Re: planet "top posters" section

Personally I think the top teams thing has caused more trouble/confusion than
any benefit it has produced, and at this point I think it could be dumped, and
with that our top 20 would become much more reasonable looking. imho.

On Friday 16 April 2010 19:03:04 Selena Deckelmann wrote:
> Hi!
>
> As the instigator of this "top-n" posters feature, Magnus suggested
> that I should weigh in. So here goes..
>
> My goal in requesting the feature last year was to encourage more
> posts, have an at-a-glance reference for outsiders to see how many
> people are regularly contributing, and to encourage friendly
> competition. And, given that, I'm not a fan of limiting the number of
> names that can be displayed.
>
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> >>>> That would be reasonable too, although it's a little hard to think
> >>>> about how to apply that to the team section, since the individuals are
> >>>> listed under the teams.  Clearly you could also omit teams with 2 or
> >>>> fewer postings, but what if the team has >2 but some - or all -
> >>>> individuals within the team have <=2?
> >>>
> >>> Well, that's an incentive to join a team.
> >>
> >> Hmm.  Well, by that theory, Bruce should quite his job: he'd go from
> >> somewhere buried down in the weeds to the number one spot on the list.
> >>
> >> It's clearly not our policy to give people who are on a team a more
> >> prominent position.  More like the reverse.  Personally I think I'd
> >
> > Yes, if any, the reverse. And we definitely don't want to promote
> > team-members over individuals. Or I should say, we have traditionally
> > not wanted to do that. All policies are of course up for discussion
> >
> > :-)
>
> The original thinking behind this feature was to provide a simple
> metric for people who are posting to see how they "rank" against
> others, and to give folks a bit of a cheap thrill in getting their
> name and a number at the top of the Planet page.
>
> The "Teams" feature was added as a way for development teams and
> businesses to market themselves, without getting to crazy about
> things.
>
> The Individual and Team listings don't show up if no posts are made,
> so it is an encouragement for both to provide content. And has the
> added benefit of giving outsiders a look at who contributes, and *how
> many people* contribute.
>
> >> favor just listing the top 6-10 posters (regardless of whether they're
> >> on a team) and the top 6-10 teams (without listing the posters) and
> >> call it good.
> >
> > If it doesn't show who's a member of a team, isn't that very confusing?
>
> I think it is confusing, and a little unfair to those who are part of
> a team. As we've talked about in the past, names are important.
>
> Again, my goal in having the feature was to also show how breadth of
> contribution to the aggregator.
>
> -selena
>
>
> --
> http://chesnok.com/daily - me
> http://endpoint.com - work

--
Robert Treat
Conjecture: http://www.xzilla.net
Consulting: http://www.omniti.com