Feedback
1748150 Members
3611 Online
108758 Solutions
New Discussion

Re: Feedback on new site (ranking)

 
Kevin_Paul
HPE Pro

Re: Feedback on new site

Well, in the meantime I trust that 50 (if you max out your own setting for this) is far better than 10 - can't promise we can change the maximum, but I will add it to the list of enhancement requests.

I work for HPE.
Pete Randall
Outstanding Contributor

Re: Feedback on new site

Thanks, Kevin.  I can live with 50 for now but I don't understand what the limit is saving, perhaps page load time for really long threads?  That's a choice for each indiviual to make I would think.  Perhaps a word of caution in the explanation of the parameter so the user would know what they're letting themselves in for?


Pete
James R. Ferguson
Acclaimed Contributor

Re: Feedback on new site


@Warren_Admin wrote:

 

Every social platform has its own terminology. ...

 

Then there are ranks. A rank can be based on a formula that measures one's contributions to the community. These ranks are named, e.g., "Frequent Advisor," and you can progress "up the ladder" as your contributions increase.

 


That's all fine and wonderful.  Here's my comments and questions:

 

1.  DEFINE your terminology when you present something!  No good writer will ever *assume* that every reader will know a particular acronym a priori and/or that every reader will understand what a term indigenous to the culture/craft/profession signifies.

 

2.  Thanks to Dennis we have a ordered list of the ranking "labels" [ including a bunch of Asian character sets that mean nothing to English monoglots like me ].  That's fine.  *NOW* the question is (and I've asked it before to no avail), EXACTLY what is the formula that establishes the various ranks?  Is it simply the number of kudos?  Is it a ratio of responses-to-kudos?  How about publishing some official guide to understanding all of the nuances of this community?  Did HP just buy-into Lithium and is just learning along the way like we are?

 

...JRF...

Dennis Handly
Acclaimed Contributor

Re: Feedback on new site (ranking)

>2.  Thanks to Dennis we have a ordered list of the ranking "labels"

 

These aren't really ordered because I couldn't figure out any useful order.  The only order is the kudos.

 

Here is the ranking help on a strange shadowy mirror of our forum:

http://h30499.www3.hp.com/t5/Community-Feedback-Suggestions/Display-order-of-topics-newest-response-at-the-top/m-p/4827433#M1343

https://h10078.www1.hp.com/bto/download/ranking_July10.pdf

 

The official ranking list:

http://h30499.www3.hp.com/t5/Tips-and-Tricks/Ranking-Overview/td-p/4828337

>Is it simply the number of kudos?

 

Not that I can see.  Riff-raff with 10% of my kudos have the same rank.  It doesn't seem to be start date or possibly number of posts??

 

> Did HP just buy-into Lithium and is just learning along the way like we are?

 

The forum has been going for at least a year.  Somebody should know something.  Otherwise as I said:

    It's the kudos man, it's the stinkin' kudos.  ;-)

twodogmike
Advisor

Re: Feedback on new site

Good point. The whole company attitude seems to be, "to hell with what the user wants."  They seem to forget that most of us are command line users.  The fripperies that web designers have put into this atrocity are more in line with Baby Einstein stuff than anything UNIX professionals would choose.

twodogmike
Dennis Handly
Acclaimed Contributor

Re: Feedback on new site (ranking)

Kevin_Paul
HPE Pro

Re: Feedback on new site (ranking)

Thanks Dennis - you beat me to it!

I work for HPE.
James R. Ferguson
Acclaimed Contributor

Re: Feedback on new site (ranking)

Hi:

 

OK, so there is finally a document that describes the relative rankings.  I still have two questions (but of course):

 

1.  The document shows the sequence as 'Outstanding Contributor' -> 'Acclaimed Contributor' yet the kudo leaderboard suggests that pure kudo's should reverse this order.  Which is true?

 

2.  I have repeatedly asked for the formula, criteria, ranges, call it what you will, for each rank label.  Can we please have that secret too?  I suspect that some combination of a kudo count together with the recorded number of posts forms the basis for any ranking.  Correct or not?

 

Regards!

 

...JRF...

Dennis Handly
Acclaimed Contributor

Re: Feedback on new site (ranking)

>I have repeatedly asked for the formula, criteria, ranges,

 

Or source code.  ;-)

 

They may be trying to make it up to SEP for all of those lost points.

James R. Ferguson
Acclaimed Contributor

Re: Feedback on new site (ranking)


Dennis Handly wrote

 

They may be trying to make it up to SEP for all of those lost points.


And now that I read the 'official' guide a second time I note that it says "...Ranks are used to indicate the number, quality...".

 

Hence, I think I have half of my answer: the *absolute* number of posts factors into the ranking (label) and that has the highest (or only) weight in the determination.

 

To support this, SEP's 27,966 posts far exeed my 16,613.  Too, Chery G.'s status and her total of 18,202 tells me that there is a transition point somewhere around her level to "acclaimed".

 

It would still be very nice to have an official mapping of ranks to some "point" level(s).  Gee, we could all see that in the good old ITRC ...

 

Regards!

 

...JRF...