Suggestions for Voting/Points

Since the easiest way to sort these 'Upcoming update! Gimme suggestions!' threads is to go by unified concepts, and voting/member recognition is something entirely its own, I'm requesting that any gripes/groans/suggestions be made in light of things one can or cannot vote on, number of points achieved for seperate things, and the meddling of both.

1) I personally think the review points should be doubled once a set amount of characters are filled in. We have top reviewers not rightly pictured on the front of the Listal points search. Then I think the addition of maybe 50 extra points could be added once a review reaches a monstrous size of some sort. I've read long reviews, and while many of them are an unfeeling series of rabble, some of them retain interest with hilarity or personal voice.

2) When number of votes reaches a certain number, I think the number of points received for the particular contribution should increase. I can see this being abused of course, but I can see just about most anything being abused here if the message you get when entering wikipedia.com is 'The site's closed. Visit Listal instead.' Overall I think points for most things should increase as you further contribute. It'll separate the review posters/list makers/forum posters from the people that just post the same picture over and over and have fun editing items out the wazoo.

3) While I love the notion Tom's getting at for recognition of 'Top 100 Reviewer' and whatnot, I still firmly believe a user should be votable. This was great on Care2 - if you just liked what the member had to say about an issue you'd vote on them. There wasn't some overhyped obligation to respond, but people could acknowledge each other just to let them know they like something overall, not necessarily specific like one of their reviews or pictures. It promoted a friendly environment. It was suggested a short while back that things can be given a thumbs down. Tom disagreed with the negative approach, and so do I. When you give a vote, you don't mind that it's not specified because it's just a nice thing to receive. When you get a thumbs down, you worry about what you can improve. People should make comments for constructive criticism.

4) Something Voxy mentioned earlier.

"Item Descriptions:
Those who edit the summaries and what-not don't get points, right? Has there been any thought to maybe attributing a few points to that so people will make more of an effort to fill in some kind of description for the movie? Though I guess that also has disadvantages in terms of people filling it up with garbage just to get points."

And 5), since people are going to mention abuse of the system whether you plan it or not, the ability of moderators to LOCK items or aspects of them. If I edit an item with the official press release information, like the manual description of a game, I'd like to think someone isn't going to copy/paste an amazon description over it just for points. This will help with primary images as well. If someone finds a better one, they can request a moderator swap it on discression. Abuse is always a factor when something's contributable. But if there's an official thing you can submit, that should be that.

I've seen the best suggestions more recently now that such improvements are in the line of fire. Discuss/debate and submit something of your own if you have it. :)

I like some of these suggestion. Probably because they are familiar!

I raised issue 1) before and Tom suggested that people would just spam to fill it up. I think that it would be easy to tell which members do that though, and if people made more use of the 'report review' feature then maybe this could be countered easily. Especially if moderators were appointed instead of all the emails going to Tom's inbox. I think if a review hits, eg 400 words, then it does deserve more recognition. I definitely think more should be made of the reporting feature too, some reviews out there like 'dis is tyte' are infuriating!

2) Now that we can't vote for our own features, I think the only way this idea could be abused is for people to start making replica accounts. A lot of effort if you ask me! At the moment, I think it's quite rare to see over 5 votes for something, so maybe every 5 votes should increase the points you get for receiving one? I like this idea too.

I think I suggested thumbs down to try and get the one liner reviews to the bottom of the list, but now I really don't want to breed negativity here. I just try and report those reviews instead as spam. Are you suggesting the more votes a reviewers reviews have, then that decides if they're a top reviewer? I can't see why that wouldn't work.

I raised issue 1) before and Tom suggested that people would just spam to fill it up. I think that it would be easy to tell which members do that though, and if people made more use of the 'report review' feature then maybe this could be countered easily. Especially if moderators were appointed instead of all the emails going to Tom's inbox. I think if a review hits, eg 400 words, then it does deserve more recognition. I definitely think more should be made of the reporting feature too, some reviews out there like 'dis is tyte' are infuriating!

If a review is covered in its entirety with the 'Recent Reviews' summary, that's one indication that some elaboration could be put into play. The only reviews I've done that aren't larger than a paragraph are one I wrote for a children's book (not much to cover, eh?) and another for a music single (again..). I think reviewers that just put 'Awzuhm movey' as their review ought to take advantage of the Favorites list or tagging instead.

2) Now that we can't vote for our own features, I think the only way this idea could be abused is for people to start making replica accounts. A lot of effort if you ask me! At the moment, I think it's quite rare to see over 5 votes for something, so maybe every 5 votes should increase the points you get for receiving one? I like this idea too.

I think 5 votes would be the best number as well. It's rare as of yet like you say, and if votes become more common another landmark number might be assigned to further increase points. Though as for the number of points increased, I'd like to think a doubling of the initial 4 into 8 would be best. I'm open to objection of course.

I think I suggested thumbs down to try and get the one liner reviews to the bottom of the list, but now I really don't want to breed negativity here. I just try and report those reviews instead as spam.

I may remember you having mentioned it. I agree with the use of the report button, but I'm not sure how often this feature is used as gripes aren't forwarded to me like they are to Tom and will be to moderators. I've reported something and not seen it deleted for a time, but I can't tell if Tom has too much to respond to or if he has enough free time to work out the website until the reporting gets to an attention-bringing number of some sort. Once I even reported one of my own reviews, but that was when I accidentally turned it into an empty item and a bug kept me from going back and rewriting it. It was amusing as well.

I think Tom should promote some of the site's functions in the blog, so people know they can report something inappropriate.

Are you suggesting the more votes a reviewers reviews have, then that decides if they're a top reviewer? I can't see why that wouldn't work.

Actually, Tom wants something similar to this and I have no idea how he's planning on approaching it. I assume he'll base it off the current manner of choosing based off number of reviews. And if you want to see reviews with little content, check out the top fourth Books reviewer, bloggo chicago. I personally think this style of review could be achieved with lists or tags. ;)

I would completely put a vote in for moderators being able to lock items.

I think locking items will be rather necessary.

To further analyze the state of points for reviews at the present, member Claudia Depp has submitted 209 reviews, all of which are fairly detailed and most of which would qualify for more points based on a character counter. It's nice that the faulty review counter makes it seem like she has 6 more reviews than she should, but should she really be on page 3 of the Listal points search when she's the top third Listal Movies reviewer? I see reviews that would qualify for even more points than 100 from other members. I don't think we should pay by the pop, reviewers will start using longer adjectives for the same idea just for points. 50 points for a review, 100 points if it's got an adequate amount of content, and maybe 150 if it's really, really big. I know some reviews may even be worth more than that, but it's nice to just let off on the satisfaction of going above and beyond.

Edit: Oh and, at the risk of getting my tongue cut out for blasphemy, 0 reviews.

And reviews like this should get absolutely no points whatsoever:

vlm.listal.com/reviews

I say a minimum word count (50 words? more? less?) before you get points. This way unimaginative guys like me could write short reviews without being accused of spamming for points. I don't think it's necessarily wise to award reviews for their length, because it has little to do whether the review is useful or not.

Hmm, too many words in this post.

at the risk of getting my tongue cut out for blasphemy

Oh shut up.

And reviews like this should get absolutely no points whatsoever:

I noticed this guy too. Prime example. Solution...

I say a minimum word count (50 words? more? less?) before you get points. This way unimaginative guys like me could write short reviews without being accused of spamming for points. I don't think it's necessarily wise to award reviews for their length, because it has little to do whether the review is useful or not.

I just did a feedback thing for my Crazy Bones order on Ebay. The maximum length was 80 characters. I say we reverse that, make the minimum length here 80 characters, spaces and punctuation excluded. I agree that usefulness is the key, but that's where the self-reward of satisfaction comes in. You also can't hold off a reviewer if they write more. If you want to recognize a useful review, vote on it!

Oh shut up.

Will my tongue be severed if I don't?

We have comments for some things. I was only suggesting characters as a filtering method, but I retract the thought in light of Prelude's take. I invited an autistic kid to the Atari forums and he nearly got banned in as little as three posts. He would've gotten banned had he not completely forgotten about the forums and never visited again. Some people have their way of saying things, and I don't think a small amount of characters is such a good judge unless they're hateful like 'Oh shut up.'

Oh jeez, didn't mean to sound hateful. Guess that's a cultural difference. Here in Finland that would be standard small talk... Sorry about that.

Anyway, what works for us over at Rateyourmusic, is the ability to sort reviews: positive/negative/longest/recent/highly weighted etc. And you can choose your own default setting.

Oh jeez, didn't mean to sound hateful. Guess that's a cultural difference. Here in Finland that would be standard small talk... Sorry about that.

I really meant to say it can sound hateful when derived from paranoia (whether accurate in conviction or not). I also wanted to reference to your 'I write short reviews' emphasis. The point is that the girl isn't hurting anyone, and annoyance is the fault of the annoyed, eh? Whereas if you see something you like that's more of a reward.

Anyway, what works for us over at Rateyourmusic, is the ability to sort reviews: positive/negative/longest/recent/highly weighted etc. And you can choose your own default setting.

Listal's kind of faulty with sorting. You can't sort search matches right now and you can't move about your custom-sorted collection very conveniently. Last I checked, at least. And you can't set your own default by sort, so if you don't rate you don't have any real order. Like that Thilian bloke. :P

Autistic or not, she can let us know her thoughts on a film without being rewarded by 50 points for it. In essence her spontaneous thoughts on a film are not reviews and thus shouldn't be treated as one.

She could just as easily utilise the new list capabilities of listal and make lists with these one liners under each of the films she wants to comment on. The character limit is a good idea, Thilian, stand tall! I don't believe that you can review a film in under 80 characters. If you fail to hit 80 chars it should still go up, but no points should be awarded?

"'OMG, BRAD PITT IS SO HOT IN THIS!!!'" is a perfectly good review if you're autistic though.

It's a good filtering method, be sure. But something has to be taken into play for voting. Clearly vlm doesn't care to get such a high amount of votes, so stripping them isn't hurting anyone. A character limit would do good for that so long as writers of short reviews don't mind. I've known people with severe special needs: If you give some a topic they'll do it and it's done. I agree that some things work for everyone, but in the online world we could practice a little modification/accommodation, eh? The character thing's better for deciding points, so if someone posts a short review they'd best not complain about the lost 50. I disagree with both Grand Assault and Prelude, and agree with Grand Assault.

"'OMG, BRAD PITT IS SO HOT IN THIS!!!'" is a perfectly good review if you're autistic though.

Some people can't swallow if they're autistic, others become famous scientists. Autism especially varies, to the extent that they assign the term 'Aspergers' to one extent of it.

The only question is, if someone comes on and says they have Down's, and starts posting reviews like vlm, but they actually don't have Down's and just think it's funny (and secure as many sympathetics as they can as friends), we wouldn't know. It's like the kid in the hallway that doesn't have Tourette's, starts donkey breying, and then says he has Tourtette's. So benefit of the doubt goes to lack of points. Hell, vlm kind of sounds a bit like that, considering the grandpa dying when she was a girl is also in her About Me. But ya never know.

I just don't recall seeing any other sites on the internet who make exceptions for people who have disabilities. It would, in essence become too complicated to take into account the fact that some people might not write bigger reviews because they're autistic. We should start to worry about people with only three fingers next, they might not be able to type as much. Dish out some braille LCD's to the blind too. Where does it start and where does it end?

I know people who are autistic and one of them powers huge reviews out and takes a lot pride in it. I know autism effects in different ways, but if you have a penchant for writing 5 word reviews, you probably wont be all that fussed about not getting the points for it.

I think in this case, there should be one set of rules for everyone. While I don't think the shoutbox for every item would be a good idea (I guess it could be), I really enjoy reading other people's reviews and would like to see a degree of order maintained there.

It's hard to say whether we're lacking in order. My opinion is that not as many reviews are on the site because it's still gaining. When we have more members the spammers'll increase, but so will the contributors. That's when we'll need featured reviews. Were we discussing that at some point? Did we reach a decision? I think votes will work better for reviews than they would for images.

80 characters will do so long as we exclude punctuation and other miscellanies. But the point total should be 100, which'd shift the ranks a whole lot. I'm about to pass you Grand, and if the reviews were better accounted for this wouldn't be the case. The guys I've been ousting after getting repeatedly ousted by would also be much farther back. It'd stimulate more reviewing.

We should have an extra point total for really long ones, not because length necessarily decides worth, but because writing longer shows effort and we really can't decide through a machine if effort is given in a moderately sizable review.

I just hope this thread doesn't get forgotten, because there are some good suggestions in here.

I'm sorry to say it, but the current points system simply cheats deserving members out of recognition.

To get to the top, the fastest means of earning points is by posting pictures. The top members rack up the greatest portion of their points simply by this means. Now it's clear to anyone that reviews are just as important as pictures, but since they take personal effort the lack of reward is likely to put off users that could offer much more in the way of critique. Among fighting for rank (it happens) and simply wanting to reach that 5,000 landmark (for newcomers), it's hard to judge certain people for not writing as much when it's somehow discouraged.

The points system needs the following adjustments:

--Character limit to qualify for 100 points (none of that 50 nonsense)
--Points are awarded for editing item descriptions
--Points increase for votes as votes increase for an item
--A system that updates ranks quicker (it takes days sometimes)

And a positive suggestion:

--The ability to recognize members by voting on them as a whole (For, maybe, 10 points? I don't think that's unfair)

Ooo... personally don't like the member voting! :( This is about collections, not a popularity contest, you know? Maybe that just bites at my feelings of inadequacy. :P

Yeah, that member voting is a bit silly. It might also turn off a bunch of people. I agree with what Thil says about upping the points for reviews and item descriptions. I don't think it'll make people write more reviews (cause I don't think people write reviews to get points), but it'd be a nice reward. Also eventually, we might wanna think about moving the review section upwards. It kinda stinks having reviews way down at the bottom.

What's wrong with member voting? It's just like anything else. You can vote on a member once, just simply as recognition. It worked great on Care2, even among issues such as activism sites run through. It's not a popularity contest at all. I don't care if anyone's number is displayed. I don't think any points should be rewarded if that's the problem, but it's a simple thing that adds to a positive environment.

I'm welcome to alternate opinions, but at least these four are supported by consensus:

--Character limit to qualify for 100 points (none of that 50 nonsense)
--Points are awarded for editing item descriptions
--Points increase for votes as votes increase for an item
--A system that updates ranks quicker (it takes days sometimes)

Well, the member voting would be a bit redundant, wouldn't it? If you like what someone's doing, you can say it out loud. Comment a review, add a comment to the profile page, send a little teen crush love letter as a personal message. Besides, not everybody goes for this kinda stuff - flying around sprinkling fairy dust and pinnning gold stars on people. Might limit the site's appeal.

When you put it all panzy like that of course it sounds bad. It's a simple matter of recognition. If it distracts from recognition of individual things, that's negative. Nothing you're obligated to reply to, just something nice. It's true you can comment on reviews, profiles, and other things to specify why you voted. Given the morbid nature of most curiosities, you're left wondering why moreso after negative things (such as thumbs down). Some things work for some communities, some for others. I mention this as something to consider. It's like throwing out a net and seeing how many fish you gather, and if it's not enough you throw it back but if majority rules you take 'em home to pa.

Awesome. When do you think you can add them. Today? Tomorrow..? What's planned for updating next, anyway?

Any way of focusing the points for editing items? For example, I've edited loads of movie titles (international titles for Asian films, etc.), and I don't think I really should be awarded points for this. Whereas some people have done exemplary work in adding plot synopses etc.

Also, what if you make a typo and have to edit the item again? Would the points be awarded twice?

One person should only be rewarded once. If they edit again it means the last job wasn't that great. You should be able to flag an item for locking too, just to make sure someone doesn't come by and ruin your work.

You're going to lose a LOT of points once we start deleting all those 'Duplicate Image's of yours. Not to mention, things'll be more even when reviews are taken into account. The whole system we're setting up here is in the vein of bringing your rank down, didn't you know, Prelude? :P Awarding points for adding titles and other small info isn't worth the trouble. Those are a-given; item descriptions are above and beyond.