At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
It's been a week? :o ...I need to study.
More often than not, we find more than just one brilliant solution, which is equally worthy of a reward, if not less. This may happen because most of the time 2-3 or more users are answering a question at a time, and there may be more than one method to solve it. And "snatching" away medals is almost equivalent to taking away a gift, which doesn't go well with everyone, and most of us feel uncomfortable taking away a medal. So, 'unmedalling' someone and then medalling somebody else is not a very apt solution really. (ofcourse it comes handy if you accidentally click on the 'Best answer' button). And nor does the suggestion of medalling the first good answer seem apt. So, I have a few suggestions as a solution to this: 1.> We include two options, one "Good Answer" and one "Best Answer". Ofcourse the "Best Answer" can be awarded to only one user, and will carry slightly more points towards the SS. As for the "Good answer", we can limit it to 2 or 3 answers per question, and will carry lesser points. Now there are two options after this. 1.1 -> Either we program it such that the first medal awarded shall always be the "Best" one, and then the users have options to change it if required. The awardee shall only get a notification that he has received a medal, not mentioning good or the best one. So he will not notice the change in case someone changes it to good or vice-versa. The answer post shall only show the no. of medals, and the type. 1.2 -> Or we can have a system where it's at the user's discretion to decide which medal he wants to award from the onset, and then at the end just before closing the question, he can choose to award the Best Answer to one user (when we get a notification like "Your medal was upgraded by XYZ for.." :p), or award no Best Answer medal at all . Ofcourse the unmedalling option can be kept open, which when exercised on a Best answer shall reduce it to a good answer and there will be no notification for it, they will just have to take it sportingly. (Though I believe this change will perpetually almost solve the unmedalling dillema.) In this case , the best answer can be called a GOLD MEDAL and the good answer, a SILVER MEDAL (and the symbols can be colored differently too :D) OR 2.> Simply revert back to the old multi-medal system. Though the system of more points being carried forward from medals awarded by top-level users is great. That should be kept intact. I personally like the solution #1.2 more. This is in no way to criticize the ideas and decisions of the OS team. It was just a feedback, an idea, and we can always wait to get more adjusted with the current system. The system suggested will ofcourse require a lot of complex coding, which after the last "coding marathon", won't be too welcome. And lastly, apologies if my post was too long and too boring, and Thanks for taking the pain to go through it. =]
Lol, my post is ACTUALLY super long. Sorry <(*.*)>
Thanks for the thoughts. We'll probably observe the best answer system for a little while longer before making up our mind either way, but we're discussing alternatives in case we're not satisfied with it.
Yea one medal system is a bit disheartening , but then it makes us more focused towards OS ! So not that bad ! :p
Wow @apoorvk has given some wonderful ideas.
Thanks @ash2326 !
@anjali_pant Well, ofcourse helping others is a passion, that's why people are here everyday. Medals are certainly not the only important parts of this job, its the whole experience which provides so much of satisfaction, which is a reward in itself. But I was just making a suggestion to make the system more rewarding for the so many people who deserve it :)
Yes I completely support your viewpoint. Getting medals is not our ultimate goal. Its just makes things more interesting. So if we have the option of just one medal , then OS would become more competitive , so not bad at all. And if there is option of multiple medals , then that's also really good , as it encourages neophytes as well as others ! Hmm, so Iam biased here ! :p @apoorvk
Hmm, that's a very good point. Medals are actually very encouraging for a lot of people, because many don't have the inner drive from the onset to do this stuff, but a reward system does that. So, even if someone's motive IS medals, it shouldn't be problem as long they are truly helping others, especially for the neophytes as you say. And it also instills a drive to provide a better solution than the previous one.
yea well said @apoorvk
*coughs* i heard SS, so i thought i should take a look.
I have an algorithm named after me :P
Great suggestions @apoorvk , I also lean towards 1.2 as well. I think different types of medals (collectibles) will add more engagement to the system, adding more peer-validation for more helpers, while keeping the rare medals for the truly outstanding explanations. Overall a win. We could probably consider a few ways this works towards SmartScore. e.g. the silver medals are worth less naturally, and also perhaps split between teamwork and problem solving.
Thanks @apoorvk for resurfacing this.
Thanks @chris and I really like that "splitting points" idea. Makes sense, and adds value to teamwork as well, just as you said^ You're welcome @Hero
Thanks for this @apoorvk - I really like this idea also. I can assure you, we have been taking some hard looks at our reward/validation system with the advent of SmartScore, and as @shadowfiend mentioned, we are closely observing how the changes are working for our users with this recent release. As with everything on OpenStudy, change is inevitable, and this is especially dependent on user feedback such as yours here. This will definitely be a major focus of ours going forward, and ideas like this are a great way to start this conversation. Typically, having a range of solution options is the best way to identify A) the important areas that need to be addressed, and B) finding a solution that meets these needs in the most logical and equitable way. Cheers @apoorvk - great stuff!
How about a simple "Grade My Solution" OS Edition Format A = Outstanding Post B = Good Post C = Average Post D = Minimal Post F = No Contribution or Giving Answers Only Simple and Effective I think.
@Hero I appreciate your idea, but honestly, I think that's gonna make it bit way too complicated, and kinda make things like a 'rat-race'. (and I really want to run away from anything that resembles 'GRADES' :D)
@cshalvey Thank you. :))
Though it definitely is a simple, effective solution and can be considered, now that I think @Hero
I described it as being something simple, not complicated. And let's admit, not every single component of the education system failed. Only some of it did. Some of it is useful and the grading system was pretty simple and something everyone no matter how smart or dumb could understand.
I'm glad you're thinking of re-considering =]
Heeeeyyy F for only giving answers!?!?! At least C for giving answers.
The model isn't perfect yet @Ishaan94
I know I was just trolling.
"A = Outstanding Post B = Good Post C = Average Post D = Minimal Post F = No Contribution or Giving Answers Only " is a good idea. It would be good, actually, if it wasn't too hard to implement. However, I think the good answer and best answer are the best ways to help out. In addition, there should be a way to downrate and answer. I mean, if someone just gives the answer, I won't usually report them, but the OP usually always gives the best medal to them.
And since some people just care for answers, they tend to just give the best answer medal to the one who only gave the answer (or included the answer), close the question, and move on.
The result is that this abuse of the CoC is never seen because the post is quickly closed. (they usually just post another homework question). In addition, then answerer usually doesn't realize that what they've done is wrong.
Essentially this system partially encourages merely giving the answer, because most of the time (unfortunately) that is what the OP wants.
I'm thinking along the lines of being able to judge an answer as good, better, as well as bad.
If you directly gave the answer, you would almost always get a medal from the OP. This should be able to be countered if others act in. I do realize the flaw in this itself; it requires a strong community not to abuse the system.
Maybe if four or 5 people were able to vote that it was a "bad" answer, then the person who gave the "bad" answer would get no medals, and no SS bonus for answering a question.
Sorry for posting like 7 times (I have more to say, LOL). For example, if someone asked, "find the solution to this quadratic equation, (then an equation), and then multiple choices), it would obviously be a homework question/test question.
(most likely a test question) The problem is, half the people will just say A if that is the answer. Then, the OP will choose A and get credit for a test they a cheated on, and more importantly, they will never learn how to solve a quadratic equation, or get sufficient practice.
And if it was me, I would probably just post something random, like, do it yourself, or like, give the quadratic equation (me being the troll that I am xDD).
Now, one or two people, like the regulars here, would probably bother to walk the OP through, to no use, because they would close the question as soon as they got 3 or 4 similar answers, (like 3 people say A, I bet the answer is A)
I would get SS credit for posting something completely useless. Say I posted, "l2quad" or smoething. I would get credit for that.
And the first one to give the correct answer (NOT the correct steps) would get a medal.
THe person who spent the most time trying to help out would get as much credit as I would for l2quad, the question would be closed, and nobody would ever look at it again.
Anyone reading this?
Feedback on my interpretation? @apoorvk
@inkyvoyd Yeah I read everything and I had been typing a feedback, when the page crashed (sadly, one of the many times in the past few days) So, yes those are some great thoughts, and you've definitely given a very comprehensive analysis of the problem at hand, medal-system and the "I2squad" (great name :p) :). The problem that a person who is posting a detailed explanation takes more time, and by the time they posted their answers, the question would be closed, was on my mind as well, but great that you came out with it! Thank you!! Surprisingly enough though, (or expectedly rather, from the dev. team's point of view), ever since the one question system was started I haven't found too many users mongering for just an answer. I seem to think that those people have been sieved away, since they can 't just rapidly post question after question on like rapid-fire, and collect answers later (which used to happen earlier). OS has become more meaningful since that step. People here are more curious than ever before, which I believe is a good sign. Yes ofcourse, the problem isn't completely solved, and a few such cases do crop up every now and then, and this is when the efforts put into detailed explanations get wasted. "Bad answer" idea is not that bad, but I can't seem to come to terms with negative input here in OS, like an 'F' or 'E'. I don't want the system to get competitive like a rat-race, with people getting disheartened with bad remarks especially since it's not an actual classroom where a mentor may be able to counsel you and pull up your confidence. I want it remain free-and-fair. If someone does post a bad solution (which generally would be just posting the answer), we 'll let that be the way it is, and one of the mods or users can ask or warn him not to do that next time onwards, (which we usually do). Honestly, a "bad answer" --> My mind doesn't say yes do that. Comparitive-systems (like grades) or a too 'relative' scoring system that's almost parallel to grades is not my line of thought, and I would like OS to stay as far from that honestly. OS is fun, and so are answering and asking questions and receiving medals. Let's let it remain that way, rather than create a too competitive atmosphere, kills the pleasure =) (once again I don't mean to sound dominating, apologies if I do. Just my views on this.)
btw, @apoorvk , I think what they could do is add a "not helpful to the discussion". If enough people did this, the post would be under rating threshold like on a lot of sites, and would not get any SS credit.
It won't be a bad answer, just wouldn't get credit.
Think about it. If some random person came to every post and said something random, they would be getting points for spamming, but since it would be evenly distributed, nobody would really report them.
Yes that could be okay, if you mean that they wouldn't receive any points for simply posting something.
Exactly. It should be that you don't get credit for spamming, just half the time people would rather not report.
And the penalties for getting reported are very heavy. Some people don't like getting others banned.
Hmm. but spamming is quite under control right now. nevertheless, a good idea. i am undecided on this though. upto the Mod-Gods^^ now. No people don't get penalised for getting reported. a penalty or a suspension only happens if they are found guilty of breaking the CoC.
Well, I mean, I just don't want to get credit for spamming l2math on posts right before they are closed.
It makes me better at communication according to the smart score, but am I really better at communication if I write l2math on random posts? I believe that should give me a negative score, or nothing at all.
Mods monitor that inky, its not so simple. if you've been doing that, you get a warning, you don't just fly off scot-free.
WHy do I get away with it then? *trollface*
Ok now I have another point. Suppose I post a question and receive 2-3 answers initially , out of which I like one answer and I choose it as the best answer. Later I receive other answers , and like another one out of them. But now iam in a fix , because giving this person a medal , would mean taking away the medal from the former one, which I dont feel is right. Watsay ?
And then, one dude gives the answer directly, and since ur evil you give him/her a medal, and niether of the original two get medals.
well, thats why the gold and the silver medal system. even if you're reducing it to silver, the other person isn't that disheartened, and you don't feel so bad taking away the medal, 'cause someone has to be the best.
It would demotivate not just neophytes , but others as well. Personally I would feel really bad :-(
And, I meant you guys, modz0rs, check my link, it's an example of what I was talking about!
And the user that got a medal for directly giving the answer never realized the purpose of this site, so you can't say it's abuse, either.
And whats wrong if we could give as many medals as we like ? Even if we categorize medals (silver,gold etc ) , at some point we would always get answers which are equally good , and that would again lead to taking away of medals.
And, don't say those all get caught, cause I remember participating in one with @Hero with no adverse side effects.
Hey @inkyvoyd - very good points here, which are all important. To give you an idea of why the system is constructed as it currently is (which I think is helpful to this discussion), here are some of the major ideas/points we kept in mind. First of all, after a lot of user feedback, we don't think a 'disincentive' system is necessarily the right way to go. OpenStudy is a place to give and receive help, and everyone is a volunteer. Thus, the idea of negative reinforcement doesn't really feel right in our community. This goes along with @Hero's comment regarding grades - we discussed this as well as a 'star rating' system as possibilities. In terms of people just asking for answers, there the problem becomes trickier. There will *always* be people looking for just answers, and the way we've decided to approach this issue is on the 'supply' side - the answerers. We've attempted to do this by removing the incentive (as much as possible) for just giving answers. Also, we rewrote our Code of Conduct a few months ago with this issue in mind. Again, it is (and always will be) an imperfect system, one that depends on users reporting abuse or telling the user themselves. In terms of worrying about suspending someone @inkyvoyd - I understand your view there, but I want to assure you that we do not simply ban/suspend/warn users based on reports like this. We usually reach out to the answerer and asker and inform them of the Code of Conduct - further measures are only taken when the person repeats the same action repeatedly after being informed. The medal system is designed to be a way to reward people for helping out on OpenStudy, and ideally the rewards should go to that person who actually 'helped' - not the one who just gave the answer. The one-medal idea was implemented as a way to dis-incentivize people simply posting irrelevant or unhelpful comments (as many times *everyone* on a question got a medal from the asker). This is still a work in progress however, and we're still reviewing its effects. Great viewpoints by all though! Keep em coming!
Also its not necessary that always a single person provides the complete answer. Sometimes we get answer in parts from different people , which completes the answer. So they all deserve a medal, I believe.
ANy sort of way to keep me from getting credit if I say l2quad or l2trig?
Anyways people I gotta go . Nice debate :p But I trust mods completely and I know they would always go for the best. Keep rokking mods ! Cya :-)
@anjali_pant - I completely understand your take on the 'one-medal' issue when it comes to multiple people providing good and helpful solutions, or working together towards that goal. So, the reason we implemented the one medal system is for exactly this scenario: 5 people respond to a question, but 2 of them work together with the asker and provide equally great solutions/help. Now, in the old system, say 10 medals were given out, and everyone who responded received 2 medals (because it was the asker and one other person simply giving a medal to every participant - common behavior). In this scenario, the people giving help were rewarded the exact same as those who didn't, which from our position is to say they were not rewarded at all. So, with the new system, only two medals were given out (one by the asker and the same 'other'). Here, it is far more likely that A) at least one of the real helpers will be rewarded and B) it is also likely that both would be rewarded (if I think two people helped equally, and one has a medal and the other doesn't, it's more likely I reward the one who doesn't). So, that's the perspective we have used to get to this point. Again, *nothing* is set in stone, but we still believe that this new solution is actually a fairer method overall than the old one.
And thanks @apoorvk for such a nice and "heated" topic ! :p Cya ! :-)
Well what @cshalvey said was the best it could get. And about the "negative reinforcement", I 'm much of the same view. We want to encourage learning, no paths that crush the interest out of it.
I'm going to go ahead and be a scumbag and try to find more ways to criticize this system.
Yea @cshalvey , the explanation you offered is simply fab and just. But see Iam again in a fix , I liked @apoorvk answer so I gave him a medal on this post , but the answer you just posted is "too good" , but I cannot give you a medal ! :-( :p
LOOL TROLOL EVEN BETTER THAN ME
Hmm, @anjali_pant give that medal to Colm, he deserves it. I'm a part of the question, but he's a part of the solution to the problems, which is way more important. :)
No, give the medal to me, l2openstudy.
Lol^^. I wish.
Hehe, @inkyvoyd - totally okay with you finding 'more ways to criticize this system' - we *need* that kind of criticism. Remember, that is how SmartScore was developed, reacting to feedback from the old model. So, keep it coming ;)
This will take a while :S
Oh yea, you guys need to make bumping easier. 10 min then 20 min then 40 min is reasonable, but no 80 min @@
Each one of my posts is a reflection of how I can not abuse the CoC too much, but still get credit! :D