All about MilPoints
- Thread starter Mike Bobbitt
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 430
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,340
- Points
- 1,160
When I heard about the milpoints I thought it may be a good way to reward people for good posts and show displeasure at bad ones.
I've been checking out peoples profiles here and there and 99% of peoples points seem to come from being online.
A few trolls have a slew of negitive comments and some good posts have gotten props but over all the system doesn't seem to represent what I assumed it was meant to- positive and negitive feed back (correct me if I'm wrong)
Would a system that works solely on a good/bad cookie set up be able to represent the quality of someones posts better?
Someone posts something dumb ding them for it. Someone posts something insightful they get a 'good cookie'. There could be a +/- status bar under the users name to indicate the wether they are in the red or blue.
Someone might say 'well who really care either way?' but if that's the case why have it then.
What exactly are we using the milpoints for in it's current setup?
I've been checking out peoples profiles here and there and 99% of peoples points seem to come from being online.
A few trolls have a slew of negitive comments and some good posts have gotten props but over all the system doesn't seem to represent what I assumed it was meant to- positive and negitive feed back (correct me if I'm wrong)
Would a system that works solely on a good/bad cookie set up be able to represent the quality of someones posts better?
Someone posts something dumb ding them for it. Someone posts something insightful they get a 'good cookie'. There could be a +/- status bar under the users name to indicate the wether they are in the red or blue.
Someone might say 'well who really care either way?' but if that's the case why have it then.
What exactly are we using the milpoints for in it's current setup?
- Reaction score
- 798
- Points
- 1,240
In fairness, there was a contest that used MilPoints. Some may be saving theirs for another contests.
The -10 penalty was implemented as a temporary measure to encourage members to rate others more often. I do not see it occuring as much either. Until recently, I still saw the standard rainbow post, or "use search function" comment.
For myself, instead of saving points, I have been accepting the -10 and rating members instead of posting. This has a double negative effect on my MPs, since I am not posting an opinion and most new members do not know the value of MPs.
It's worth posting about the MPs and providing feedback on how the system is currently working. I think it has it's place and more can be done with it to make it work as intended.
The -10 penalty was implemented as a temporary measure to encourage members to rate others more often. I do not see it occuring as much either. Until recently, I still saw the standard rainbow post, or "use search function" comment.
For myself, instead of saving points, I have been accepting the -10 and rating members instead of posting. This has a double negative effect on my MPs, since I am not posting an opinion and most new members do not know the value of MPs.
It's worth posting about the MPs and providing feedback on how the system is currently working. I think it has it's place and more can be done with it to make it work as intended.
- Reaction score
- 79
- Points
- 680
We've tried that before and it became a popularity contest and quickly went they way of the dodo bird.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,340
- Points
- 1,160
Yes I remember that.NFLD Sapper said:
I recall the forums heavy hitters (Or I guess you could say more senior members?) being the most upset when someone neg repped them (us).
Kratz seems to make use of the system quite a bit. He dished out 200 points (good and bad) on the first page of his MP history. More than most people I've looked at.
Still, in 350 posts Kratz accumulated 10'000 points (he hasn't received any points from other posters on his first page)
In 4300 posts you have close to 50'000 points. On the first long page of your MP history you neither gave away any points or received any, it's all just for being on line X amount of hours or making posts.
I guess I just don't understand the reason for having them that's all.
Me giving you 10 points or taking them away doesn't really seem worth while, ya know?
I am probably like most.....I don't even consider them.
If I have a point to make on a thread, whether I agree or disagree, I will post a comment, or, as in the case of some airhead twits, never go back to that thread again (unless it becomes obvious it's a dogpile for being stupid...)
If I have a point to make on a thread, whether I agree or disagree, I will post a comment, or, as in the case of some airhead twits, never go back to that thread again (unless it becomes obvious it's a dogpile for being stupid...)
- Reaction score
- 798
- Points
- 1,240
Instead of the previous styled dogpile or worthless +1/-1 posts, the MPs have had a positive effect in reducing those posts. Again in doing so, I do not need to post as often. So anything I have to say is worth less because I do not post lots? Or have never received a positive/or negative MP?
I think the site is working, but questioning the MPs and how they are working is worth some discussion. Keep in mind the site is still working on some of the upgrades. So any suggestions would take time if they are considered.
I think the site is working, but questioning the MPs and how they are working is worth some discussion. Keep in mind the site is still working on some of the upgrades. So any suggestions would take time if they are considered.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,340
- Points
- 1,160
kratz said:
How?
MPs are automatic.
You could ding me -20 points for a post and I can make double the amount I lost by posting twice. I can't see how they have effected anything really.
The only way I can see them being indicative of anything is if the ONLY way to get points was through peer assessent.
- Reaction score
- 798
- Points
- 1,240
As an example. I see the positive effect in members no longer posting +1, just because they agree. Yes, we all know that form of agreement is no longer acceptable and so refrain from making such posts, but for those who do not follow the custom, their deleted posts cost them -30 when the mods delete their posts as well. So is the MP system having a positive impact? IMO, in a round about way, I think so.
*Edit* For spelling.
*Edit* For spelling.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 7,340
- Points
- 1,160
Yes but the -30 points from having their post deleted can be made back in 3 hours of being online or being online for an hour and making a post.
What I'm trying to say is that MPs are given away so much so that loosing some from a trollish post or having a post deleted is meaningless.
If people have stopped posting +1 it's because to do otherwise means they get introduced sooner or later to the warning system (and the ire of the mods) up to and including being banned. I doubt anyone stopped because it meant they lost 15 points.
Because points are so abundantly earned, wether you have 500 or 50'000 it doesn't really reflect anything.
Actually it reflects post quantity, not quality.
I personally feel *if* we have it it should reflect
What I'm trying to say is that MPs are given away so much so that loosing some from a trollish post or having a post deleted is meaningless.
If people have stopped posting +1 it's because to do otherwise means they get introduced sooner or later to the warning system (and the ire of the mods) up to and including being banned. I doubt anyone stopped because it meant they lost 15 points.
Because points are so abundantly earned, wether you have 500 or 50'000 it doesn't really reflect anything.
Actually it reflects post quantity, not quality.
I personally feel *if* we have it it should reflect
- Reaction score
- 198
- Points
- 1,210
Flawed,
You make some good points... just today I was considering dropping the -10 penalty for rating another user. It was instituted to prevent action without thought, but clearly that's not the issue. Out of the thousands of users we have here I can count on one hand those that use the MilPoints system regularly to assess others. That to me is a breakdown in the system, which is supposed to encourage "good" user behaviour and discourage "bad" by allowing the user population to have a strong, consistent voice.
The old rating system burned out of control and I know why, at least in part: it was completely anonymous. I believe a small but very vocal segment of our userbase was able to anonymously tip the scales with a concerted effort. This system holds the assessee and assessor publicly accountable, and predictably the "radicals" are nowhere to be found this time. Unfortunately neither is anyone else.
I hear repeatedly that folks aren't concerned with their MilPoints totals, yet they're not using the tool to assess others. We know from past ratings experiments that the will is out there, so I can only assume that the cost plays a (small?) part in everyone's reluctance to use the system.
Based on what you're saying I think I'm hearing that larger +/- values for rating others might also help make the system more useful. As has been pointed out, the system (and the entire site) is ever changing, in large part due to the ideas and discussions of our users.
kratz is right about the intent of the system, and you're probably right about it's actual effectiveness. As a result, I've dropped the -10 penalty, and increased the assessment value range (see the MilPoints FAQ for details).
One other thing the old system had going for it was ease of use. Would including simple one-click "Give XX MilPoints" and "Deduct XX MilPoints" buttons help people use the system? The current system is 2 steps, but allows you to take a hand in the moderation of the site by putting forward an optional opinion.
We've seen once so far that MilPoints can have an actual value* - I plan to do more like that in time, but there's still a lot to get in order before anything noteworth takes place there.
I'm certainly open to additional suggestions on how to improve it's utility and balance.
Cheers
Mike
* In writing this I realized that due to some confusion about where the gift certs from that contest were to be sent, they were never sent... winners, expect to hear from me to confirm your addresses again on this... everyone else use the system to rate me down!
You make some good points... just today I was considering dropping the -10 penalty for rating another user. It was instituted to prevent action without thought, but clearly that's not the issue. Out of the thousands of users we have here I can count on one hand those that use the MilPoints system regularly to assess others. That to me is a breakdown in the system, which is supposed to encourage "good" user behaviour and discourage "bad" by allowing the user population to have a strong, consistent voice.
The old rating system burned out of control and I know why, at least in part: it was completely anonymous. I believe a small but very vocal segment of our userbase was able to anonymously tip the scales with a concerted effort. This system holds the assessee and assessor publicly accountable, and predictably the "radicals" are nowhere to be found this time. Unfortunately neither is anyone else.
I hear repeatedly that folks aren't concerned with their MilPoints totals, yet they're not using the tool to assess others. We know from past ratings experiments that the will is out there, so I can only assume that the cost plays a (small?) part in everyone's reluctance to use the system.
Based on what you're saying I think I'm hearing that larger +/- values for rating others might also help make the system more useful. As has been pointed out, the system (and the entire site) is ever changing, in large part due to the ideas and discussions of our users.
kratz is right about the intent of the system, and you're probably right about it's actual effectiveness. As a result, I've dropped the -10 penalty, and increased the assessment value range (see the MilPoints FAQ for details).
One other thing the old system had going for it was ease of use. Would including simple one-click "Give XX MilPoints" and "Deduct XX MilPoints" buttons help people use the system? The current system is 2 steps, but allows you to take a hand in the moderation of the site by putting forward an optional opinion.
We've seen once so far that MilPoints can have an actual value* - I plan to do more like that in time, but there's still a lot to get in order before anything noteworth takes place there.
I'm certainly open to additional suggestions on how to improve it's utility and balance.
Cheers
Mike
* In writing this I realized that due to some confusion about where the gift certs from that contest were to be sent, they were never sent... winners, expect to hear from me to confirm your addresses again on this... everyone else use the system to rate me down!
- Reaction score
- 22,801
- Points
- 1,360
A little bit more difficult than that, but on someone's post, click the Milpoints icon on the upper right side of the top of the post, then a dialogue box will open and you can award (for good posts) or take away (for bad posts) -- it costs you a few points, but it may be worth it in your assessment. 
iper:
http://army.ca/milpoints/faq.php
iper: http://army.ca/milpoints/faq.php
- Reaction score
- 798
- Points
- 1,240
While the MilPoints that a member holds is under their name, to add or subtract from that members points you must go to that member's upper right corner. The user system is awkward and not simple to use.
I do not like the idea of a simple +/- like CBC online now has. The CBC version reminds me of the problems MilNet had before. To suggest an improvement place MilPoints in a member's post block in ONE place. When another person clicks on it, there is a split screen showing all of that member's MP history. The top 10% has the current MilPoint review standards for that post (no blind snipping. The remaining MP page is the member's MP history. To aid in the more senior members choice of assigning points vice dogpile. Maybe even a tweak in the points system for judicious use of points.
I agree, right now MilPoints needs three or four locations within MilNet to understand how it works. While there are people who post and depart, those are in the minority to the community. The MP system can improve without changing what it is already achieving.
I do not like the idea of a simple +/- like CBC online now has. The CBC version reminds me of the problems MilNet had before. To suggest an improvement place MilPoints in a member's post block in ONE place. When another person clicks on it, there is a split screen showing all of that member's MP history. The top 10% has the current MilPoint review standards for that post (no blind snipping. The remaining MP page is the member's MP history. To aid in the more senior members choice of assigning points vice dogpile. Maybe even a tweak in the points system for judicious use of points.
I agree, right now MilPoints needs three or four locations within MilNet to understand how it works. While there are people who post and depart, those are in the minority to the community. The MP system can improve without changing what it is already achieving.
- Reaction score
- 198
- Points
- 1,210
Vern, now tht you've figured it out, I've moved the button, per krat's suggestion. 
It's now in your profile block to the left, just below your total. kratz I think I understand your other suggestions and will take a crack at some of those as well.
Cheers
Mike
It's now in your profile block to the left, just below your total. kratz I think I understand your other suggestions and will take a crack at some of those as well.Cheers
Mike
- Reaction score
- 1,322
- Points
- 940
I like the drop down menu but you need to add more descriptions. Right now you have:
Insightful
Informative
Helpful
Neutral
Aggressive
Off topic
Trolling
Spam
What about Misleading or Wrong? I just deducted points from someone for that very reason. At the very least, Unhelpful might be good.
Insightful
Informative
Helpful
Neutral
Aggressive
Off topic
Trolling
Spam
What about Misleading or Wrong? I just deducted points from someone for that very reason. At the very least, Unhelpful might be good.
- Status
Similar threads
