Photo.net Contributor Legend lacks Golden Critiquer explanation

[divo]

<p>Hi, I noticed somebody had a Golden Critiquer badge, but when I clicked to find out what it was the legend doesn't have an icon or description. I'm intrigued, but don't know what I have to do to get one or what it means. Thanks.</p>

[jimmckinnon]

<p>Devon, check here for a general description:<br>

<a href="00XHXv">http://www.photo.net/site-help-forum/00XHXv</a></p>

<p>Regarding your question about earning the icon, in another thread, which I can't locate right now, Josh has indicated that his strategly is to not disclose the precise requirements for attaining this icon.</p>

[joshroot]

<p>Yeah, I just haven't had time to update that page yet.</p>

<p>Short version:</p>

<p>Write a lot of critiques that other photo.net users find helpful.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/help/gallery/critique/helpful-comment-voting</p>

[divo]

<p>Thanks for getting back to me on that. I had actually read that post, it had just obviously not sunk in as deeply as it could have. Thanks for all your hard work. I for one am appreciating the changes that have taken place.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I was expecting to hear a new, insightful question from legendary PN contributor, Devon Derksen, who was merely lacking an explanation for what the Golden Contributor is. Damn that whole punctuation and subjective syntax thing!</p>

[divo]

<p>Hehe. Thanks for the morning laugh. I needed that. I think I could really get into being a clueless legend!</p>

[gordonjb]

<p>From the outside looking in, it appears to be just another pointless popularity contest, based solely on quantity with no regard to quality.</p>

[divo]

<p>Gordon B: I guess that depends on group dynamics. Some members may endorse fluff, but if the community doesn't try to foster involvement by encouraging members to get involved and recognizing those that do then fewer individuals will invest in the process.</p>

[gordonjb]

<p>Devon, I at no point suggested that rewarding participation was an unworthy goal.<br>

In the original release notes for the recent minor overhaul to the critiquing system, I wrongly got the notion that the new system would reward quality. What I see is that the mutual backslapping society which dominated the site previously are the ones now receiving these silly yellow balls. I was expressing my disappointment at that result. And yes mutual backslapping does appear to be the group dynamic.</p>

[joshroot]

<p>There are currently only 9 people with the "helpful" icon. Hardly evidence of a large group dominating anything. Yes, those 9 are high volume users, but as far as I can tell, their comments are not (on average) the generic "great shot" comments that are so often the hallmark of mutual admiration societies. While their comments aren't exactly what I myself might find helpful, they do appear to have accurate commentary and suggestions showing that they did actually look and comment on that image, rather than just pasting something in, even if they aren't particularly long winded or detailed.</p>

<p>Now, I haven't looked at every comment they make. But every time I look through their comments, I have a hard time saying "well this can't be considered helpful" because it very well could. If that is a limitation to the system, then so be it. There is no way to make a perfect system for something like this. The best we can do is to eliminate the majority of the pointless stuff and then tweak the system as necessary. I think as we get further into the time period (previous 90 days) that the icon requirements pull from, we are going to see more of the "hard working but not high volume" critiques being recognized. If that isn't the case, then I will have to look at some other behind the scenes changes to make sure that happens.</p>

[gordonjb]

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, those 9 are high volume users</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That was my point. Yes there are only 9 sets of balls out there. Without being privy to the criteria being used the one unifying commonality is sheer volume of output. Hammering out rapid fire critiques is not, in my opinion, in any way indicative of quality. I am not making any sort of a judgment call on those 9 people or on their respective critiques. My comment was directed at the yardstick being used not those being measured.</p>

[divo]

<p>Gordon B: I wasn’t trying to imply that you had. I was responding more to the sociological and philosophical implications inherent in your comment due to things I've been forced to ponder at work recently.</p>

<p>The really short version: Human group dynamics seem to follow either an <em>elitist model</em> where only qualified members with recognized superior skills are nominated to be involved or a <em>populist model</em> where everyone can be involved. PN is clearly a populist site where accomplished pros and total newbies interact side by side. (Which doesn't even take into account the dynamic introduced by many people who don’t use English as a first language.) I've learned that people just contribute to communities in whatever way they see as meaningful based on their own interests and abilities. Trying to channel that energy in a meaningful way is a huge challenge. (Something I am also responsible for in the team I lead.) The reality is that one newbie may find the comment, “Hey, good job!” to be incredibly encouraging and helpful and want to share that feeling with others. A pro may just think, “Don’t waste my time with your fluff!”</p>

<p>Some users advocate stricter guidelines for ratings and critiques; but how would they ever be enforced? As Josh said, who is to say whether people receiving the comments find them helpful? As it stands, individuals decide whether each comment is helpful to them on a comment by comment basis. Yes, some level of popularity and mutual back slapping will occur, but perhaps over time those that are making fluff comments will see they aren't getting many “helpful” points and change their ways. Then again, perhaps they see their role as being more of an encourager and don't care about “helpful” points at all. The site can actually benefit from both types of members.</p>

<p>Maybe it is a "pointless popularity contest," but maybe it will also generate some great comments along the way. Who knows?</p>

[gordonjb]

<p>Devon,</p>

<p>Thanks for the thoughtful and thought provoking response. I agree that <em>helpful</em> is going to be an elastic concept dependant on the people involved in the exchange. Quality is an illusive notion to nail down and try to quantify. That reality having been acknowledged, I do feel that other criteria beyond quantity could be implemented to play a role. If quality is measured as an expression of volume then many people on this site whom I see contributing significant effort toward helping other members on their photographic journey will remain unsung heroes.</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>I am not making any sort of a judgment call on those 9 people or on their respective critiques. My comment was directed at the yardstick being used not those being measured.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's a legitimate point of view. But it should be noted that sheer numbers, in and of themselves, aren't the actual criteria being used (unlike, say, the film canister icons). It is just that the more critiques you write, the more likely you are to have written a critique that people find useful. And it's those useful numbers that the system is concerned with, we want to reward users who make the effort to write stuff that other users find helpful (while trying to keep out the obvious fluff). If these active people are making useful critiques, then the system shouldn't care if they happen to have the time available to be very active on the site. In fact, it has to be considered that the people who contribute the most are bringing something to the site that is asked for more than any other thing, valuable critique. In that sense, the system absolutely should make sure that the people doing the most work, assuming that it is quality work, are rewarded the most quickly.</p>

<p>That having been said, I am watching the system closely. It wasn't ever my goal to set the bar so high that only the very most active users would be acknowledged. But I view it as more important to make sure that the "quality" aspect is working correctly before I look at the "quantity" aspect. Keeping any of the cut/paste "great shot" people out of the system was/is my first goal. It's going to be a work in progress, I have no doubt. But as I alluded to before, I don't think I am going to be able to make concrete decisions on what might need to be changed until we have gotten through the 90 day window that makes up the timeframe for icons like this. After that, I'll be able to see how many people reached the criteria, how many active (but not super-active) "good" critiquers didn't make it, and so on. From there, I should be able to have the info at hand to decide on any adjustments that might need to be made.</p>

[joshroot]

<p>And yes, the icon is terrible. But it's the best I've got right now.</p>

[gordonjb]

<p>Josh, how about an icon consisting of a fountain or quill pen and script ?<br>

Personally I'd want to cut back on critiquing if I ended up with yellow balls for my effort.</p>

<p>I realise that this new rating critiques idea is in its infancy so any comments or observations can only be preliminary. Regardless of the icon, any initiative which in the end promotes more comment is good for us all.</p>

[joshroot]

<blockquote>

<p>Josh, how about an icon consisting of a fountain or quill pen and script ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Funny you should mention that.</p>

<p>In the long long ago, there was a pen icon for "prolific forum poster", sort of the precursor to the film canisters. When we were building the "helpful" system last month, I actually went to look for the graphic to see if it could be re-used. But it was pretty 1999 web gif style. So I decided to see if I could come up with something better, which obviously I haven't yet.</p>

[divo]

<p>Josh I wish you all the best as you try to sort this out and make the necessary adjustments. It can't be any easy task being at the helm of these changes.</p>

<p>Hey, what about the Superman crest! Oh wait ... there would probably be copywrite issues. Sorry, couldn't resist.</p>