MGoPoints - Benefits and Problems?
Hello All MGoFanatics,
When I am not obsessing over Michigan football, I do research on online communities for a living. I have been talking to Brian about studying the MGoPoints system we have here - and I need your help.
I am specifically looking for your perception of how MGoPoints system has changed the behavior of people who visit this blog. What are the positives (less spam?) and what are the negatives (trying to inflate MGoPoints?). What improvements would you like to see in the MGoPoints system? Do you think overall it is worth having a reputation system of this kind.
All comments are welcome. If you wish to send your comments to me privately - please send me an email at [email protected]
Looking forward to your thoughts.
PS> Is this OT?
February 26th, 2010 at 9:52 AM ^
One thing I would change, and I don't even know how to do it, is the free-for all points given out for people just being funny. Not that I want to discourage people from being funny, but if points are "cred", there are a lot of people with "cred" only for being funny and not because their posts are incredibly insightful or full of insider knowledge or something. I would prefer it if points could somehow lean towards rewarding quality in terms of Michigan sports knowledge than just saying a joke. But I have no idea how that is possible.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:01 AM ^
I can't help but think your second paragraph is directed at me. But I assure you that I was the same during Haloscan as I was when I had zero points as I am now. :o)
February 26th, 2010 at 10:07 AM ^
There were paragraphs (granted this is also how I post... pot me kettle)
February 26th, 2010 at 10:21 AM ^
what I did there.
but I forgive you my MGoBrother.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:32 AM ^
I saw it and thought it was quite funny, but failed at coming up with a witty response. But nice work anyhow.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:57 AM ^
Well done.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:09 PM ^
Maybe there could be multiple point systems... Like blue points for a witty comment or clever movie reference and maize points for great football knowledge or analysis abilities. I value both types of comment.
I know, it would probably be more complicated than it's worth.... We don't really need it. But it would be a cool feature!
February 26th, 2010 at 9:52 AM ^
A recommendation on the system:
Perhaps there is a way to minimize the herd mentality nonsense. For example, as bouje pointed out, hordes of new posters (sometimes multiple identities of a single troll) have the ability to devalue the content on the board. Magnus can afford to lose points for making sense -- but not all can.
I proffer that, to protect the integrity of the board and its content (which I think was the original intent) that voting power be increased with point totals. Right now, everyone with more than 20 points is equal -- thus, those who have been around a long time, "get" what Mgoblog is "all about", and have probably made outstanding contributions at one time or another, have no more say than neophytes who bring their own culture to the board (perhaps that of RCMB or MLive) -- not to mention trolls and other unsavory types.
If the goal is to preserve the culture of the board, then those who have been here the longest and contributed the most should have more say in what is acceptable or not. Maybe every 1000 points or so, one's voting power could increase incrementally. So, if one has 2000 points, they gain the ability to plus or minus the same comment or thread three times. OR maybe have the point thresholds increase logarithmically, starting at 20, then 200, then 2000, etc. Just a thought.
February 26th, 2010 at 9:57 AM ^
you could just do this:
>20 1000 =1 point when voting
>1000 10000 = 5 points when voting
>10000 100000 = 10 points when voting
I think that this would be a lot easier than clicking a button a few times :-p
February 26th, 2010 at 9:59 AM ^
Certainly not a bad idea. One downfall to it is the lack of flexibility. Maybe a post is only worth 1 +/-
Either way, I think we would see improvements in the social dynamics on the board
February 26th, 2010 at 10:06 AM ^
With his options for post total. Or have a box to input total number of points?
But I do agree that MGoInflation is happening and we need to normalize our "dollar"
February 26th, 2010 at 1:58 PM ^
You need one extra band in there:
> 300 400 = 100 points when voting
FIXED!
February 26th, 2010 at 6:38 PM ^
I'm not great at math but I think that would equal 200 gramps.
February 26th, 2010 at 5:20 PM ^
I like the current "one poster, one vote" policy. If you give the big-point posters too much authority, I think you'd encourage even more groupthink (and maybe even sucking up to certain posters).
February 26th, 2010 at 6:08 PM ^
Your points are really getting up there.
*wink wink*
February 26th, 2010 at 12:19 PM ^
Above someone mentioned setting a limit of votes for each person per day. Maybe instead of giving everyone the same amount of votes each day the more points you have = more votes per day that you are allowed.
But I just reached 20 points today... so it is quite possible that I have no idea what I'm talking about.
February 26th, 2010 at 9:58 AM ^
Like others have stated in this thread, I believe if we were able to lift the veil of anonymity, you'd see a lot less serial neg-banging.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:08 AM ^
I believe whole heartedly that people are petty enough to get offended at someone negging them and then they will always just neg that person and it will get into a neg war which will turn into a post war bitching at each other and then we spiral out of control. Never trust people to take criticism well
February 26th, 2010 at 11:32 AM ^
That is all (+1)
February 26th, 2010 at 12:22 PM ^
I'm sure that some members down vote other members because of something they wrote in the past. Anonymity breads irresponsibility.
MGoBlog has grown into a community of sorts, and communities need policing. Retaliation may be inevitable but if there are consequences, it will be a minimum. It is possible that Brian might need to consider appointing forum moderators who can field complaints. Just a suggestion.......
For the record, I have adapted fine to the way things are. I won't shed a tear if nothing changes. I don't agree with the "weed out the weak" and "bow down to the majority" mentalities, but I have worked around it so far and can continue to do so.
February 26th, 2010 at 1:52 PM ^
But "Anonymity breads irresponsibility." made me smile for some reason. Mmmmm....bread...
February 26th, 2010 at 4:35 PM ^
I'm sure that I will offer up many more typos and grammatical errors for you to get a chuckle out of.
February 26th, 2010 at 5:11 PM ^
I posted that BEFORE I saw the future Mrs. MGoBlog's blog. Now I'm hungry.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:13 AM ^
I believe you would.
However, don't you think we'd see a lot of retaliatory negging, challenging commenters, and general board meltdown? (as a poster mentioned earlier).
Studies have proved that we tend to dislike people that we perceive as disliking us.
I think after a while people would stop bothering to read responses and just auto-neg people because they are "e-enemies."
As I mentioned earlier, context is everything. I might neg you 20 times for your spelling (which may/may not bother you), but you also might get negged by someone who is holding a grudge from a bad joke ten threads ago.
Maybe it's just me, but if I know the who, I sure as hell want to know the why. In fact, I'd rather just know the why and not get into identity vendettas.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:21 AM ^
There would be a lot of retaliation for docking people points, and perhaps excessive plussing for people who plus you.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:51 PM ^
I hadn't even thought of potential problems with upvoting cronyism.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:03 AM ^
I think you are all Mgoidiots and should be negged into oblivion.
Making a post like this can get me 50 or so negative votes, the negalanche occurs when I spend 20 more posts in the same thread defending my position.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:08 AM ^
Sometimes I would rather have a negbang rather than follow the other posts and agree to everything being said. I have been very critical of the NCAA investigation with regards to our coaching staff. I like others have raised honest, tough questions about who knew what, and what was their involvement in this matter. I have received negbangs, but the truth sometimes hurts. Being critical of the coaching staff on this issue, doesn't mean I still don't bleed blue, it is just me looking for answers. The entire issue of the activities and the role of the QSC's is a real concern. Specifically, did they or did they not do it on their own. I find it hard to believe that a grad assistant would be involved in the training of the athletes on their own. Someone had to tell them what to do. Oh well, I digress. Let the negbangs begin.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:16 AM ^
Let's say that you start out at a company and you are the company bitch. You decide that instead of getting coffee for someone you decide to start "helping out" in whatever way that you can to show to management that you're a hard worker, a team player and that you really want to do this.
You want to move up the company ladder and progress your career. I don't see how this is any different than a GA/QC providing coaching advice. Because do you really think that a QC job pays well or that the "buck stops there" for this person. Hell no.
While this doesn't mean that RR et al told them to do it I just don't see it.
Frankly we will NEVER EVER know what RR said or did not say to his coaches/staff and it's a waste of time to speculate on it. In sum move on.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:41 AM ^
... and at some level I do care when I get negbanged for no apparent reason other than my opinion is different than somebody elses.
I usually +1 in three instances:
1) I think someone has made a clear, valid argument (whether I agree or not)
2) Someone says something funny
3) It's my own post :-)
I usualy -1 in three instances:
1) Someone is an asshole
2) Someone posts something for the millionth time, usually when the same topic is on the first page of forum topics.
3) Someone takes it political. I'm okay with discussions about policies, but when it gets to liberal this and conservative that, I get upset.
In general, big fan. It helps mold the culture of the community and the norms and acceptable behaviors that define that culture.
Biggest problem is people are rewarded for posting even when it is to say, "Good post". Relatively minor problem, but it gets a little too much.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:48 AM ^
Someone when I think that they were wrongly negged (for instance Magnus the other day I plussed most of his posts). I agree with everything else though.
I'd also add that I -1 when something is just really stupid/doesn't add value.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:56 AM ^
and if it's bouje, one always +1 then -1 him.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:01 AM ^
Let it go man it's not worth it.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:15 AM ^
Didn't you know? There's an entire secret cabal dedicated to doing exactly this to certain members.
(c'mon, I thought you of all people would know by now that I'm rarely serious)
February 26th, 2010 at 11:32 AM ^
I don't even know what to think anymore!
February 26th, 2010 at 10:55 AM ^
4) it's Emo
February 26th, 2010 at 11:04 AM ^
and while difficult to implement, I think at least some elements could be borrowed to improve the system.
Basically, there is an expandable +/- tab for each post showing how the voting has gone and how each user voted (kind of like for OPs here). There is a formula - something like if there are more than 3x the amount of negs as pos, the post is hidden from view.
HOWEVA, once hidden, only a certain group of established posters can view the hidden post and thus resurrect it with pos or further neg it if they feel the voting was justified to keep it hidden (bc it clutters the board, derails good discussion, etc).
Really, the only difficulty is in establishing a good formula that grants users the veteran status and ensure that they do not abuse their power. This is where "viewable voting" comes into play. Retaliatory/serial negs must be taken very seriously and basically prohibited. People will be much less likely to do it, and if they do, an actual mod (Brian, Tim, Tom, FA, Lupe, whoever else) can yank their veteran status or ban or whatever.
The potential drawback is that if all the veterans think a certain way and are unreasonable (unlikely, most regulars like to upvote unjust negs from what I see) then alternative viewpoints suffer. Thus, it's up to Brian and others to steer the overall discussion/demeanor of the board by monitoring the class of veterans and adjusting as necessary.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:09 AM ^
Providing actual content to police the boards. If anything Brian would just have to "hire" moderators to police the board. I think that some people have been bestowed this power but that would be a way to implement the system.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:28 AM ^
would be automatically bestowed upon members who meet some formula (points per day, longevity, combination of other factors). This means there is some work on the front end in establishing the system but it is self-executing thereafter. Any "policing" would only be required for enormous board meltdowns or other systemic failures. Also, some of the "mods" I mentioned do hang out on the board regularly anyways.
You might need some harsh actions at the beginning to change the board's culture re: serial/retaliatory negs. But once names go along with the negs people will think quite a bit harder about it.
Did I mention this would eliminate the ever-so-annoying start/end to like 20% of the posts that say "I didn't neg you, but...?" Also, getting rid of "+1, lol" posts would be nice.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:33 AM ^
I think the points system really gives the mods a chance to evaluate if a poster is really pissing off the community in general. After all, if the point is ultimately for everyone to enjoy there time--resulting in many page views, then it makes sense to have posters rewarded for providing content the board as a whole enjoys. Perhaps some other message boards appreciate a haloscan-style system that allows anyone to post anything. I don't post on any other boards, so I don't know.
High points also add credibility to solid users. Perhaps a flexible system once people reach a certain (very high) point total makes sense, but I like the more egalitarian one-person, one-vote system with mods able to stop things that get out of hand.
I've seen several people argue that total negative/positive points should be viewable only to the posts creator. This seems flawed to me, as I'll often withhold negative votes for an obnoxious post that already has minus four or five points.
Nice offseason discussion.
February 26th, 2010 at 11:52 AM ^
just the way they are.
I understand the criticism of the "herd mentality" but isn't that kind of the point? The herd (or community) decides what is valued. Posts only get neg-banged if large amounts of the community dislike the ideas being communicated. Posts get pos-banged when large amounts of the community like the ideas. It's simple, democratic, and it works.
Speaking of democracy, I like the anonymity of the +/- feature. Like voting in modern elections, anonymity allows for a quick honest response without fear of repercussions. I might not want to write a long explanation about why I enjoyed the Lebowski clip you embedded but it's nice to be able to quickly give it a plus and move on. Similarly, I might not want to get in a heated discussion about RR with you, but if I disagree, I can quickly give you a minus and move on without you getting upset and neg-banging me every time I post.
The meta-discussion is interesting but I hope we don't change anything about the way the point system works. Let's not fix something that isn't broken.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:33 PM ^
"Similarly, I might not want to get in a heated discussion about RR with you, but if I disagree, I can quickly give you a minus and move on without you getting upset and neg-banging me every time I post."
Perhaps this didn't come out how you wanted it, but the general consensus seems to be that negging shouldn't be done because one "disagrees" with another. Differing opinions provide thoughtful discussion. If everybody went around negging every post they disagree with, that would get somewhat ridiculous.
And while this is an intelligent board overall, there are plenty of idiots here who "disagree" with things that are right and/or logical.
February 26th, 2010 at 1:38 PM ^
"the general consensus seems to be that negging shouldn't be done because one "disagrees" with another."
I don't know if that IS the general consensus. Yes, there is a very vocal group of posters who don't like when unpopular opinions are negged. But I think the people complaining are the same people who often get negged because they ALWAYS feel the need to post contrarian viewpoints. After awhile, no matter how logical or "right" the contrarian is, the act gets tired. Rather than get caught up in semantic battle, it's nice every once in awhile to give a minus and call it a day.
I think the unspoken consensus is that people neg opinions they disagree with all the time. I try not to do it too often, but sometimes it's a nice alternative to getting into a long argument with someone I'm never going to agree with.
Anyone else have opinions on this? Is there anyone who can honestly say they have NEVER negged someone because they disagreed with their opinion?
February 26th, 2010 at 2:29 PM ^
when I neg someone I disagree with, it's not for their actual opinion. It's for how they presented it.
For example, I don't agree with someone that says:
"We should fire Coach Rodriguez. He's proven nothing, and now there are allegations of NCAA violations."
I also don't agree with someone that says: "WE NEED TO FIRE DICK ROD NOW wtf his performance has been UNACCEPTABLE losing to purdue and almost losing to indiana is UNACCEPTABLE this ncaa investigation is UNACCEPTABLE and wtf man this is totall bs y is he even our coach hes just some stupdi redneck from west vargina"
Guess which one gets the -1?
February 26th, 2010 at 2:48 PM ^
Obviously since I don't remember ever neg I've given, I can't say with 100% certainty, but I don't believe I've ever negged someone just because I disagreed with them. It's all in the way they phrase it.
February 27th, 2010 at 2:06 PM ^
I have always looked at the negger as a way to thwart trolls.
I generally use the positive to reflect support for:
-comedy
-a well-reasoned response to a posted statement that was perhaps not so well-reasoned
-support for a viewpoint/statement, rather than adding a 'me to, I think that' comment
I am pretty conservative with the negbomb, reserving it solely for:
1. trolls - obvious interlopers that are from an enemy camp simply here to talk trash
2. extremely egregious infractions of board etiquette/standards, really only when it seems intentional
3. statements that are particularly inflammatory that are not at all backed up or reasoned in their approach, often involving lots of CAPS and !!!s and a general lack any consideration in the discourse for opposing viewpoints or any thought to arguing their position.
Things I specifically don't use it for:
-any minor newbie faux pas in board standards/etiquette, these are M fans and we should welcome them and not jump down their throats, point them to the 'Ethics' page or provide some friendly guidance. We are supposed to cheer for the same team, right?
-negging someone for having a difference of opinion with me
-never neg anyone that I am having a direct 'conflict' with, it just seems petty when you are debating something, this includes people that fall into the #3 category above
February 26th, 2010 at 12:23 PM ^
Positives:
People like getting points so they tend to deliver content that other people might like to give them points for.
Negatives:
You get a point just for making a post, so there's often times a lot of dinky little responses that detract from or derail the conversation and make it difficult to read/enjoy relevant discourse. I hate to say it, because it's about the only way I get points, but a point a post encourages fluff.
February 26th, 2010 at 12:24 PM ^
The only change I can think of is adding a pos/neg history for each post. I'd leave it anonymous, but instead of the mgopoints tab we currently have, where it isn't possible to know which posts were voted upon, I'd like to know which posts were controversial in that they garnered positive and negative votes. For instance, if one were to receive 3 positive and 3 negative votes, the total would still be 0 points, and it wouldn't be possible for the poster to know which of his or her posts the board feels ambivalent about. Does that make sense? Maybe the points total could read "0 points, 6 votes" or something? This could give us a way to identify opinions that are divisive and it would highlight the balancing effect of points.
February 26th, 2010 at 10:22 PM ^
Although, I think that might encourage more people to up-vote posts they agree with and down-vote those they disagree with.