The Next Level
JohnnyBlaze said:
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.
An excellent suggestion. I'm wondering how monitoring could be implemented to prevent friends from awarding friends critiques vs comments to obtain the status.
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.
An excellent suggestion. I'm wondering how monitoring could be implemented to prevent friends from awarding friends critiques vs comments to obtain the status.
Ahavati said:
An excellent suggestion. I'm wondering how monitoring could be implemented to prevent friends from awarding friends critiques vs comments to obtain the status.
I'm not sure that would ever be possible, unless it appeared in a profile how many points were given to who for what. Then everyone could see who is being frivolous with their points and who is genuinely rewarding actual critiques.
If one had a limited number of points to award every year of being a member, one might give them out more sparingly when appropriate.
However, an actual critiquer would reach out to an ever growing more diverse audience on a consistent basis. A person being randomly rewarded would be slower to earn the title.
The title could come in stages based on how many points were earned - Level 1 Critiquer, Level 2 Critiquer, etc. This would help differentiate who the more consistent critiquers were.
An excellent suggestion. I'm wondering how monitoring could be implemented to prevent friends from awarding friends critiques vs comments to obtain the status.
I'm not sure that would ever be possible, unless it appeared in a profile how many points were given to who for what. Then everyone could see who is being frivolous with their points and who is genuinely rewarding actual critiques.
If one had a limited number of points to award every year of being a member, one might give them out more sparingly when appropriate.
However, an actual critiquer would reach out to an ever growing more diverse audience on a consistent basis. A person being randomly rewarded would be slower to earn the title.
The title could come in stages based on how many points were earned - Level 1 Critiquer, Level 2 Critiquer, etc. This would help differentiate who the more consistent critiquers were.
JohnnyBlaze said:
I'm not sure that would ever be possible, unless it appeared in a profile how many points were given to who for what. Then everyone could see who is being frivolous with their points and who is genuinely rewarding actual critiques.
If one had a limited number of points to award every year of being a member, one might give them out more sparingly when appropriate.
However, an actual critiquer would reach out to an ever growing more diverse audience on a consistent basis. A person being randomly rewarded would be slower to earn the title.
The title could come in stages based on how many points were earned - Level 1 Critiquer, Level 2 Critiquer, etc. This would help differentiate who the more consistent critiquers were.
decent idea, but what about multiple accounts.. wouldn't members with several profiles have more points to give out? ...and is that fair
edit: if points would be a limited commodity to encourage people to give them out more sparingly, wouldn't allowing people to have multiple accounts work directly against that? -- because the number of accounts a person can have is unlimited, the points would also be unlimited for those who choose to make more accounts -- this could potentially amplify certain peoples' preferences, and devalue points by inflation.
just playing devils advocate/pointing out a potential problem, ...this is in no way an attack on multiple accounts
I'm not sure that would ever be possible, unless it appeared in a profile how many points were given to who for what. Then everyone could see who is being frivolous with their points and who is genuinely rewarding actual critiques.
If one had a limited number of points to award every year of being a member, one might give them out more sparingly when appropriate.
However, an actual critiquer would reach out to an ever growing more diverse audience on a consistent basis. A person being randomly rewarded would be slower to earn the title.
The title could come in stages based on how many points were earned - Level 1 Critiquer, Level 2 Critiquer, etc. This would help differentiate who the more consistent critiquers were.
decent idea, but what about multiple accounts.. wouldn't members with several profiles have more points to give out? ...and is that fair
edit: if points would be a limited commodity to encourage people to give them out more sparingly, wouldn't allowing people to have multiple accounts work directly against that? -- because the number of accounts a person can have is unlimited, the points would also be unlimited for those who choose to make more accounts -- this could potentially amplify certain peoples' preferences, and devalue points by inflation.
just playing devils advocate/pointing out a potential problem, ...this is in no way an attack on multiple accounts
JohnnyBlaze said:
I'm not sure that would ever be possible, unless it appeared in a profile how many points were given to who for what. Then everyone could see who is being frivolous with their points and who is genuinely rewarding actual critiques.
If one had a limited number of points to award every year of being a member, one might give them out more sparingly when appropriate.
However, an actual critiquer would reach out to an ever growing more diverse audience on a consistent basis. A person being randomly rewarded would be slower to earn the title.
The title could come in stages based on how many points were earned - Level 1 Critiquer, Level 2 Critiquer, etc. This would help differentiate who the more consistent critiquers were.
I believe with a bit of fine-tuning this could somehow work, giving credibility to the top critiquer status as genuine critiques versus friendly feedback.
Umm said:
decent idea, but what about multiple accounts.. wouldn't members with several profiles have more points to give out? ...and is that fair
I don't see how it would be possible if only the account receiving the critique could award points.
I'm not sure that would ever be possible, unless it appeared in a profile how many points were given to who for what. Then everyone could see who is being frivolous with their points and who is genuinely rewarding actual critiques.
If one had a limited number of points to award every year of being a member, one might give them out more sparingly when appropriate.
However, an actual critiquer would reach out to an ever growing more diverse audience on a consistent basis. A person being randomly rewarded would be slower to earn the title.
The title could come in stages based on how many points were earned - Level 1 Critiquer, Level 2 Critiquer, etc. This would help differentiate who the more consistent critiquers were.
I believe with a bit of fine-tuning this could somehow work, giving credibility to the top critiquer status as genuine critiques versus friendly feedback.
Umm said:
decent idea, but what about multiple accounts.. wouldn't members with several profiles have more points to give out? ...and is that fair
I don't see how it would be possible if only the account receiving the critique could award points.
Ahavati said:
I believe with a bit of fine-tuning this could somehow work, giving credibility to the top critiquer status as genuine critiques versus friendly feedback.
I don't see how it would be possible if only the account receiving the critique could award points.
Exactly.
Sure, there is an increased risk that people with up to 3 accounts total might frivolously squander their points in an attempt to suck up hard to another member.
I don't know of anyone other than Ahavati and I who has more than 3 accounts, to which the risk would be even greater.
If someone does, they aren't disclosing it in their profiles or forum signatures as required by guidelines anyway.
It's not really much of a problem as it is an opportunity to come up with a solution.
I believe with a bit of fine-tuning this could somehow work, giving credibility to the top critiquer status as genuine critiques versus friendly feedback.
I don't see how it would be possible if only the account receiving the critique could award points.
Exactly.
Sure, there is an increased risk that people with up to 3 accounts total might frivolously squander their points in an attempt to suck up hard to another member.
I don't know of anyone other than Ahavati and I who has more than 3 accounts, to which the risk would be even greater.
If someone does, they aren't disclosing it in their profiles or forum signatures as required by guidelines anyway.
It's not really much of a problem as it is an opportunity to come up with a solution.
Umm said:
decent idea, but what about multiple accounts.. wouldn't members with several profiles have more points to give out? ...and is that fair
edit: if points would be a limited commodity to encourage people to give them out more sparingly, wouldn't allowing people to have multiple accounts work directly against that? -- because the number of accounts a person can have is unlimited, the points would also be unlimited for those who choose to make more accounts -- this could potentially amplify certain peoples' preferences, and devalue points by inflation.
just playing devils advocate/pointing out a potential problem, ...this is in no way an attack on multiple accounts
Someone violating guidelines by making secret accounts is an altogether different and more major problem that is ongoing and still has yet to be corrected.
decent idea, but what about multiple accounts.. wouldn't members with several profiles have more points to give out? ...and is that fair
edit: if points would be a limited commodity to encourage people to give them out more sparingly, wouldn't allowing people to have multiple accounts work directly against that? -- because the number of accounts a person can have is unlimited, the points would also be unlimited for those who choose to make more accounts -- this could potentially amplify certain peoples' preferences, and devalue points by inflation.
just playing devils advocate/pointing out a potential problem, ...this is in no way an attack on multiple accounts
Someone violating guidelines by making secret accounts is an altogether different and more major problem that is ongoing and still has yet to be corrected.
😅 Umm said:
I wasn't strictly speaking about secret accounts. but okay xD
I must be totally misunderstanding this. If a poet is to award a number of points to someone who critiqued their work, how can other accounts capitalize on that?
If PsycoticMastermind critiques AgentStarling, and she awards him so many points for that critique, how does he capitalize or profit from my other accounts? Can Ahavati, TwoSpirit, or Ex-Machina award points as well? I would think not.
Or, are you inferring that we who are upfront and honest about our accounts would post four or five different critiques under each account simply to receive critique points? LOL! That is as ludicrous as it is a waste of time when one critique would suffice.
There have been many insinuations lately regarding the actions of multiple accounts block voting, etc. So let me clarify something:
Every action by any member on this site can be tracked by a moderator ( except for the contents of private messages ) and/or Webmiss. I know this from experience. If those with open multiple accounts were abusing their privilege, it would have been dealt with formidably. However, those ( such as one male particularly ) not disclosing their alternate female accounts are the issue. Period.
You know, I'm sorry, but some things just aren't that important to focus on. Especially open multiple accounts ( as you have inferred ) violating guidelines or potentially taking advantage of perks that can easily be tracked by any moderator or Webmiss. No one has time for that, especially us who diligently attempt to play by the rules, and have a bit of fun with fellow poets.
JohnnyBlaze said:
I'm not sure that would ever be possible, unless it appeared in a profile how many points were given to who for what. Then everyone could see who is being frivolous with their points and who is genuinely rewarding actual critiques.
If one had a limited number of points to award every year of being a member, one might give them out more sparingly when appropriate.
However, an actual critiquer would reach out to an ever growing more diverse audience on a consistent basis. A person being randomly rewarded would be slower to earn the title.
The title could come in stages based on how many points were earned - Level 1 Critiquer, Level 2 Critiquer, etc. This would help differentiate who the more consistent critiquers were.
With a bit of tweaking this is a good idea that will hopefully be capitalized on, thus creating checks and balances regarding actual critiques and friendly comments.
I wasn't strictly speaking about secret accounts. but okay xD
I must be totally misunderstanding this. If a poet is to award a number of points to someone who critiqued their work, how can other accounts capitalize on that?
If PsycoticMastermind critiques AgentStarling, and she awards him so many points for that critique, how does he capitalize or profit from my other accounts? Can Ahavati, TwoSpirit, or Ex-Machina award points as well? I would think not.
Or, are you inferring that we who are upfront and honest about our accounts would post four or five different critiques under each account simply to receive critique points? LOL! That is as ludicrous as it is a waste of time when one critique would suffice.
There have been many insinuations lately regarding the actions of multiple accounts block voting, etc. So let me clarify something:
Every action by any member on this site can be tracked by a moderator ( except for the contents of private messages ) and/or Webmiss. I know this from experience. If those with open multiple accounts were abusing their privilege, it would have been dealt with formidably. However, those ( such as one male particularly ) not disclosing their alternate female accounts are the issue. Period.
You know, I'm sorry, but some things just aren't that important to focus on. Especially open multiple accounts ( as you have inferred ) violating guidelines or potentially taking advantage of perks that can easily be tracked by any moderator or Webmiss. No one has time for that, especially us who diligently attempt to play by the rules, and have a bit of fun with fellow poets.
JohnnyBlaze said:
I'm not sure that would ever be possible, unless it appeared in a profile how many points were given to who for what. Then everyone could see who is being frivolous with their points and who is genuinely rewarding actual critiques.
If one had a limited number of points to award every year of being a member, one might give them out more sparingly when appropriate.
However, an actual critiquer would reach out to an ever growing more diverse audience on a consistent basis. A person being randomly rewarded would be slower to earn the title.
The title could come in stages based on how many points were earned - Level 1 Critiquer, Level 2 Critiquer, etc. This would help differentiate who the more consistent critiquers were.
With a bit of tweaking this is a good idea that will hopefully be capitalized on, thus creating checks and balances regarding actual critiques and friendly comments.
Ahavati said:
I must be totally misunderstanding this. If a poet is to award a number of points to someone who critiqued their work, how can other accounts capitalize on that?
If PsycoticMastermind critiques AgentStarling, and she awards him so many points for that critique, how does he capitalize or profit from my other accounts? Can Ahavati, TwoSpirit, or Ex-Machina award points as well? I would think not.
Or, are you inferring that we who are upfront and honest about our accounts would post four or five different critiques under each account simply to receive critique points? LOL! That is as ludicrous as it is a waste of time when one critique would suffice.
There have been many insinuations lately regarding the actions of multiple accounts block voting, etc. So let me clarify something:
Every action by any member on this site can be tracked by a moderator ( except for the contents of private messages ) and/or Webmiss. I know this from experience. If those with open multiple accounts were abusing their rights it would have been dealt with formidably. However, those ( such as one male particularly ) not disclosing their alternate female accounts are the issue. Period.
You know, I'm sorry, but some things just aren't that important to focus on. Especially open multiple accounts ( as you have inferred ) violating guidelines that can easily be tracked by any moderator or Webmiss. No one has time for that, especially us who diligently attempt to play by the rules, and have a bit of fun with fellow poets.
yup, there seems to be some miscommunication: what I think/am saying is... for this proposed system to be as fair as it can be, and for the points to be truly limited, people should all have the same number of accounts, otherwise some people will have more points to dole out, which will amplify their preferences.
I don't know if that's big problem or not, but I thought it should be brought up
I must be totally misunderstanding this. If a poet is to award a number of points to someone who critiqued their work, how can other accounts capitalize on that?
If PsycoticMastermind critiques AgentStarling, and she awards him so many points for that critique, how does he capitalize or profit from my other accounts? Can Ahavati, TwoSpirit, or Ex-Machina award points as well? I would think not.
Or, are you inferring that we who are upfront and honest about our accounts would post four or five different critiques under each account simply to receive critique points? LOL! That is as ludicrous as it is a waste of time when one critique would suffice.
There have been many insinuations lately regarding the actions of multiple accounts block voting, etc. So let me clarify something:
Every action by any member on this site can be tracked by a moderator ( except for the contents of private messages ) and/or Webmiss. I know this from experience. If those with open multiple accounts were abusing their rights it would have been dealt with formidably. However, those ( such as one male particularly ) not disclosing their alternate female accounts are the issue. Period.
You know, I'm sorry, but some things just aren't that important to focus on. Especially open multiple accounts ( as you have inferred ) violating guidelines that can easily be tracked by any moderator or Webmiss. No one has time for that, especially us who diligently attempt to play by the rules, and have a bit of fun with fellow poets.
yup, there seems to be some miscommunication: what I think/am saying is... for this proposed system to be as fair as it can be, and for the points to be truly limited, people should all have the same number of accounts, otherwise some people will have more points to dole out, which will amplify their preferences.
I don't know if that's big problem or not, but I thought it should be brought up
Umm said:
yup, there seems to be some miscommunication: what I think/am saying is... for this proposed system to be as fair as it can be, and for the points to be truly limited, people should all have the same number of accounts, otherwise some people will have more points to doll out, which will amplify their preferences.
I don't know if that's big problem or not, but I thought it should be brought up
Why can't they be limited for each account? Especially if said accounts are not violating guidelines nor taking advantage of perks? Again, how would it amplify their preferences? Can you provide an example of what you're referring to so that I may better understand what you are attempting to say?
Some of us with multiple profiles truly don't take advantage of perks nor violate guidelines. I know that may be difficult to imagine with the same group of members gunning to have them done away with for purported guideline violations, or inferring they will take advantage of perks by having more than one account. But there are honest people who have multiple accounts that actually focus on WRITING and helping others become better writers through critiques that are requested.
My accounts are a warehouse for different genres of poetry. I don't want my psychological posts interweaved with my spiritual ones; or, my bi-sexual mixed with scientific ones. Some of these accounts I barely post to ( much like your own ) - but I have healthy catalogues in each now, and the poetry genre is there when I want to add at any point without intermingling. I feel the same about critique and what angle I would like to critique from.
It seems that no matter what comes up, someone from the same group has to throw the potential evils of multiple profiles in the mix. I am permitted by site ownership to do what I am doing as long as I am not violating guidelines ( which I am not ). And I, as well as others who have open multiple accounts, should be allowed to do that without constant inferences or blatant accusations we aren't honest, or are secretly violating guidelines and are not being punished for it by site admin.
NEWSFLASH: We aren't.
News at 5:00: We STILL aren't.
Upcoming Documentary: How a potential resolution for improving reading list adds and differentiating between honest critiques and friendly comments was reached.
yup, there seems to be some miscommunication: what I think/am saying is... for this proposed system to be as fair as it can be, and for the points to be truly limited, people should all have the same number of accounts, otherwise some people will have more points to doll out, which will amplify their preferences.
I don't know if that's big problem or not, but I thought it should be brought up
Why can't they be limited for each account? Especially if said accounts are not violating guidelines nor taking advantage of perks? Again, how would it amplify their preferences? Can you provide an example of what you're referring to so that I may better understand what you are attempting to say?
Some of us with multiple profiles truly don't take advantage of perks nor violate guidelines. I know that may be difficult to imagine with the same group of members gunning to have them done away with for purported guideline violations, or inferring they will take advantage of perks by having more than one account. But there are honest people who have multiple accounts that actually focus on WRITING and helping others become better writers through critiques that are requested.
My accounts are a warehouse for different genres of poetry. I don't want my psychological posts interweaved with my spiritual ones; or, my bi-sexual mixed with scientific ones. Some of these accounts I barely post to ( much like your own ) - but I have healthy catalogues in each now, and the poetry genre is there when I want to add at any point without intermingling. I feel the same about critique and what angle I would like to critique from.
It seems that no matter what comes up, someone from the same group has to throw the potential evils of multiple profiles in the mix. I am permitted by site ownership to do what I am doing as long as I am not violating guidelines ( which I am not ). And I, as well as others who have open multiple accounts, should be allowed to do that without constant inferences or blatant accusations we aren't honest, or are secretly violating guidelines and are not being punished for it by site admin.
NEWSFLASH: We aren't.
News at 5:00: We STILL aren't.
Upcoming Documentary: How a potential resolution for improving reading list adds and differentiating between honest critiques and friendly comments was reached.
JohnnyBlaze said:
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.
There is sort of something for this already, in that you can give a comment on a poem a "thumbs up". Not sure how many people use that feature, or if it needs a refresh/rebrand (for example, writing the word "useful?" on the button). I'm not keen to build in new functionality; the more different things there are, the more sporadic their usage is. Also, being that most people use mobile phones for the Internet these days, page real estate is at a premium and cramming pages with fiddly little icons and buttons is to be avoided wherever possible.
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.
There is sort of something for this already, in that you can give a comment on a poem a "thumbs up". Not sure how many people use that feature, or if it needs a refresh/rebrand (for example, writing the word "useful?" on the button). I'm not keen to build in new functionality; the more different things there are, the more sporadic their usage is. Also, being that most people use mobile phones for the Internet these days, page real estate is at a premium and cramming pages with fiddly little icons and buttons is to be avoided wherever possible.
