How should max allowed reading list entries be calculated?
57.14%
• 12 votes •
Stick with current system. A secret algorithm, with the benefit that no one can game the system.
42.86%
• 9 votes •
Change to new system. Simplify how entries are earned, see what contributes to getting more slots and track your progress.
How should max allowed reading list entries be calculated?
This poll relates to how many reading list entries you're allowed to add.
Reading list entries are restricted to give them meaning, above a like (likes are unlimited). This makes it special when someone adds one of your submissions to their reading list.
Many people have added a lot less reading list entries then their maximum allowance. I am not suggesting that we set out to increase the maximum. However, if a new system is implemented it will change how many each member is allowed. I will try to keep it as a similar amount to what we have now, though any changes will definitely mean that some people will get more slots and some people will get less.
Note: the outcome of this poll does not change in any way the reading list entries that your submissions have received. Neither will anyone have entries removed from their list if changes are made which put them above their maximum.
Poll closes in 1 week (around 17th July, allowing for time differences)
Reading list entries are restricted to give them meaning, above a like (likes are unlimited). This makes it special when someone adds one of your submissions to their reading list.
Many people have added a lot less reading list entries then their maximum allowance. I am not suggesting that we set out to increase the maximum. However, if a new system is implemented it will change how many each member is allowed. I will try to keep it as a similar amount to what we have now, though any changes will definitely mean that some people will get more slots and some people will get less.
Note: the outcome of this poll does not change in any way the reading list entries that your submissions have received. Neither will anyone have entries removed from their list if changes are made which put them above their maximum.
Poll closes in 1 week (around 17th July, allowing for time differences)
I can't vote for either because there is no middle ground. Why can't the current system be built upon? Why must it be totally changed into something that will allow members to "game the system"?
I realize we're just discussing RLs; however, this could also apply to titles as well.
Not that you're AllPoetry ( nor do I want you to be ), but I do admire Kevin's system of advancement:
Congrats! You're a level 8 "aventurine thought"
With 4 x gold trophy, 8 x any trophy, 3 x start a contest, 15 x enter a contest, 493 x comments, 333 x rated comments, 89 x poems, 38 x favorites, 94 x fans, 462 x edit an item, 846 x visits to the site, 64 x comments on new users, 6 x join a group
To reach level 9, you need 1 x any trophy
It clearly shows you what to work for, and what you need to obtain the next level. There is nothing wrong with knowing what you need to do to advance - and it shouldn't be at the expense of anyone gaming the system. Some members love challenges. You have three Reading Challenges for that purpose.
I believe members will vote to track their own progress in order to feel challenged and more in control of advancing. However, it would be a shame if it was at the expense of some gaming the system.
I'm not attempting to be divisive; I'm attempting to be honest. So there are my concerns and the reason I cannot vote for either. But, realize it is to benefit a solution - which I am trying to be a part of here.
I realize we're just discussing RLs; however, this could also apply to titles as well.
Not that you're AllPoetry ( nor do I want you to be ), but I do admire Kevin's system of advancement:
Congrats! You're a level 8 "aventurine thought"
With 4 x gold trophy, 8 x any trophy, 3 x start a contest, 15 x enter a contest, 493 x comments, 333 x rated comments, 89 x poems, 38 x favorites, 94 x fans, 462 x edit an item, 846 x visits to the site, 64 x comments on new users, 6 x join a group
To reach level 9, you need 1 x any trophy
It clearly shows you what to work for, and what you need to obtain the next level. There is nothing wrong with knowing what you need to do to advance - and it shouldn't be at the expense of anyone gaming the system. Some members love challenges. You have three Reading Challenges for that purpose.
I believe members will vote to track their own progress in order to feel challenged and more in control of advancing. However, it would be a shame if it was at the expense of some gaming the system.
I'm not attempting to be divisive; I'm attempting to be honest. So there are my concerns and the reason I cannot vote for either. But, realize it is to benefit a solution - which I am trying to be a part of here.
XO Ahavati said:Why can't the current system be built upon?
This is because the current system is a complex algorithm with many variables considered. I want to make the site more user friendly, not less user friendly. Trying to represent the current algorithm would require a multitude of progress bars and I don't believe that would be conducive with that goal.
This is because the current system is a complex algorithm with many variables considered. I want to make the site more user friendly, not less user friendly. Trying to represent the current algorithm would require a multitude of progress bars and I don't believe that would be conducive with that goal.
So it's either a cold algorithm laid bare
For all to maximize and fine tune themselves to making sure the boxes are checked and all bases covered
All for an illusion
Or at least it maintains some mystery
And hint of divinity graced upon ye, a knight hood, good sir, one who in the end, truly merits his title.
Woe, thee, who trades his poetic soul
For the inner secrets of the rubrik
For all to maximize and fine tune themselves to making sure the boxes are checked and all bases covered
All for an illusion
Or at least it maintains some mystery
And hint of divinity graced upon ye, a knight hood, good sir, one who in the end, truly merits his title.
Woe, thee, who trades his poetic soul
For the inner secrets of the rubrik
I'll expand on my earlier point, to give some insight into how I see the Reading List feature. I would foresee the simplified algorithm to consider only two or three variables (rather than the six or so of the current system). The current algorithm has become somewhat of a beast as I've added to it over the years.
I would choose the most relevant information to base the new system on; this could be likes given, and comments made (on other peoples' submissions). The Reading List was conceived to house your favourite poems on DU. Therefore the amount you get is designed to be based on the quantity of poems you're reading and engaging with. Therefore I believe it makes sense that every x number of poems you like, one would be special enough to go on your Reading List.
I understand that some people mainly read submissions by poets they follow, so there may be a higher percentage of poems they really like. However, nudging people to expand their reading may be no bad thing?!
I would choose the most relevant information to base the new system on; this could be likes given, and comments made (on other peoples' submissions). The Reading List was conceived to house your favourite poems on DU. Therefore the amount you get is designed to be based on the quantity of poems you're reading and engaging with. Therefore I believe it makes sense that every x number of poems you like, one would be special enough to go on your Reading List.
I understand that some people mainly read submissions by poets they follow, so there may be a higher percentage of poems they really like. However, nudging people to expand their reading may be no bad thing?!
admin said:
This is because the current system is a complex algorithm with many variables considered. I want to make the site more user friendly, not less user friendly. Trying to represent the current algorithm would require a multitude of progress bars and I don't believe that would be conducive with that goal.
I'm American, so it just dawned on me that our terminology may differ. Here in America "Game the System" basically implies cheating. Is that the context here?
admin said:I'll expand on my earlier point, to give some insight into how I see the Reading List feature. I would foresee the simplified algorithm to consider only two or three variables (rather than the six or so of the current system). The current algorithm has become somewhat of a beast as I've added to it over the years.
I would choose the most relevant information to base the new system on; this could be likes given, and comments made (on other peoples' submissions). The Reading List was conceived to house your favourite poems on DU. Therefore the amount you get is designed to be based on the quantity of poems you're reading and engaging with. Therefore I believe it makes sense that every x number of poems you like, one would be special enough to go on your Reading List.
I understand that some people mainly read submissions by poets they follow, so there may be a higher percentage of poems they really like. However, nudging people to expand their reading may be no bad thing?!
I think the entire site would want what is best or easiest for you. Sure, I love challenges, e.g. - reading, napo, competitions, you name it. So do others, but I would not think at your expense of having to manage a beast you've raised from infancy which has become unmanageable in terms of caring for, and should now be released into the wild.
So, am I understanding it would be easier for you to develop a newer one vs keeping the current one? That's almost what it sounds like in your latest explanation. Perhaps each member could have X number of challenges, e.g. - likes. comments, rl's, comp votes, etc. to get to the next level.
As far as reading lists, so as in love in literature: the heart wants what it wants. . .
This is because the current system is a complex algorithm with many variables considered. I want to make the site more user friendly, not less user friendly. Trying to represent the current algorithm would require a multitude of progress bars and I don't believe that would be conducive with that goal.
I'm American, so it just dawned on me that our terminology may differ. Here in America "Game the System" basically implies cheating. Is that the context here?
admin said:I'll expand on my earlier point, to give some insight into how I see the Reading List feature. I would foresee the simplified algorithm to consider only two or three variables (rather than the six or so of the current system). The current algorithm has become somewhat of a beast as I've added to it over the years.
I would choose the most relevant information to base the new system on; this could be likes given, and comments made (on other peoples' submissions). The Reading List was conceived to house your favourite poems on DU. Therefore the amount you get is designed to be based on the quantity of poems you're reading and engaging with. Therefore I believe it makes sense that every x number of poems you like, one would be special enough to go on your Reading List.
I understand that some people mainly read submissions by poets they follow, so there may be a higher percentage of poems they really like. However, nudging people to expand their reading may be no bad thing?!
I think the entire site would want what is best or easiest for you. Sure, I love challenges, e.g. - reading, napo, competitions, you name it. So do others, but I would not think at your expense of having to manage a beast you've raised from infancy which has become unmanageable in terms of caring for, and should now be released into the wild.
So, am I understanding it would be easier for you to develop a newer one vs keeping the current one? That's almost what it sounds like in your latest explanation. Perhaps each member could have X number of challenges, e.g. - likes. comments, rl's, comp votes, etc. to get to the next level.
As far as reading lists, so as in love in literature: the heart wants what it wants. . .
Jade-Pandora said:Here we go.
Thanks Jade. But, as I previously said, I know what it means in American lingo; however, I wanted to make certain it was the correct context here, and wasn't a reference to gaming as in playing to reach new levels, i.e. - video games etc.
cold_fusion said:
Jadey... Does gerrymandering ring a bell?
😉
In Oz, we call that rorting!
You just had to bring American politics into it, didn't you?
Thanks Jade. But, as I previously said, I know what it means in American lingo; however, I wanted to make certain it was the correct context here, and wasn't a reference to gaming as in playing to reach new levels, i.e. - video games etc.
cold_fusion said:
Jadey... Does gerrymandering ring a bell?
😉
In Oz, we call that rorting!
You just had to bring American politics into it, didn't you?
