Members Statistics Suggestion

[stevepjq]

Here is a suggestion as it relates to the value that members present to those posing questions or looking for advice. Under the "members" tab, there are a number of lists which quantify things such as total "messages" and" reaction score" which I believe is the sum total of "likes" associated with a posting. Although those two figures are interesting, it may not be so telling as to the value that other members associate with specific postings. As an example, some rather prolific posters have tens of thousands of messages but have a relatively low reaction score while others may have a relatively low number of messages with a relatively high reaction score.
So, my suggestion would be to calculate and display a list of members with, I'll call it, the highest "value index." That index is a simple algebraic equation that has the "reaction score" as the numerator and the "messages" as the denominator. Just looking at the lists on this site, one could see that the highest "value index" listees would be both @Rebekah Scott and @SabsP (4.61) followed by @VNwalking (4.12), @Bradypus (4.05) and @mspath (4.04) while the two most prolific posters have a value index considerably lower.
Perhaps displaying these members with their value index would help those posing questions discern the best advice.
For your reading pleasure and thoughts.
Be well and best!

 

[K_Lynn]

Do people actually care about their own or others statistics? I think it's an interesting metric, but not one that I seek out or pay attention to.

 

[Grousedoctor]

As @K_Lynn said so well, statistics may be interesting metric, but I doubt that anyone who is looking for advice or information would care much about a person’s “value index.” Whether a person has only posted once or ten thousand times, my interest is the particular comment I’m reading at the time. Let’s appreciate social media for the value it presents in ideas that has little to do with rating people.

 

[alexwalker]

Earlier on this Forum, no. of "likes" was displayed as part of the info on members. It was removed about 1 year (?) back, and I am sure it was for a reason. It may have had to do about not "rating" members?

 

[trecile]

I tend to value members whose advice seems sound to me. It does take some forum reading to decide who those members are.

 

[henrythedog]

Here is a suggestion as it relates to the value that members present to those posing questions or looking for advice. Under the "members" tab, there are a number of lists which quantify things such as total "messages" and" reaction score" which I believe is the sum total of "likes" associated with a posting. Although those two figures are interesting, it may not be so telling as to the value that other members associate with specific postings. As an example, some rather prolific posters have tens of thousands of messages but have a relatively low reaction score while others may have a relatively low number of messages with a relatively high reaction score.
So, my suggestion would be to calculate and display a list of members with, I'll call it, the highest "value index." That index is a simple algebraic equation that has the "reaction score" as the numerator and the "messages" as the denominator. Just looking at the lists on this site, one could see that the highest "value index" listees would be both @Rebekah Scott and @SabsP (4.61) followed by @VNwalking (4.12), @Bradypus (4.05) and @mspath (4.04) while the two most prolific posters have a value index considerably lower.
Perhaps displaying these members with their value index would help those posing questions discern the best advice.
For your reading pleasure and thoughts.
Be well and best!

Personally I’d be happy to see the statistics removed or hidden. It’s not a competition. (Is it??)

A few moments later: I ‘score’ 4.59, so obviously it’s to be recommended, although as my ‘score’ is largely made up of stating the bleeding obvious and a few bad jokes: perhaps not.

 

[Rick M]

Personally I’d be happy to see the statistics removed or hidden. It’s not a competition. (Is it??)

As a naive freshman at university, I can recall thinking to myself "Ah! At last you have escaped the endless popularity contest that is social life in high school!". It has subsequently become obvious that I thought wrong.

 

[C clearly]

Earlier on this Forum, no. of "likes" was displayed as part of the info on members. It was removed about 1 year (?) back, and I am sure it was for a reason.

Let's just say that the "silly thread" fueled the frontrunners in the Likes score. When that thread was removed, it upset the rankings!

I'll call it, the highest "value index." That index is a simple algebraic equation that has the "reaction score" as the numerator and the "messages" as the denominator.

That seem to measure efficiency more than value.

To measure value we would need to establish criteria for what the reactions mean. Does a "Like" mean I like that member, I agree with the reply, I appreciate the effort, or what? How many = 1 ? Is that the same as ? Do you get demerits for angry faces?

The beauty of the forum is that unlike ChatGPT or emoji talk, we need to apply human intelligence.

 

[henrythedog]

Let's just say that the "silly thread" fueled the frontrunners in the Likes score. When that thread was removed, it upset the rankings!


That seem to measure efficiency more than value.

To measure value we would need to establish criteria for what the reactions mean. Does a "Like" mean I like that member, I agree with the reply, I appreciate the effort, or what? How many = 1 ? Is that the same as ? Do you get demerits for angry faces?

The beauty of the forum is that unlike ChatGPT or emoji talk, we need to apply human intelligence.

I got a from you several years ago (and I still remember it!) that alone should send me to the back of the queue.

May the good Lord (and Ivar - assuming they are not one and the same) preserve us from being classified. Free and frequent use of the ‘ignore’ button allows me to sort out the sheep from the goats.

 

[trecile]

I tend to value members whose advice seems sound to me. It does take some forum reading to decide who those members are.

I should have mentioned that my definition of "sound advice" may differ from other's. That's why you need to read a number of threads to identify members you are simpático with.

 

[dougfitz]

I should have mentioned that my definition of "sound advice" may differ from other's. That's why you need to read a number of threads to identify members you are simpático with.

That got a like from me. I don't see how 'mechanising' this in a 'value index' actually adds value at all, and agree with @trecile and others that an individual's decision about whose advice they wish to follow would be difficult to encapsulate into a single number or even series of numbers, and that includes the ones that we already have.

Some of this is about the heart and feeling aligned with that member as much as it is about measurable things. Not everyone, for example, is going to find the advice of those with an ultra-light hiking background suitable for them, nor will those walking in spring, autumn and winter find the advice of those who have only walked in summer necessarily useful.

For the OP, @stevepjq, the reaction score is not the sum total of likes. but the aggregate of all the reaction categories. So it includes 'Buen Camino', 'Love - Red Heart', 'Thank you', 'Love', 'Haha', 'Wow', 'Sad' and 'Angry'. Given that there might be many reasons individuals use these other categories, and no established guidelines so far as I am aware, there is clearly no way of summing up a value here at all. For the mathematically inclined, there isn't even ordinal content that could be extracted from this, so while it might look like a number one could use in an arithmetic calculation, it really isn't. The notion of doing so would be seen as absurd by a purist.

 

[El Cascayal]

Ignorance must be bliss. I have no idea what or where to find the statistics and or reaction score. Enlighten me please!

 

[Bradypus]

Ignorance must be bliss. I have no idea what or where to find the statistics and or reaction score. Enlighten me please!

I had to search for that after reading the OP. Click on "Members" in the blue headline bar at the top of the forum pages. More stats there than any sane person would want!

 

[lt56ny]

I should have mentioned that my definition of "sound advice" may differ from other's. That's why you need to read a number of threads to identify members you are simpático with.

That got a like from me. I don't see how 'mechanising' this in a 'value index' actually adds value at all, and agree with @trecile and others that an individual's decision about whose advice they wish to follow would be difficult to encapsulate into a single number or even series of numbers, and that includes the ones that we already have

Thanks trecile for being so clear and succinct. I couldn't agree more. There are many things written by people who rarely post that I believe are smart or are giving good advice. There are others who post and get lots of reactions to things I could not disagree with more, especially when someone advices a OP that it is no problem to walk 30K, I do it all the time, it is easy!
I think there is immeasurable value in doing your research and listening to reading a variety of opinions. I included @dougfitz and @estorildon in this post because there were instances I got into something a little heated about my judgements of what a pilgrim was and what a pilgrimage "should look like". I was a little angry about the responses from them. Especially with @dougfitz. (Honestly now I can't remember much of any of these situations. A few weeks after the initial posts I realized defining these kinds of things were a total waste of time and just brought more negativity into my life. I started to read what @dougfitz wrote and I found he really had alot of great information and camino/life wisdom to share and he was a straight shooter and said what he thought always. I want to thank him for that.
I never would have learned more if I just went by reaction scores and didn't allow myself to reopen my mind and read others perspectives. I may still deep down have the same opinions but I have learned they aren't worth the effort or emotion. It frees me up alot. Now I just write what I think and will say when I strongly disagree but I add the caveat that it is just my opinion.
Only by exploration, curiosity and differing viewpoints can someone form the basis of opinions or decisions. It is a great way to learn. Finally for all new pilgrims, you will ALWAYS have doubts no matter how much you read. You will make mistakes no matter how careful you are. But after about a week you will be on the road to being an expert pilgrim for yourself.

 

[SabsP]

I was just recently told about this thread.
Saw my name was mentioned.
In my case , I think the amount of " my likes " has something to do with me regular posting pictures. Seeing pics are more visible than written content I assume they get more likings.
So , all in all very subjective.

 

[Peregrinopaul]

Nope. It doesn’t work. I score more than @peregrina2000! And a few more jokes from @Henry, like the one above, and he’ll leave everyone else in his dust.