Community Site Ranking

Service: Narrative

Community Site Ranking has recently been removed. I know it may raise (and have raised) some issues, but I think that the upsides are much more, and that it's worth having it. Just removing it sounds a rough and unfair solution, especially disrespectful toward people who contributed till now.

I know we're here to help and ask, not for a race. Nevertheless, having a ranking - like many other large and popular communities - it's worth for a number of reasons (some of them already mentioned by @Malkazoid, here), included:

  • Immediate knowledge of who's active in the community. I sometimes prefer to know how much active and experienced is the member, before taking the time to dig in his or her history. Or I may want to check what active people have in their track.
  • The ranking is also a metric of reputation. Not a sure metric, of course, but an important one. In some cases, like Tribunal elections, it may have a relevant role not just limited to the Community.
  • Knowing that a narrator is active also in the Community - outside of the rewards system - may give me clues about his or her willingness to contribute to the platform.
  • It's a little reward for active members. They spend time contributing here (sometimes even renouncing to raise a profitable discussion in the platform), and help and feedback from active - and motivated - members may be especially important. Why not give them some honor for this? If it sounds stupid, it doesn't sound stupid to everybody. To me, it sounds fair.
Original Post

Activity Stream

How we're going to measure the efforts of community site contributors if we don't have any tools to judge it? Do we've any other plans?

Either we can relaunch the ranking from the Beta period by excluding the alpha scores or the previous version as it as. Removing it completely is only going to turn off those who're actively contributing over here, which are very handful by the way. 

I agree - and now that the timeline for Moderator and Tribunal elections is becoming clearer, it is more important than ever to be really aware of how important the scoring is, for those central processes for Narrative.

Campaign burden

Please be aware that the 4 month period between Tribunal nominations and the actual elections, places a burden of a long campaign for Narrators wishing to serve the Tribunal.

Those Narrators who will rely mostly on the fealty of people they have recruited to the platform, will not need to campaign much, if at all.  Those Narrators who rely on their commitment to good governance, on the other hand, will have to demonstrate it.  It is already not a given that their efforts will be able to compete with fealty votes - I think we have to do everything within our power to not make their campaigns harder by removing hard data that demonstrates the seriousness of their commitment.

 

The Stakes

With bad Moderators, and bad Tribunal members, Narrative can suffer a lot and potentially fail.  I don't want to be overly alarming, but even a single minute of pragmatic evaluation of possible difficult scenarios should bring everyone onto roughly the same page: Tribunal members and Moderators are roles with great responsibility, and the effects of their behaviour and decisions can deeply affect almost every aspect of life on Narrative, as well as the platform's reputation.

If we take away the only metric that measures community contributions free from the self-interest of NRVE rewards and reputation, we will only have ourselves to blame if we end up with voters not knowing who to trust with their votes.

 

Reputation

I'd go as far as observing that the degree to which Narrators participate in these Community Support site discussions that provide no financial reward, and no reputation points, is a much more relevant metric than the current Reputation scores.  MUCH more relevant.  Most of our current Reputation system measures popularity mixed in with content quality, and the mere fact of being a real individual (certification): none of which are predictors of good governance.  Only 10% of that score reflects whether or not a Narrator has committed infractions, and appropriate voting appears to be a small portion of the Quality component.  @Vico Biscotti, and others, have also pointed to these issues.

We really should not be looking at that reputation score as the only, or even primary measure of eligibility.  Instead, we should be looking at which Narrators have the commitment and the drive to continuously benefit the platform as a whole, above and beyond the self-interest of their own following and their own rewards.  

 

Next steps

I was really disappointed to see the ranking removed without any mention of these considerations.  I understand that the huge development list leaves little time for theoretical thought on our democratic process here at Narrative, and there may be the presumption that all the theory has already been taken care of during the Alpha.  Please consider that we may be overlooking a crucial aspect of community governance if we underestimate the importance of this scoring.

My hope is that in advance of the elections starting, that the Narrative Company not only brings back the Community Scoring, but actually messages about it, and the metric it represents.  This would be very appropriate information to include in the Narrative_hq post that announces the start of the elections (both Moderator and Tribunal).

Malkazoid posted:

I agree - and now that the timeline for Moderator and Tribunal elections is becoming clearer, it is more important than ever to be really aware of how important the scoring is, for those central processes for Narrative.

Campaign burden

Please be aware that the 4 month period between Tribunal nominations and the actual elections, places a burden of a long campaign for Narrators wishing to serve the Tribunal.

Those Narrators who will rely mostly on the fealty of people they have recruited to the platform, will not need to campaign much, if at all.  Those Narrators who rely on their commitment to good governance, on the other hand, will have to demonstrate it.  It is already not a given that their efforts will be able to compete with fealty votes - I think we have to do everything within our power to not make their campaigns harder by removing hard data that demonstrates the seriousness of their commitment.

 

The Stakes

With bad Moderators, and bad Tribunal members, Narrative can suffer a lot and potentially fail.  I don't want to be overly alarming, but even a single minute of pragmatic evaluation of possible difficult scenarios should bring everyone onto roughly the same page: Tribunal members and Moderators are roles with great responsibility, and the effects of their behaviour and decisions can deeply affect almost every aspect of life on Narrative, as well as the platform's reputation.

If we take away the only metric that measures community contributions free from the self-interest of NRVE rewards and reputation, we will only have ourselves to blame if we end up with voters not knowing who to trust with their votes.

 

Reputation

I'd go as far as observing that the degree to which Narrators participate in these Community Support site discussions that provide no financial reward, and no reputation points, is a much more relevant metric than the current Reputation scores.  MUCH more relevant.  Most of our current Reputation system measures popularity mixed in with content quality, and the mere fact of being a real individual (certification): none of which are predictors of good governance.  Only 10% of that score reflects whether or not a Narrator has committed infractions, and appropriate voting appears to be a small portion of the Quality component.  @Vico Biscotti, and others, have also pointed to these issues.

We really should not be looking at that reputation score as the only, or even primary measure of eligibility.  Instead, we should be looking at which Narrators have the commitment and the drive to continuously benefit the platform as a whole, above and beyond the self-interest of their own following and their own rewards.  

 

Next steps

I was really disappointed to see the ranking removed without any mention of these considerations.  I understand that the huge development list leaves little time for theoretical thought on our democratic process here at Narrative, and there may be the presumption that all the theory has already been taken care of during the Alpha.  Please consider that we may be overlooking a crucial aspect of community governance if we underestimate the importance of this scoring.

My hope is that in advance of the elections starting, that the Narrative Company not only brings back the Community Scoring, but actually messages about it, and the metric it represents.  This would be very appropriate information to include in the Narrative_hq post that announces the start of the elections (both Moderator and Tribunal).

Nice point @Vico BiscottiI love how @Malkazoid puts it. People on the Community platform are truly there because they care about and want to improve the platform. Not necessarily anyone not posting here doesn't care. Some are putting great content out there. And I'm not even a high contributor here myself.

But ignoring the efforts and suggestions made here in a community driven and rewarding platform doesn't seem to be fair IMO. Ranking at least helps feature those who give their time, and there should be more ways to reward them.

A couple community members (including some whom have posted to this topic) have talked about the flaw in the ranking.  Therefore, it has been disabled as Narrative does not own this community software.  As to future elections, the community site is still available to be used for people to see how active they are and how they act in the community support side.  Of course, this is just one aspect of why someone might vote for them....not the only reason.  For those of you who may be new - note that the community support is not at all linked to your reputation on the Narrative platform. In fact, user names are maybe different as well.

Of course, community site ranking has nothing to do with reputation, and of course, this shouldn't be the only metric of the judgment of members' activity, @David Dreezer. I'd bet that not even a new member would use that as major criteria.

But I have the impression that you're just ignoring all of the aforementioned valid reasons for reintroducing it. A couple of issues on a useful feature by a third party is obviously not a valid reason for removing the feature, in this case.

As an active participant in the Support Community since I joined Narrative, I would like Community Site ranking visible again. It shows all the unpaid labor we've been doing before and after the beta launched. (I was unpaid completely, because I didn't receive my community rewards distribution due to my lack of knowledge about needing to link to my Telegram account. Water under the bridge, but it still irritates me.)

This is essential information for what is going to be a longer and more brutal extended campaign for Tribunal elections since the date was pushed back. The community site ranking will show better than our platform reputation scores who has been taking an active role in trying to better Narrative when personal profit is NOT part of the motive, which is something that some narrators have been trying to argue about Narrative-related posts on the site.

I'll add something that may or may not sound obvious: if @Brian Lenz can wrangle bringing the Community Ranking back, and if Narrative_hq messages about its value as a gateway to finding out more about Moderation and Tribunal candidates through their consultable contributions here - it will go a long way towards making this Community Site more attractive to Narrators.

People who want to moderate or be on Tribunal will see new value in participating here.

This is a way to give the Community Support site added relevance, and counteract the monopoly on attractiveness the platform has with its NRVE rewards and reputation score building.

This is one of those things that can be a great thing for Narrative all around - I'm hoping this will be one of the rare tickets that receives a response, and that the response will recognise its value and let us know what the intention is.

Add Reply

×
×
×
×