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 ?
Comments
last commentMine went down.
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...
Log in to vote
Mine is 3.75001001358032. I love it.
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."
Log in to vote
Mine went from 3 to 7.xx. I'm really jealous of the guys who have ten digits after the decimal point.
My trust level went to zero. Not feeling the love there.
Log in to vote
Mine went from 7 to 5.xxx
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...
Log in to vote
Crap !!! The Juicitis outbreak is getting larger. Gaca got spellitis.
Log in to vote
So what’s the relationship between “Contributon Level” and “having a life” level?
Log in to vote
^ im guessing you think it negatively correlates, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t. I’m on here all of the time. I’m sure I have no life, other than work, and my contribution level is a one. ;P
Log in to vote
regardless of the numbers... i enjoy the interaction with y’all.
Log in to vote
@BJ99 - Actually it’s 1.08333003520966
Log in to vote
Nice :)
Log in to vote
Review Clubs, review frequently. Post Frequently. Comment Frequently.
(What have you done for tuscl lately?)
Happy lapping
Log in to vote
Your a 10 in my book BJ.
Fuck founder!!!
Log in to vote
I noticed my numbers changing during the day yesterday too. I’m sure Founder’s revisions will take time. And I’m sure I need to work on getting a life too! Lol.
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!
Log in to vote
^ You're
Before the grammar police get me
Log in to vote
What ab articles? I don’t like them, but I’ve been wondering if the members who don’t use the discussion board might like them better, bc discussions are so disjointed and move along so fast.
Log in to vote
@Bj99, if you play your cards right, maybe one day you can get up to 1.33 like me. :-)
Log in to vote
Flag, “you’re” right! Lol.
Log in to vote
I better get busy
Log in to vote
My contribution level went from 7 to 3 ... I'm guessing because I'm fairly low on reviews
Log in to vote
You get points for reviews and comments. But what about some recognition for posting recipes?
Log in to vote
@jackslash recipes are in a category of their own,
Scroll down to Betty Crocker and click it
Log in to vote
As long as I’m a 10 to flag. ❤️
Log in to vote
That does make sense! As found said, what you have done for tuscl lately? I've been coasting on my reviews for quite a while
Log in to vote
As I've posted b/f, I don't think a member's contributions should be diminished b/c his contributions were in the past - if he/she contributed enough to put him/her at a certain-level then they earned their "level" per se - TUSCL for the most-part is transient w/ those that contribute over a long period of time probably being a small-minority.
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.
Log in to vote
^^^ I actually agree with that one other reason is it’s good to look at where you’ve been , that’s where you get guidance for where you’re going.
Log in to vote
Since we are talking about it - I think levels (whichever they are) should just be simple whole #s not a decimal and even less 10 decimal points - you know - since "others" seem to be talking about it
Log in to vote
^ K.I.S.S.
Log in to vote
TUSCL should be simple and straight-forward IMO - the easier it is the easier to enjoy - no need for NASA-level computations - it's about fun not building a rocket
Log in to vote
I like the additional data given by the top-40 lists - more info the better as long as it does not clutter the display.
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.
Log in to vote
Possibly a bad idea. We can speculate on the algorithm all day, but once the actual math is revealed you KNOW the trolls are going to sit down and figure out how to game it. ;p
Log in to vote
Before deciding time periods and algorithms, it's a good idea to first ask what the goals are for displaying the number.
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)
Log in to vote
^^^^Good point
Log in to vote
Ya the top 40 should be for active users not users from years ago. I agree on the Hall of Fame Wall. But I'm not watching Walter Payton or Bart Starr play football today I'm watching Aaron Rodgers, Le'Veon Bell cuz its their time.
Log in to vote
I think you need to think about from a business owners perspective. What is Founder selling ? He's selling a Review board. Does anybody read or even care about Reviews that are done 5 years ago. Probably not. So he is trying to incent people to do things that will make his board more sellable to new members. i.e. new Reviews.
Log in to vote
What could be done is to have “all time” ratings on clubs which are calculated from all reviews, and then a recent rating based on reviews from the last 12 months. But, of course, this would not work well for the less popular clubs that have a total of 20 reviews. So, there could be a cut off, e.g. clubs with greater than 500 reviews will have a “recent” rating on their page.
Just an idea.
Log in to vote
Also, any statistician mathematician or physicist will agree that an average is not very helpful. What is helpful is an average with standard deviation (sd). So, a club with 50 reviews that is rated a 4.5 may have a sd of 2.0, whereas a club with 700 reviews may be rated 4.3 with sd of 0.5. What that tells you is that the more popular club is very likely to be a “4.3” club to any visitor, but the less popular club might very well be a 3.0 in the eyes of some visitors. So the average number has limited use.
Log in to vote
I would just as soon the club entry say "Current Rating (past 12 months): N/A" than have a club show up as a 8 across the board after its last reviewers died in a 2AMer with no one getting back around to let the world know that the club is terrible now.
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.
Log in to vote
@ppwh don’t you think that the fact that a club hasn’t been reviewed in a year would be obvious, just look at the date of the last review of that particular club. Duh-oh
Log in to vote
@twentyfive, I'm thinking of the screen where you can look at a list of clubs in the same city. It's easy to scroll through and see a rating at a glance in a list of 10-20 clubs.
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.
Log in to vote
Duh-oh
Log in to vote
For clubs, more than for individual TUSCLers, I think recent data/reviews is more pertinent - perhaps like in the daily reviews section, there can be a toggle-switch for all-time listings/club-ratings, and for last 12-months, with "last 12 months" being the default selection
Log in to vote
^^^ Good point
Log in to vote
The ratings you see are actually based on the last 12 months of reviews
Log in to vote
wow... my contribution level is 1.33. Guess I should add some points for creating the site.
Log in to vote
Yeah, you (Founder) should put yourself at the top of every TUSCL list so people know who's boss
Log in to vote
So it really is " what have you done for me lately " !
Log in to vote