RE: How many people did you speak to / spoke to you last week? (Engagement League scoring potential)
Hey @enjar
Thanks for the reply. I think you part answer your own initial question with:
Part of engaging with others should be about going outside of your own bubble.
But i understand that 'somewhere in the middle' is best, it's just that:
... the biggest indicate is also just going be too much work to try and track as it would be per person and case
Yes, and sadly I don't have the time or inclination to do that each week, so we have to work with numbers.
The char minimum of 50 or anything around that could end up being just a number that people know they have to pass to boost their score. Is that a bad thing though if it makes them produce a more complete sentence?
With regards to performance, I'm not sure, but hope that being a part of the EL helps - even if it's just via the prize money each week.
Someone with only 20 comments could really be out performing that person.
For sure. Likely someone with stake (applied to self) :)
| Metric (last 7 days) | Count |
|---|---|
| Unique accounts spoken to | 46 |
| Unique accounts that spoke to you | 47 |
| Unique accounts that spoke to you, excluding top level replies | 27 |
| Unique accounts that spoke to you, exc. TL replies and replies < 50 chars | 22 |
I think a privately known changing from week to week min. char variable would be the way to go. If someone thinks they need to put out 100 char comments to meet the min when it was only 20 that week. I can't but help laugh that there plans to game the system caused them to be gamed by it instead.
Perhaps that is the solution to your issue. Just needing some slight changing variables every week. Try and shake up the top a little bit. Have some of that "magic sauce" in the numbers so people have to guess. While it does kill transparency. Real meaning human engage is the end result.
That is always the issue when running an experiment. You change the results and behaviors from studying the subjects.
Good plan, I had considered hiding a few variables, but thought transparency was nice - even though the 'weight' to each criteria I don't share.
Gamed by the system, muhahaha.
(added an extra 'ha' to hit the min!)
100% upvote for this comment! As here, I don't think a char limit will make my comments better, just longer.
To be honest this is the first rule that has seemed like work, dimishing just a little the fun of engagement league achievemet hunting.
This might be different for different types of posters. Doesn't seem like it would affect @glenalbrethsen at all ;p
I dont think it will affect many of the key engagers - it's there to stop 'nice post', but it would also stop 'thank you' as well. :/
We'll see how this weeks scoring is reflected upon, well done on reaching the top 5!
There is no perfect number. Recently I have been interacting with this guy, who loves puns.
Oddly enough, using the partiko app might be enough to get around any minimum character length; is the markup included or only the visible text?
Thank you! I am heating up, and having a blast on steem! This is unsustainable for me in the long run, but I am enjoying every minute of it while I can!
Otherwise you need some “guest judge” numbers every week. You have a pool of data you could consider but you only use X number sets. If someone wants to game the system well they have to do a lot more work since they don’t know per week to week what is going be used.
That is what I love about running contents with human judges. I’m constant but I switch up the other 2 for each one from a pool selection. Someone might be able to write something to what I consider “a winner” but you still have those other 2 that change per contest.
Yep that's another good suggestion to consider.
I'll see how things go with the additional column this week, and if I/others spot any fishy activity, then I may need to start a little gaming myself :)