Contribution Levels
Warrior15
Anywhere there are Titties.
I see a discussion below about Trust numbers, but nothing about Contribution Levels. Looks like Founder is playing around with the algorithm. I went from a Level 3 yesterday to a Level 7 today. Another day of adjustments like that and I"m going to the Level 10 pool parties with Papi Chulo ! Although, I"m not really sure I've done that much activity to get there.
Have you looked at your Contribution Level lately ? Did it change yesterday ?
Have you looked at your Contribution Level lately ? Did it change yesterday ?
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
46 comments
Must mean I’m out of the circle of trust.
I’m not even in the same zip code of the circle of trust anymore.
I’m so jealous of anyone who gets to go to the Papi Chulo pool parties...
It looks like it's weighted by both breadth and depth of reviews. I've reviewed one club fairly extensively, but I've only reviewed 3 clubs overall since I don't travel. You're reviewed 7 clubs but only have one more review than I do, so it looks like diverse reviews count as more "contribution."
My trust level went to zero. Not feeling the love there.
Don't be fooled. Apparently you can get a hire number by just creating a bunch of BS troll post. Look at the number of known Alias Troll accounts with high contributions as evidence...
(What have you done for tuscl lately?)
Happy lapping
Fuck founder!!!
Bj, I do think the contribution levels have a lot to do with reviews, so you wouldn’t have that going for you. But you do have all of us wrapped around your...wherever...That’s got to count for something!
Before the grammar police get me
Scroll down to Betty Crocker and click it
Now if Founder decides to tweak the Contri algorithm to put more weight on certain aspects then that's different - but I don't think it should be on whether contributions were in the past or present, IMO, b/c again TUSCL is fairly transient.
Since there seems to be a level of interest in how the stats are generated, perhaps a hidden drop-down info box describing a stat and how is calculated, would be somewhat interesting.
E.g., if it is to encourage new members to contribute, requiring 8 years worth of contributions to crack the top 40 will make seem like an unachievable goal that's pointless to try for.
I'm sure lapdanced was a great guy, but I thought it was cool when during one of the iterations yesterday, everyone on the top 40 list for one of the measurements were members I recognized, and some had even started in the last 1-3 years.
If a goal is to make prevent it seeming like you step away from a moment and you're erased from history, a Hall of Fame makes sense, going back as far as possible.
In either case, it could be that a new measurement is capturing new information that simply wasn't captured 2 or 3 years ago, or uses a database field that now has a somewhat different meaning (e.g., Prop vs. Trust, Vibe vs. Atmosphere, etc)
Just an idea.
In other words, better to just say you don't have any relevant info than fudge it for that club while using current ratings for other clubs. The fact that no one has reviewed it in the past 12 months is likely more notable than a numeric rating would have been, anyway.
Having to cross-check the date last reviewed for exceptionally stale data or having a fudged number for the clubs without recent reviews would make the list harder to sift through rather than easier.