I should also add that if you leave the club rating weightings based upon short-term activity alone, you may find that club ratings become much more susceptible to manipulation by interested parties. Just something to consider.

We need access to our old threads and posts restored!

SJG

^ So you can continue to bump your off topic threads that nobody reads or responds to?

Old threads are what give this community its identity.

Is a gun being held to your head forcing you to read them?

SJG

No gun and I still wouldn't read that rambling spam if someone did hold a gun to my head, creep!

So then you should have no reason to be concerned about it, asshole!

SJG

I agree with rickdugan's points. I have seen an obvious club ad account leave nasty reviews for the clubs that are their primary competition and then a glowing review for the club they're shilling for.

If the contribution level gained by leaving 3 reviews in a month outweighed long-term legitimate reviewers, that would amplify the level of harm.

Lol, I know it's useless to try explaining to you that your crap is off topic and of zero interest to 99.9% if the people here but you just like rambling, spamming, attention seeking, and agenda pushing and as long as you can get away with it you will continue to do so.

And back on tpic, Rick and ppwh have valid points, the creep never does!

I hear ya. I went from a 10 contributor to a 6 after 17 years of posting reviews, topics, etc and that doesn't count the ones that I lost in 2007 when my entire account was forever deleted. I don't do as many reviews as I use to because I am retired and Follies is pretty hard to beat. Should I review Follies every 30 days?

I agree RD has reasonable points here not sure if I agree or disagree but definitely something to be considered.

the longevity of a member (hehe) has been noted. I will work that into the contri level. I agree, people like shadow and papi should have a close to perfect contri-level. Please bear with me :)

Let's hope this doesn't turn into a longevity measuring contest...

I think maybe Contributor Levels could depreciate due to a lack of recent activity. Of course the massive long termers like Papi and Shadow should still be rated very near the top.

But Trust Levels, I think they should not depreciate.

We need our old threads and posts, so that we are not always talking about the same stuff with new people, starting in a vacuum.

SJG

well, I'm up to 1.42... guess I need to start reviewing more ;)

Dad: So what do you want to be when you grow up, son? Son: A massive long termer like Papi and Shadow

Lol. By longevity, I assume you mean the level of historical contributions rather than the amount of time the account has been open. Sorry to be a pain, but when I see people with 9+ contribution levels solely because they managed to squeeze out 17 reviews in the past 12 months while guys like Shadow are at 6, then I think we can all agree that there is something wrong. here is something wrong. For that matter, and admittedly much more selfishly, I don't think that a guy like that should have the same contri level that I do either after writing over 160 reviews of 118 clubs for this site.

But anyway, I'll stop having my tantrum in my high chair now, lol, and thank you again for everything that you continue to do here. :)

As I've posted b/f, Contri-levels and Trusts are flaky data that can be easily manipulated thus putting weight on it is putting weight on faulty data, IMO.

TUSCL is too-random for there to be solid data extrapolation - I agree that a PL's total body of PL-work is probably a good metric to go by, but this "may not" just mean longevity b/c there are lots of old accounts w/ little valuable data thus that should not be given much weight - again maybe total body of work including longevity (8" or more) perhaps will work well - but I still think there's too-much noise (garbage data) that can easily be given weight that shouldn't and why I don't feel weighting is the way to go - due to the randomness/flakiness of TUSCL, best to K.I.S.S.

"maybe total body of work including longevity (8" or more) perhaps will work"

Easy for you to say, Mr. Massive Long Termer

^ trust me - I am definitely compensating via TUSCL

Founder’s weighted trust rating would be harder to manipulate bc it was based on the contribution level of those who gave the trusts, as well as the number of trusts. I think it was on the right track.

The other side of the coin is that old reviews frequently don't reflect current status. Clubs change and accurate reviews need to be up to date.

Personally, I'd love to see founder just create the algorithms the way he likes them and tell everyone to Fuck Off, if for no other reason than to put these complaints to an end. And it would be funny.

@ gawker - Good point! If you were picking a restaurant, how much stock would you put in a 5 year old Yelp review?

In the end Founder usually makes an executive decision w/o telling us what he will do - he listens to input then does his thing.

There isn't gonna be consensus on here, there hardly ever is except MJ being the GOAT - in the recent past the complaint was w.r.t. old data not being relevant, today it's about old data being relevant - pros/cons to either side

All of these threads on trusts, contri-levels, rating weightings, etc. have been absolutley fascinat

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

oh, sorry, must have nodded off...

Maybe we all have too much time on our hands, myself included.

Michael Jackson is the King of Pop.

LeBron is the GOAT (in basketball).

+10 Trust Level Points for flagooner!

SJG

^ you're the GOAT of patronizing

If I have SJG on ignore flagooner didn’t get those points;)

Is it possible for all of us to get participation medals and settle it that way??

I don't see weighting the impact of long-term legitimate contributors is the same thing as whether new or old club reviews are more relevant. Not counting a review that's older than 12 months toward a score is a good idea, imo.

It sounds like what we're really going for is a "writes legit reviews" flag. The Couchsurfing website back in the day had a vouching system where only people who had been vouched for three times could vouch for others. Maybe something like that, seeded by founder vouching for known-legit reviewers would be the ideal way to go. Then whenever a vouched-for reviewer writes a review, give that review the weight of an unvouched reviewer during its 12 months relevance period toward club ratings.

er, meant to say "give a vouched-for reviewer's review twice the weight of one from an unvouched-for reviewer, rather (or 2.7 times or etc...)"

Like I said before, as long as I stay above twentyfive and Flagooner I'm good with the way it is.

LOL. I don't think you'll have any problems there.

of clubs reviewed is important too. someone who only reviews the handful of clubs local to where they live just don't have the wisdom on someone who's clubbed in many different towns/states to appreciate the wide range of experiences possible as influenced by local regulations.

as a side note... what a kick in the balls. My contri got beat down from 9.5 to 7.4. 8*(

FWIW... I always found # of reviews and # of clubs to be really useful metrics in judging the quality of a review. The contri really obscures that imo.

mjx +1 - especially when they get contri credit for things like discussions/comments. I think that the changes that were made yesterday were certainly better but I would still like to see more weight given to cumulative historical contributions as I agree with your sentiment. Now there are exceptions, such as one guy who ran up his review count over many years by posting a bunch of shit reviews (he even did a review from a parking lot look, lol). But on the whole I would take reviews from papi, shadow, sinclair, and many of the bigger long-term contributors almost as gospel in terms of accuracy of conditions at the times that they visited.

@shailyn LOL but you need to watch SJG is gaining on you.

I agree with rick and mjx, yet can see how tweaking one key metric can screw up another metric. When it comes to CLUB REVIEWS, I personally give more weight to more recent ones (say, within the last 1-3 months) vs reviews over 3 years old. Applying the same metric to a reviewers contribution level is not an apples to apples correlation, as I feel many contributions over a long period of time should count for something. I'm not sure that factoring in the number of clubs reviewed would be an accurate metric either. Say you have 2 reviewers who have reviewed 20 different clubs. One lives in a large city metro area, another is a travelling salesman from a small metro area but has reviewed the same number of clubs in 10 different metro areas. I would give more credence to the later who has a broader perspective on things.

When reading reviews I give more weight to those that don't mention specific names. I think mostly newbs do that.

I'm not really looking at it from the perspective of how my level is calculated, as I frankly don't care at all, but looking at it from the perspective of how much merit I would lend to a review from a particular reviewer.

I like the idea of recent reviews for clubs weighing more heavily in their ratings. I'm not sure I like the idea of recent reviewers weighing more heavily. Perhaps a balance? I'm not sure exactly how the logic would work, but perhaps something like a reviewer losing contri-level after being idle for an extended period but as long as they remain active I'd think I'd like to see their level remain high. The logic being #1 that long time reviewers are less likely to be trolls/shills, and that they have a greater depth/breath of knowledge.

I'll also add that an emphasis on a large number of reviewed clubs can be tricky. Minnow's example that he would give more credence to a reviewer who has reviewed clubs in many areas over a reviewer who has focused on one is a good example. I feel the exact opposite. When I'm reading reviews, I'm more interested a clubs relative merit vs nearby clubs over its relative merit over clubs in other areas. Not to say the latter isn't valuable, just not as valuable to me. A reviewer who has been to all the clubs in the area is going to help me decide which club to go to. I may consider one area vs another if I'm deciding to go to a SC at all in a particular area, but in truth we all know that's more of an inevitability. In short, I may feel a guy who has 50 reviews for 5 clubs has more useful info about those 5 clubs than a guy who has 50 reviews for 50 clubs.

"Is it possible for all of us to get participation medals and settle it that way??"

Best comment in the whole thread.

I originally hadn't paid any attention to the contri levels but took a look yesterday when this thread started.I was @ 9.5, later last night I was @ 9.17, now I'm @ 9.02, WTF? I suppose I should start complaining now. :D

LOL at the participation medals suggestion. Picture this: Tuscl conventions will look like a gathering of tinhorn dictators with everyone wearing a bunch of medals. Some will have so many medals, they'll have to pin them to their shorts.