Posted by Dr. Bob on July 20, 2010, at 10:43:15
In reply to Re: researchers like numbers more than emotions, posted by ron1953 on July 19, 2010, at 12:45:45
Hi, everyone,
I appreciate the thought you all are giving this and the feedback you all are offering. I think that improves the idea:
Posters could decline to accept rewards from others.
Posters could decline to have their point totals displayed.
Posters could decline to reward others.
Posters who did reward others could reward whoever they found helpful. It could be for informative posts, supportive posts, funny posts, whatever. I could make it explicit that the rewards were for subjectively being helpful and not for objectively being "high quality" or "right".
Posters could reward multiple other posters instead of having to choose just one.
It was never my idea to force posters to reward others, to force posters to use predetermined criteria, or to force posters to be motivated by points.
Neither do I see "reinforcement" as a dirty word. Life is full of reinforcements. When someone in the US donates to a charity, they're eligible for a tax deduction. That doesn't force them to be charitable or make them one of Pavlov's dogs.
I'm more concerned with effect than motivation. If someone posts something uncivil, but is trying to help, I still consider that uncivil. If they posted something helpful, but wanted to earn points, I'd still see that as helpful. Some people are therapists in part because they want to earn a living. I don't see them as lacking in humanity.
It would seem to be "truth in advertising" if people were drawn to a community by real posts rather than by advertisements.
I agree, someone doesn't have to be overly negative not to like a low point total. But if someone expects a low point total -- or to be weeded out, blocked, and gone -- that might be different. It's also possible that a poster might be OK with a low point total. If they're not competitive, they might not care much about their point total. In any case, competition can be healthy.
Was Bay's hypothetical post an example of how the point system could be used to bypass the civility rules? I'd consider it uncivil to put others down for not getting (or not accepting) points -- or for getting (or accepting) them.
I think she did ask an important question: how this could help posters learn and grow. Could you see a poster writing:
> Bay I award you 10 points because:
>
> a) you demonstrated tremendous empathy
> b) you made it clear that you understood my issue
> c) you made a ton of sense
> d) on top of all that, you made me laughLearning and growth could be based on "pragmatic experience". The idea would be positive reinforcement, not punishment. And I decide what's considered uncivil, while posters would decide what was considered helpful. Do posters expect other posters to be punishing? If so, that might not be the Lake Wobeher Effect, that might be the Faceful of Cat Effect.
It's true, what I and posters think may be helpful for this site don't always match up. I'm open to other new ideas about how to make this site better. Thanks for acknowledging other improvements and recognizing the potential here. You all are part of that potential. :-)
Bob
--
> Posting because I want to help someone when I can is positive reinforcement enough.
>
> I would never think of rating a persons post.
>
> Most threads offer not one best answer, but many different answers, from different perspectives. I enjoy, also, the occasional spontanious post thats just funny. It might be the funniest thing I hear all day.
>
> You'll certainly weed out the posters who are less knowledgeable.
>
> I think I offer enough posts that are helpful to feel like a valuable member. Not the most knowledgeable, by far, but I'm okay with that.
>
> ~Jade
>
> btw-"positive reinforcement"??? What are we now to you, Pavlov's dogs?> I remember many times in the past when I posted I was deep despair and had nowhere else to go with my distress. Fortunately at the time there were (and still are today) people here, and on the Samaritans, who were prepared to listen and respond as one human being to another. I can't even begin to imagine how awful it would have been to discover that they were doing it out of some competitive need for 'points' or e-bucks or other power trip. And what a loss for them in their humanity if they were.
>
> vwoolf> I think it was nice of Deneb to think of ways to improve the site, and it was a creative idea.
>
> You can 'attract' more people here by incentives and marketing such as Facebook and Twitter ... but it's kinda like sales-where the customer is incentivized to buy the product-then later ... regrets their decision when things turn out to be not so desirable...
>
> I noticed that recently you did try to make some (more subtle) improvements...there's still much room for growth, however. So good luck with the forum...there's alot of potential here. :)
>
> violette> I vote we use the block formula for a low score. Cause that's whats next in line for us.
>
> ~Jade> I don't think someone has to be overly negative to not like having a low rating
>
> Dinah> It is forcing an alternative motivation to post outside the purview of altruism.
>
> What would be your criteria for assigning a reward?
>
> - Scott> the rating system could be a tool to bypass the civility rules.
>
> I would like to know if you are going to allow us the choice of opting out, or will it be automatic?
>
> Justherself54> Gone will be many of the unique, smart, flawed, experienced, crazy, funny, supportive, compassionate, helpful, irritable, obsessive, insomniac ridden human type of posters...that make Babble the community that it is.
>
> Or..."one", or some, could brainstorm some new ideas and breathe some life back into Babble and make it as great as it once was, instead of turning it into a human reference guide.
>
> ~Jade> And how does getting a lot of low scores help? Will poorly scoring posters leave? Or learn to be better posters?? How?
>
> So do you see the poster writing:
>
> Bay your post rates a 1 because:
>
> a) you did not demonstrate sufficient amount of empathy
> b) you did not understand my issue
> c) you did not make any damn sense
> c) you did not make me laugh
> d) some combination of the above
>
> This way we can learn and grow as posters??
>
> BayLeaf> academics like book knowledge more than pragmatic experience
>
> ron1953a brilliant and reticent Web mastermind -- The New York Times
backpedals well -- PartlyCloudy
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:952980
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100714/msgs/955117.html