 20 comments. I don't understand where the increase suddenly came from. Last and first time I raised the issue, it took 12 comments.
I am all for Ahavati's suggestion!
Ahavati said:Not to intercept Johnny's request nor potential suggestions on this; however, what I would love to see implemented is a more accurate reflection of Honest Critiques to earn Reading Lists. In the last week alone I have spent at least 45 min plus on three separate poems offering requested critique. That's almost three hours of earnest critique on just three poems vs short comments on, say, 30. Yet the one with 30 plus comments gets credited as an honest critiquer by earning RL's. While the honest critiquer has to work 10 times as hard to earn RL's.
I don't know how to communicate this to where it doesn't sound like all we care about are RL's, because we don't. And I don't want to sound like I don't make short replies, because I do. I would just like to see more of a differentiation between comments and critiques, and what they earn. Checks and balances, per se. Though I have NO idea how you would implement that.
This is part of why I've kept the exact algorithm the stuff of secrets and dark arts; less chance of people trying to game the system. I can see both the pros and cons of having it open and people being able to track their progress. One thing to note; the algorithm is entirely different to the one used for Top Critiquers. It's based more on activity, whereas Top Critiquers tries to build in some quality based bonuses.
I don't know how to communicate this to where it doesn't sound like all we care about are RL's, because we don't. And I don't want to sound like I don't make short replies, because I do. I would just like to see more of a differentiation between comments and critiques, and what they earn. Checks and balances, per se. Though I have NO idea how you would implement that.
This is part of why I've kept the exact algorithm the stuff of secrets and dark arts; less chance of people trying to game the system. I can see both the pros and cons of having it open and people being able to track their progress. One thing to note; the algorithm is entirely different to the one used for Top Critiquers. It's based more on activity, whereas Top Critiquers tries to build in some quality based bonuses.
admin said:
It's based more on activity...
Ah ha! This is where I can jump in because with JohnnyB bringing up earning one RL slot for every 20 comments but wonders why no one else has chimed in is because ( and this is based on my own observations over the years, no one else’s )...
It’s not based only on how many times you leave a comment. It’s based on ALL of what you do...from commenting, to publishing new work! The times I’m more ACTIVE - on the forums, groups, in the comps ( participating/ hosting/ voting ), publishing, commenting ( tho’ I don’t think replying to a comment counts ), adding RL recommends, etc... when I check what RL slots are available every few days, I’ve been given a dividend - sometimes of at least 2.
Now I love that and it’s cause I earned it for being active in the community, so I’m thankful for the vote! And...
this still helps keep my choices more selective. No harm with disciplining oneself. Especially if you can’t pay due - this is all free to a poor little church mouse like me and to many others! I am lucky to be here and if it means doing more to earn extra, then by gum, I do what I can when I can. The best part of all this I’m indulging in my passion as a writer, so I won’t kick or complain. Everybody here play nice and I’m gold!
Peace, out!
( This is a No Drama Fly Zone )
admin said:
This is part of why I've kept the exact algorithm the stuff of secrets and dark arts; less chance of people trying to game the system. I can see both the pros and cons of having it open and people being able to track their progress. One thing to note; the algorithm is entirely different to the one used for Top Critiquers. It's based more on activity, whereas Top Critiquers tries to build in some quality based bonuses.
Thank you for your answer. While I better understand the differentiation between algorithms, I still wish there was some way to more accurately distinguish the term critiquer from commenter. Both are important, one being no better than the other, especially in regards to those asking for honest critique or friendly feedback. But I keep thinking of things said along the years, e.g. - "I laugh whenever I see Top Critiquers each month", or "I use that term loosely [ in regards to top critiquers]".
In sleeping on it, characters came to mind. Or, rather, the number of them. Or words. So many being required to be a critique vs comment. But, again, I am no webmaster nor programmer; thus, know diddly squat about the intricacies of either. On the contrary, to me HTML is evil. I don't know that there will ever be a way to accurately differentiate.
I do appreciate your time and attention this week, and the positive changes you have brought about the site. To me it feels like home again versus a dark alley at 2:00 AM, where I'm constantly "Under His Eye" trying to escape Aunt Lydia. I don't mean that negatively toward anyone. It's merely a reflection of how I personally felt/feel.
This is part of why I've kept the exact algorithm the stuff of secrets and dark arts; less chance of people trying to game the system. I can see both the pros and cons of having it open and people being able to track their progress. One thing to note; the algorithm is entirely different to the one used for Top Critiquers. It's based more on activity, whereas Top Critiquers tries to build in some quality based bonuses.
Thank you for your answer. While I better understand the differentiation between algorithms, I still wish there was some way to more accurately distinguish the term critiquer from commenter. Both are important, one being no better than the other, especially in regards to those asking for honest critique or friendly feedback. But I keep thinking of things said along the years, e.g. - "I laugh whenever I see Top Critiquers each month", or "I use that term loosely [ in regards to top critiquers]".
In sleeping on it, characters came to mind. Or, rather, the number of them. Or words. So many being required to be a critique vs comment. But, again, I am no webmaster nor programmer; thus, know diddly squat about the intricacies of either. On the contrary, to me HTML is evil.
I don't know that there will ever be a way to accurately differentiate. I do appreciate your time and attention this week, and the positive changes you have brought about the site. To me it feels like home again versus a dark alley at 2:00 AM, where I'm constantly "Under His Eye" trying to escape Aunt Lydia. I don't mean that negatively toward anyone. It's merely a reflection of how I personally felt/feel.
admin said:
This is part of why I've kept the exact algorithm the stuff of secrets and dark arts; less chance of people trying to game the system. I can see both the pros and cons of having it open and people being able to track their progress. One thing to note; the algorithm is entirely different to the one used for Top Critiquers. It's based more on activity, whereas Top Critiquers tries to build in some quality based bonuses.
What I know is that I was less active in the forum and not commenting on as many poems as I do now. It seems like the algorithm experienced an alteration of sorts - or - the one time bonus RLs you previously awarded after I initially brought the issue to your attention were suddenly subtracted in a form of rollback.
This is part of why I've kept the exact algorithm the stuff of secrets and dark arts; less chance of people trying to game the system. I can see both the pros and cons of having it open and people being able to track their progress. One thing to note; the algorithm is entirely different to the one used for Top Critiquers. It's based more on activity, whereas Top Critiquers tries to build in some quality based bonuses.
What I know is that I was less active in the forum and not commenting on as many poems as I do now. It seems like the algorithm experienced an alteration of sorts - or - the one time bonus RLs you previously awarded after I initially brought the issue to your attention were suddenly subtracted in a form of rollback.
Ahavati said:
Thank you for your answer. While I better understand the differentiation between algorithms, I still wish there was some way to more accurately distinguish the term critiquer from commenter. Both are important, one being no better than the other, especially in regards to those asking for honest critique or friendly feedback. But I keep thinking of things said along the years, e.g. - "I laugh whenever I see Top Critiquers each month", or "I use that term loosely [ in regards to top critiquers]".
In sleeping on it, characters came to mind. Or, rather, the number of them. Or words. So many being required to be a critique vs comment. But, again, I am no webmaster nor programmer; thus, know diddly squat about the intricacies of either. On the contrary, to me HTML is evil. I don't know that there will ever be a way to accurately differentiate.
I do appreciate your time and attention this week, and the positive changes you have brought about the site. To me it feels like home again versus a dark alley at 2:00 AM, where I'm constantly "Under His Eye" trying to escape Aunt Lydia. I don't mean that negatively toward anyone. It's merely a reflection of how I personally felt/feel.
Perhaps the person whose poem is critiqued could award "critique points" to the critiquer? When enough points are accumulated, a title of Top Critiquer can manifest next the avatar and such in forum posts and in the profile. And then the earned title could trigger a reward like bonus RLs.
Thank you for your answer. While I better understand the differentiation between algorithms, I still wish there was some way to more accurately distinguish the term critiquer from commenter. Both are important, one being no better than the other, especially in regards to those asking for honest critique or friendly feedback. But I keep thinking of things said along the years, e.g. - "I laugh whenever I see Top Critiquers each month", or "I use that term loosely [ in regards to top critiquers]".
In sleeping on it, characters came to mind. Or, rather, the number of them. Or words. So many being required to be a critique vs comment. But, again, I am no webmaster nor programmer; thus, know diddly squat about the intricacies of either. On the contrary, to me HTML is evil.
I don't know that there will ever be a way to accurately differentiate. I do appreciate your time and attention this week, and the positive changes you have brought about the site. To me it feels like home again versus a dark alley at 2:00 AM, where I'm constantly "Under His Eye" trying to escape Aunt Lydia. I don't mean that negatively toward anyone. It's merely a reflection of how I personally felt/feel.
Perhaps the person whose poem is critiqued could award "critique points" to the critiquer? When enough points are accumulated, a title of Top Critiquer can manifest next the avatar and such in forum posts and in the profile. And then the earned title could trigger a reward like bonus RLs.
