I’m sure it will all make sense when founder has things as he wants them but, right now, I see things like the trust count and contribution scores as relative numbers and a work in progress.
Someone pm’d me the other day looking for local intel but he had no trusts. I pointed that out to him and he cited his trust count of 32 and got a bit demeaning in his reply. But clicking on that again, he still had no trusts.
So I still look at actual trusts, reviews, comments (and the quality of the preceding), rather than an algorithmic number that is still a work in process.
If a guy with one review has a 555 contribution level while guys with a ton of reviews have scores in the 800 area, I would say that this is a work in progress indeed.
Honestly, I still very much miss the system in which guys with the highest number of clubs reviewed had the most input on club ratings. For one thing, it is an objective stat that is directly correlated with how much club exposure a reviewer has had. Second, it is very hard for one screen name to fake reviews of a shit ton of clubs. Every change that has happened is further watering down the reliability of that particular piece of information, to the detriment of users of the information and to the benefit of shills and trolls.
It would be helpful to know not WHO but how reliable/experienced/long term a reviewer is before voting on their review. Might even be able to offer constructive comments to newbies.
Maybe founder is moving toward some kind of user scoring system like that? Of course, we'll need details before we could use it as such.
I don’t fully understand the point of having “trusts” or a “trust count.” Somebody can be very trustworthy, and be surrounded by many people who trust him, all while simultaneously lacking experience. On a forum primarily used to gain insight and information, I think experience is a far more useful thing to quantify. A review from an experience strip club enthusiast is worth far more to me than an 18 year old kid who posts his first review for his birthday celebration.
Yeah it's way out of whack.
I just did a comparison, someone with 1 review which is 75 less reviews than I've done, has almost 140 less discussions started than I do and has less actual trusts has a contri score almost 60 points higher than I do.
And all trusts aren't actually trusts, some of them are left overs of members fighting each other from the previous prop system which now appear as trusts when in fact they were insults.
Honestly I don't see the point of the new system, I preferred things the way they were.
13 comments
Someone pm’d me the other day looking for local intel but he had no trusts. I pointed that out to him and he cited his trust count of 32 and got a bit demeaning in his reply. But clicking on that again, he still had no trusts.
So I still look at actual trusts, reviews, comments (and the quality of the preceding), rather than an algorithmic number that is still a work in process.
Honestly, I still very much miss the system in which guys with the highest number of clubs reviewed had the most input on club ratings. For one thing, it is an objective stat that is directly correlated with how much club exposure a reviewer has had. Second, it is very hard for one screen name to fake reviews of a shit ton of clubs. Every change that has happened is further watering down the reliability of that particular piece of information, to the detriment of users of the information and to the benefit of shills and trolls.
Maybe founder is moving toward some kind of user scoring system like that? Of course, we'll need details before we could use it as such.
:)
I just did a comparison, someone with 1 review which is 75 less reviews than I've done, has almost 140 less discussions started than I do and has less actual trusts has a contri score almost 60 points higher than I do.
And all trusts aren't actually trusts, some of them are left overs of members fighting each other from the previous prop system which now appear as trusts when in fact they were insults.
Honestly I don't see the point of the new system, I preferred things the way they were.