Thoughts triggered by a post...
Thread Content
Note: This is a post that was discovered while checking the forum area this morning; it was moved from the craftsmanship section. To clarify first, I have no intention of targeting anyone; I’m just discussing the matter at hand and taking this opportunity to talk about a topic that I’ve wanted to address for some time... The original post can be found here: http://bbs.hcbbs.com/thread-421969-1-1.html. Background: This post was initially posted in the Techniques section; I saw it yesterday as well, but I didn’t open it at all, as the title seemed to indicate it was just a filler post. While strolling around in this area as usual today, I suddenly noticed that this post had been moved to the safe zone, so I clicked to take a look. It turned out to be no spam, but rather a discussion on fire safety. So I glanced at the answers; at first, all I had was a feeling, from someone who is new to the field of security. I find these replies all too boring; it seems that only a few of the answers contain anything interesting. Moving on to the second point, regarding the criteria used for rating posts, looking at it from a vertical perspective, it’s true that good replies receive higher scores while poor replies get lower scores. But what I want to say is that for a reply in a post that receives 3 ‘charm’ points (the reply from floor 12), if such a reply is in a safe area, I would at most give a +10 wealth reward as recognition for active participation... This leads me to wonder: why is there such a big difference between them? Setting aside my personal flaws of being stingy and overly self-important, I would like to discuss only one topic: namely, how various versions of these frameworks can balance, or rather unify, our standards of judgment or our criteria for value assessment This is a topic that has troubled me for a long time; I’ve wanted to bring it up but didn’t know where to start. Let’s talk about it together today... Nowadays, the main and most important method used by various platforms to attract members is scoring, and this is also the primary motivator for the vast majority of members, which is understandable. To some extent, it can be said that areas with high ratings are popular, while those with low ratings are less popular; this has already been evident in my several forums. Now the problem arises: if we rely solely on raising scores to increase so-called popularity, then in the end we will surely achieve nothing. For example, if there is a question related to instrument safety, it can be posted in the automation area or in the safety area – which area should I use? I’ll place the high-rated area in that zone. Suppose I put it in the Safe Zone; then when I look at the Self-Control Zone, I realize that this won’t work – if things continue like this, we’ll run out of members. So I decide to raise the rating standards, and then I post another message in the Self-Control Zone... And this cycle repeats itself. The outcome is predictable... just like price wars in reality, where there’s no winner in the end. I already have the feeling that wealth and charm are not as valuable as they used to be; as for prestige and contributions, their value has dropped drastically... Is it that my mindset hasn’t kept up with the times, or are it our values that are losing value? I think I need an answer... There are many reasons for the differences in evaluation criteria: the professionalism of the community, the knowledge level and character of the moderators, the purpose of the community... there are countless factors, and it’s impossible to achieve complete uniformity. Yet we should still strive to make them as similar as possible, in order to prevent such tactics from becoming ineffective or unbalanced. As for specific solutions, some people have suggested refining the scoring scale; currently, the requirements for moderators only specify upper and lower limits, and the range in between is too large, which leads to excessive deviations, with the upper limit ending up serving as the average value. Are there any other solutions? I don’t know... Actually, I’m a bit confused...
I saw a post about the ‘Super Edition’ of the meteor, but it turned out to be the regular version. I read part of it and quickly went to check; fortunately, it was transferred from another version. The ratings given earlier aren’t relevant to us, but it seems like I must have clicked on the wrong option. Going back to that post, the ‘cleaner boss’ even gave others 2 points of charm. As of now, no one has given me that much in points. When I checked this morning, I thought the reply from #25 was really good; I added 6 points of wealth to them, and I plan to add another 1-2 points of wealth at some other time as an encouragement. The current rating system has completely changed. .
There is indeed the issue of the original poster exceeding the limits regarding district ratings. I think one of the reasons is that the forum has developed very rapidly over the past year or so, with an increasing number of members and moderators. As I recall, it wasn’t difficult to get ratings for posts in the past, but to achieve high scores in terms of appeal and other criteria, one needed to put in effort by posting high-quality content. I think the significant differences in scoring standards among various sections at present are due to the overall scoring culture established by the management of each section; for example, a major change in management at a certain point in time could lead to changes in the scoring standards for that entire section. So I think the management teams in each district should pay attention to the following points: 1. Ensure a smooth transition of leadership within the forum sections; avoid making drastic changes all at once, and let the existing moderators play a role in guiding and supporting newcomers. 2. The new main scoring criteria are inappropriate; the old version’s moderators warned in a timely manner. 3. Each edition area also issues general regulations regarding relevant scoring criteria.
I meant that; I thought the post was in the crafts section, haha. Those who come to Haichuan on weekends must be die-hard fans, right? haha. There are many comments, and most of those come from insightful new members. When I first joined the forum, I was so excited every time I received a message and saw my account balance increase. After becoming a moderator, I didn’t pay as much attention to points anymore; instead, it was more about taking responsibility for one’s role. What touches me the most now is receiving ratings from new members; whether it’s a 1 or a 2, I always try to reply with “Thank you”. It’s not about the amount; it’s about communication and interaction. I’m pleased to see them growing. It’s indeed difficult to grasp the scale for scoring, and it’s hard to standardize it. I think for posts that don’t involve watering, we’d better be more tolerant, to give new members some motivation and encouragement to move forward. Meteors are really stingy: lol, they’ve never given me more than 10 points, not to mention any charm at all O(∩_∩)O Haha~ The premium version should be more generous O(∩_∩)O~
Follow the evaluation criteria set by the cleaning station supervisor strictly; everyone can go and study them again at *http://bbs.hcbbs.com/thread-29061-1-1.html
The scoring limits vary across different periods; they were even more astonishing in the early stages of forum development. So let’s not discuss how the scores were in the past – what the original poster wants is to talk about the current scoring situation. The question raised by the poster is also an old one, but achieving consistency in the development and management of the forum seems to be somewhat difficult. It’s more feasible to set a scoring range (which should be determined based on the actual conditions of the forum; a balance needs to be found). It’s sufficient as long as scores stay within that range. Just like with the end-of-month bonuses, the supervisor sets a standard, and each section follows that standard – this approach works well