Post by High Priestess on Nov 4, 2015 23:49:10 GMT
THe discussion about "levels" that Helga and I had (are having) with Jonny, an Airbnb staffer working on the new groups:
Deborah (High Priestess) MIght it be possible to select to "hide" one's level or make it invisible?
I've noticed that there is some grumbling about the new "level indicators" on these groups. Some users, (for instance Shannon) feel uncomfortable coming onto the groups, seeing that they are at level 1, and someone else (namely me) is at a significantly higher level. THat can introduce discomfort, envy, resentment -- not only for Shannon but I also feel uncomfortable being the person who currently has the highest level. I dont' like attracting attention, envy or resentment.
Here's what I posted on this Living Room thread: community.airbnb.com/t5/The-Living-Room/New-Hosts-Forum-veterans-and-others-discussion-about...
"In the old groups we didnt' need level indicators, because everyone who was active on the groups, knew not only who the regular contributors were, but also their personalities and the kinds of things they posted. THose who were new, knew they were new and so did the regulars know they were new. I think that is preferable, actually. To have a community where people just get to know each other in the community, without having artificial level indicators.
I see the point of @till & Jutta about how it is helpful for those asking a question to see the amount of experience of those answering, but the quality and thoughtfulness of answers is also indicative of the amount of experience, and I think that is actually preferable, to be able to gauge someone's experience level just by the content of their reply. In fact, it's better for someone to assess the value of a cerain reply, just by its content, not by the "level" of the person replying. It's not going to necessarily be true that someone with a higher "level" gives a better reply. And after all, one gains hosting experience and wisdom, by actual life experience, but with regard to the levels on these groups, you can gain levels just by posting stuff -- which may or may not be useful, or quality content. As @helga astutely indicates, one could go up in "levels" here on the groups, but not actually be a host who has ever had any guests book your place. So the level indicator most definitely is not correlated with actual hosting experience, or really any real life experience at all-- it's solely a function of number of posts/replies/initial threads/likes etc.
I dont' know the details but I think the levels are calculated not only by one's number of posts, but also by the replies to one's posts and perhaps the "likes" on one's posts, etc. So, when a group user starts many threads, and thus has many replies to those threads, their "level" could potentially climb even when they are off on vacation somewhere, not doing any posting at all, because people are still replying to their posts.
I dont' exactly feel comfortable being the highest level person currently on here. IT attracts attention and perhaps envy and resentment. Levels can introduce competition into a community setting which I think would be healthier without competition. I like being helpful, but my motivation to be helpful, is to build hosting skills and knowledge among hosts, and to make certain bad experiences/learning mistakes that I had with renters in the past, be used for a good purpose now, to benefit others. My motivation to be helpful is not to "get stuff", and that is the sense that the level indicators introduce. Now, one can potentially be motivated to participate not to be helpful or to build community, but to rocket oneself to level stardom. Icky. Also I certainly don't like being a person others resent or envy, like Shannon so honestly and directly responding to the levels saying, "I'm 1 and you are 7 (or 8)....what's up with that???!"
. I think we should all have the option to make our level invisible, or hidden, so that others couldn't see it. "
And @helga said this:
"
Hah, no jokes in the morning before the 4th espresso for me ;-)
The level misunderstanding is related to the school system: in Austria 1 = best and 5 = worst. Therefore also my surprise to see it go over 5.
In France 20/20 is best, so 7 would still be insufficient. I'd prefer a wording Regular poster / Occasional poster / New board member.
But still: to see New would not prevent you from misunderstandings. I had hosted for a very long time before I asked my first question.
I remember I explained a computer function to Jeanette once like Computer for beginners and she is a programmer ;-) And she had already mentioned that before - shame on me, something to laugh about, no harm done, maybe it helped another reader.
And I'm curious how fast we will see members who only say Hi trice a day but never attract guests achieve level 7 ;-) "
and @helga also shared:
"Great post, Deborah, you say that very clearly ! I'd opt for invisible levels on the spot.
- Besides, did you think about the responsability? What happens if a level 9 is a bit tipsy or in a funny mood and makes a joke? Some naive soul might follow that to the letter..."
Which is another good point. A person with a high level might not overall have helpful info to share. THey might be someone who says "hi" 20 or 30 times a day, in response to everyone's post. Like someone who we ended up calling "The Welcome Wagon" on the Anecdotes forum. He would just say "Welcome" to every single post, including those posting spam, posting property listings, everything. The amount of helpful info he shared was quite minimal, and by supporting spam and property listings post, he was actually working in opposition to the stated purpose of the forum. Yet if we'd had level indicators there, he might have had a high level indicator, so liberal was he with his "Welcome!" replies.
And Helga's point is well made too, that someone with a high level indicator might be in an off mood or have a bad day, and their silly or weak reply, might yet be taken seriously, too seriously, by a newbie who is too enchanted with their high level number. Again, it's best if people learn to evaluate content based on its intrinsic value, not artificially by associated level indicator.
This issue actually corresponds to a new host issue we have dealt with often on the groups. Newbie hosts in particular seem to place too much confidence in guests having Verified ID. They seem to think that Verified ID will do magic, and ensure that this will be a good guest. Certainly Verified ID has its value, but it does not replace hosts needing to have screening skills, and learning how to screen guests. Hosts who don't know how to screen guests, are accepting bookings based on Verified ID or lack thereof, and are having problems as a result. This would be quite similar to taking advice based on the level indicator of the replier, without having the skill to assess the value of the content in the reply. Just as we want to build skills in hosts as to how to do good screening for guests, we want to build skills in group users about how to assess the value of a reply to their post, apart from artificial level indicators.
For all these reasons, I think it would be best if group users could choose to hide their level or make it invisible.
Jonny:
You bring up a lot of good points, deborah. The intent behind showing "levels" is certainly not to make anyone feel ashamed or embarrassed.
The way one progresses up the levels is based on a formula related to both quantity AND quality of posts - not just how many posts one makes, but also how many 'likes' those posts get, how often they're marked as 'most helpful', etc.
I completely understand what you mean about the reputation that is built up over time and that in Groups today the regular-contributors can easily identify those whose answers are typically the most helpful and those whose aren't. I would say that can work on a relatively smaller scale, but becomes much more difficult to sustain as the online community grows... not just for new members wondering "who to trust", but even for experienced members who simply haven't had the opportunity to interact yet. The "levels" is an attempt at creating a simple signal to all members about your engagement level in the online community. It's not meant to be an end-all status.
We're certainly open to changes to this system, and in fact have talked a lot about converting the numbers to words as well. I'd welcome your thoughts on better ways to use the system to signify engagement levels.
And, deborah, I sincerely hope you don't really feel embarrassed or uncomfortable about other folks wondering why you would have such a relatively high level number... let me make very clear: you've EARNED that! You are far and away the most regular contributor, and not just quantitatively but also with genuinely thoughtful and robust content.
It is achievable by anyone who is interested in doing so, which I personally think is a nice thing about the new system. It's purely merit-based and automatically calucated by an algorithm, no favoritism or elitism involved... and it is not permanent, inactivity will be reflected in the number as well.
Helga (helgaparis)
@jonny that is all very nice and you told me a similiar thing when we spoke before you welcomed me into the LPH program.
I fear you don't understand us. I never had a problem imposing myself or grimping up quickly in a company but that are things you do if you work and if you want to lead, a team, or people you organize on your own account to achieve something.
I don't know Deborah apart from her posts but I got the impression that might be true for her too.
But if you join a group, join it, not lead it, and in this case without even a chance to lead it, then you do it because you want to be part of a group. Part of it, no privileges, no rank, no jealousies, a community of peers.
This level thing is very HURTFUL, for those who get higher numbers and for those who join and see these higher numbers.
I don't need another level of stress in my life. I don't want to see a robot rank counter who tells me how often I posted usedfully and how often I posted nonsense, how often people liked it or which post was not liked at all.
I know from others, who posted long time on the other forum, whom I admire personally, who were hurt when they saw the level 1 they started with.
I was not hurt at that, simply because I did not see it before I had 2 and then I thaught that 1 is staff and 2 is others. ;-)
If I'm part of a group, even if I usually post reasonable advice, some first time poster may tell me: "No, that's nonsense, I believe the contrary is true." That's very useful for me, that everyone can say that do me, that everyone can have a better idea then me, that everyone can make me think about it and make me argument my case. If I post with a high level, (and if first time posters realize what levels mean) they won't dare to tell me "That's not so, I think that other thing would be best". I have no intention to ever start a religion and preach holy truth from top of my hosting experience. The whole notion is simply horrible to me. HORRIBLE !!!
Helga (helgaparis)
That you can't check once for all to get all answers to any thread you ever participated in is very annoying. Therefore I post the request as amendment: deborah, cited you in the first post - hopefully not too far from your point of view.
Deborah (High Priestess)
@jonny THank you for your praise!
Like @helga, I think that having "levels" or ranking systems of any kind, may unintentially do more harm than good for a community. I think it could undermine community when you introduce a competitive element like ranking, particularly if you are having a large number of ranks or levels. In fact the more sophisticated and "algorithmic" the rankings system, ironically, I think the more it could end up being disliked, because my sense is people wont' like their community activities being fed into a machine like that, and having the machine determine their "value." Communities are about people and relationships and soul, not machines and numbers. I think that ranking community members by level could end up making the community feel more like the "helpdesk" that Helga was referring to in one of her other posts, and could make members seem more like independent contractors of that helpdesk, who get rewarded/paid on commission, based on the number of customer service calls that they field.
I think hosts do like being recognized for their skills and rewarded for what they have accomplished, but one of hosts' biggest complaints about recognition from Airbnb in this sense, is that they believe Airbnb hasn't yet come up with a way of recognizing actual skill and accomplishment of hosts. The SUperhost program and the Star ratings systems, because they are based on guest ratings which are all too often inaccurate or even vindictive, do not accurately represent host's accomplishments, and the result is that hosts are quite bitter about these things, the star ratings system in particular. I think many hosts might end up comparing the "levels" indicator on these groups, to the star ratings system that they greatly dislike and complain about.
If the desire is to have some basic understanding of who is who, primarily for newcomers or those who arent' regular participants, I think some more basic categories , such as one sees on standard forums, would be preferable. For instance, on many standard online forums, there is a post counter, and each person's display by their post shows their name, avatar/photo, and the number of posts they have historically posted on that forum. I participate in some online common-interest forums where some of the members have 1700 posts or even 34,000 posts --- this clearly indicates their experience level compared to someone who has 6 posts, and people who are quite new to the forum and asking a question, generally come to attention quickly when they see someone respond to their question, who has a large number of posts. Showing # of posts only, does not imply a rank or value. People who are more talkative could have a large number of posts, or those only saying, "hi" to everyone could have that -- and people know that. I think group members would prefer being presented with mere facts, such as total # of each member's posts, and being given the freedom to attribute their own meaning or value to those facts, rather than have some machine or system sitting outside the community, invisibly observing all and algorithmically translating facts to value.
Alternatively, or in conjunction with # posts, one could use a limited number of categories to represent experience on the forum, such as "Saying Hello" to those who have fewer than 15 posts, "Getting to Know Others" for those with 15 to 50 posts, and "Helping Sustain the Community" for those with 50-100 posts, and "Committed to Community" with over 100 posts. On an online forum I run, for instance, I have named the first level as "New in Town", the next level as "Been Around the Block", and the next as "Knows the Neighborhood" and then the higher levels I named "Neighborhood Fixture" and "Tour Guide." One could peruse numerous online forums to see what terms are used on different forums. IN a forum for backyard chicken keeping that I participate in, the beginner level is "New Egg". THe next level is "Just Hatched", then comes "Out of the Brooder" and then "Out of the Coop" and "Chillin' with my Peeps", and so on. The advantage of using phrases like those instead of numeric levels, is that the phrases could express equal praise, equal appreciation, and would be less competetive. Words or phrases could be designed so that they dont' suggest superiority/inferiority. (A light sense of humor can help, but it should be a grounded sense of humor, and words/phrases should not sound silly, hokey or lovey-dovey -- heed the lesson from the Airbnb billboard flop in San Francisco --!)
I don't think that any "levels" or categories indicator that is used, should be punitive in any way, such that one could see one's level or category drop based on inactivity. Hosts may go on vacation, or have to take a break from hosting due to family urgencies or illness. To come back and participate again and find that they have been dropped several "levels" after their elderly parent or child died (for instance) I think will be not very nice, and they will not like being treated that way by their community.
Jonny
Very fair points, @helga and deborah. I was just talking to @mayka and Peter this morning about this as well, and they felt the same way regarding "levels" feeling too competitive/divisive.
Deborah, thank you for those suggestions regarding labels to connote engagement levels rather than the numeric value. I'll discuss this with the team, and see what can be done.
Thank you!
Helga (helgaparis)
@jonny, you should be honest about the reason for those levels. Either indicating the rank from least experience to maximum experience would have a positive effect on some naive soul who can't judge a statement for it's value. I doubt it, but let's concede that.
If the aim is to mark experience, then it makes no sense to let the achieved levels drop again - if deborah or any other experienced host makes a break for 4 months or a year, her advice would be as good after the break as before. So it would effectively induce in error the naive soul (not to trust her) if her level is lower then before.
So, by conclusion, I believe the other reason: to keep the posters hooked on their levels, to keep them contributing. And you do it the cheap way too, not a person judging, an algorithm judging.
As far as I have seen in all the statements, no one thinks those levels a good idea but a lot of people dislike them.
I wanted to give this forum the 100 days new politiciens get, but after not even a month I'm already pretty much demotivated.
There is no joy on this board, no fun, no socializing.
The structure and the ranking and the complicated way to keep track of things are all discouraging. Maybe I'll find me a forum about chicken farming too.
Deborah (High Priestess) MIght it be possible to select to "hide" one's level or make it invisible?
I've noticed that there is some grumbling about the new "level indicators" on these groups. Some users, (for instance Shannon) feel uncomfortable coming onto the groups, seeing that they are at level 1, and someone else (namely me) is at a significantly higher level. THat can introduce discomfort, envy, resentment -- not only for Shannon but I also feel uncomfortable being the person who currently has the highest level. I dont' like attracting attention, envy or resentment.
Here's what I posted on this Living Room thread: community.airbnb.com/t5/The-Living-Room/New-Hosts-Forum-veterans-and-others-discussion-about...
"In the old groups we didnt' need level indicators, because everyone who was active on the groups, knew not only who the regular contributors were, but also their personalities and the kinds of things they posted. THose who were new, knew they were new and so did the regulars know they were new. I think that is preferable, actually. To have a community where people just get to know each other in the community, without having artificial level indicators.
I see the point of @till & Jutta about how it is helpful for those asking a question to see the amount of experience of those answering, but the quality and thoughtfulness of answers is also indicative of the amount of experience, and I think that is actually preferable, to be able to gauge someone's experience level just by the content of their reply. In fact, it's better for someone to assess the value of a cerain reply, just by its content, not by the "level" of the person replying. It's not going to necessarily be true that someone with a higher "level" gives a better reply. And after all, one gains hosting experience and wisdom, by actual life experience, but with regard to the levels on these groups, you can gain levels just by posting stuff -- which may or may not be useful, or quality content. As @helga astutely indicates, one could go up in "levels" here on the groups, but not actually be a host who has ever had any guests book your place. So the level indicator most definitely is not correlated with actual hosting experience, or really any real life experience at all-- it's solely a function of number of posts/replies/initial threads/likes etc.
I dont' know the details but I think the levels are calculated not only by one's number of posts, but also by the replies to one's posts and perhaps the "likes" on one's posts, etc. So, when a group user starts many threads, and thus has many replies to those threads, their "level" could potentially climb even when they are off on vacation somewhere, not doing any posting at all, because people are still replying to their posts.
I dont' exactly feel comfortable being the highest level person currently on here. IT attracts attention and perhaps envy and resentment. Levels can introduce competition into a community setting which I think would be healthier without competition. I like being helpful, but my motivation to be helpful, is to build hosting skills and knowledge among hosts, and to make certain bad experiences/learning mistakes that I had with renters in the past, be used for a good purpose now, to benefit others. My motivation to be helpful is not to "get stuff", and that is the sense that the level indicators introduce. Now, one can potentially be motivated to participate not to be helpful or to build community, but to rocket oneself to level stardom. Icky. Also I certainly don't like being a person others resent or envy, like Shannon so honestly and directly responding to the levels saying, "I'm 1 and you are 7 (or 8)....what's up with that???!"
. I think we should all have the option to make our level invisible, or hidden, so that others couldn't see it. "
And @helga said this:
"
Hah, no jokes in the morning before the 4th espresso for me ;-)
The level misunderstanding is related to the school system: in Austria 1 = best and 5 = worst. Therefore also my surprise to see it go over 5.
In France 20/20 is best, so 7 would still be insufficient. I'd prefer a wording Regular poster / Occasional poster / New board member.
But still: to see New would not prevent you from misunderstandings. I had hosted for a very long time before I asked my first question.
I remember I explained a computer function to Jeanette once like Computer for beginners and she is a programmer ;-) And she had already mentioned that before - shame on me, something to laugh about, no harm done, maybe it helped another reader.
And I'm curious how fast we will see members who only say Hi trice a day but never attract guests achieve level 7 ;-) "
and @helga also shared:
"Great post, Deborah, you say that very clearly ! I'd opt for invisible levels on the spot.
- Besides, did you think about the responsability? What happens if a level 9 is a bit tipsy or in a funny mood and makes a joke? Some naive soul might follow that to the letter..."
Which is another good point. A person with a high level might not overall have helpful info to share. THey might be someone who says "hi" 20 or 30 times a day, in response to everyone's post. Like someone who we ended up calling "The Welcome Wagon" on the Anecdotes forum. He would just say "Welcome" to every single post, including those posting spam, posting property listings, everything. The amount of helpful info he shared was quite minimal, and by supporting spam and property listings post, he was actually working in opposition to the stated purpose of the forum. Yet if we'd had level indicators there, he might have had a high level indicator, so liberal was he with his "Welcome!" replies.
And Helga's point is well made too, that someone with a high level indicator might be in an off mood or have a bad day, and their silly or weak reply, might yet be taken seriously, too seriously, by a newbie who is too enchanted with their high level number. Again, it's best if people learn to evaluate content based on its intrinsic value, not artificially by associated level indicator.
This issue actually corresponds to a new host issue we have dealt with often on the groups. Newbie hosts in particular seem to place too much confidence in guests having Verified ID. They seem to think that Verified ID will do magic, and ensure that this will be a good guest. Certainly Verified ID has its value, but it does not replace hosts needing to have screening skills, and learning how to screen guests. Hosts who don't know how to screen guests, are accepting bookings based on Verified ID or lack thereof, and are having problems as a result. This would be quite similar to taking advice based on the level indicator of the replier, without having the skill to assess the value of the content in the reply. Just as we want to build skills in hosts as to how to do good screening for guests, we want to build skills in group users about how to assess the value of a reply to their post, apart from artificial level indicators.
For all these reasons, I think it would be best if group users could choose to hide their level or make it invisible.
Jonny:
You bring up a lot of good points, deborah. The intent behind showing "levels" is certainly not to make anyone feel ashamed or embarrassed.
The way one progresses up the levels is based on a formula related to both quantity AND quality of posts - not just how many posts one makes, but also how many 'likes' those posts get, how often they're marked as 'most helpful', etc.
I completely understand what you mean about the reputation that is built up over time and that in Groups today the regular-contributors can easily identify those whose answers are typically the most helpful and those whose aren't. I would say that can work on a relatively smaller scale, but becomes much more difficult to sustain as the online community grows... not just for new members wondering "who to trust", but even for experienced members who simply haven't had the opportunity to interact yet. The "levels" is an attempt at creating a simple signal to all members about your engagement level in the online community. It's not meant to be an end-all status.
We're certainly open to changes to this system, and in fact have talked a lot about converting the numbers to words as well. I'd welcome your thoughts on better ways to use the system to signify engagement levels.
And, deborah, I sincerely hope you don't really feel embarrassed or uncomfortable about other folks wondering why you would have such a relatively high level number... let me make very clear: you've EARNED that! You are far and away the most regular contributor, and not just quantitatively but also with genuinely thoughtful and robust content.
It is achievable by anyone who is interested in doing so, which I personally think is a nice thing about the new system. It's purely merit-based and automatically calucated by an algorithm, no favoritism or elitism involved... and it is not permanent, inactivity will be reflected in the number as well.
Helga (helgaparis)
@jonny that is all very nice and you told me a similiar thing when we spoke before you welcomed me into the LPH program.
I fear you don't understand us. I never had a problem imposing myself or grimping up quickly in a company but that are things you do if you work and if you want to lead, a team, or people you organize on your own account to achieve something.
I don't know Deborah apart from her posts but I got the impression that might be true for her too.
But if you join a group, join it, not lead it, and in this case without even a chance to lead it, then you do it because you want to be part of a group. Part of it, no privileges, no rank, no jealousies, a community of peers.
This level thing is very HURTFUL, for those who get higher numbers and for those who join and see these higher numbers.
I don't need another level of stress in my life. I don't want to see a robot rank counter who tells me how often I posted usedfully and how often I posted nonsense, how often people liked it or which post was not liked at all.
I know from others, who posted long time on the other forum, whom I admire personally, who were hurt when they saw the level 1 they started with.
I was not hurt at that, simply because I did not see it before I had 2 and then I thaught that 1 is staff and 2 is others. ;-)
If I'm part of a group, even if I usually post reasonable advice, some first time poster may tell me: "No, that's nonsense, I believe the contrary is true." That's very useful for me, that everyone can say that do me, that everyone can have a better idea then me, that everyone can make me think about it and make me argument my case. If I post with a high level, (and if first time posters realize what levels mean) they won't dare to tell me "That's not so, I think that other thing would be best". I have no intention to ever start a religion and preach holy truth from top of my hosting experience. The whole notion is simply horrible to me. HORRIBLE !!!
Helga (helgaparis)
That you can't check once for all to get all answers to any thread you ever participated in is very annoying. Therefore I post the request as amendment: deborah, cited you in the first post - hopefully not too far from your point of view.
Deborah (High Priestess)
@jonny THank you for your praise!
Like @helga, I think that having "levels" or ranking systems of any kind, may unintentially do more harm than good for a community. I think it could undermine community when you introduce a competitive element like ranking, particularly if you are having a large number of ranks or levels. In fact the more sophisticated and "algorithmic" the rankings system, ironically, I think the more it could end up being disliked, because my sense is people wont' like their community activities being fed into a machine like that, and having the machine determine their "value." Communities are about people and relationships and soul, not machines and numbers. I think that ranking community members by level could end up making the community feel more like the "helpdesk" that Helga was referring to in one of her other posts, and could make members seem more like independent contractors of that helpdesk, who get rewarded/paid on commission, based on the number of customer service calls that they field.
I think hosts do like being recognized for their skills and rewarded for what they have accomplished, but one of hosts' biggest complaints about recognition from Airbnb in this sense, is that they believe Airbnb hasn't yet come up with a way of recognizing actual skill and accomplishment of hosts. The SUperhost program and the Star ratings systems, because they are based on guest ratings which are all too often inaccurate or even vindictive, do not accurately represent host's accomplishments, and the result is that hosts are quite bitter about these things, the star ratings system in particular. I think many hosts might end up comparing the "levels" indicator on these groups, to the star ratings system that they greatly dislike and complain about.
If the desire is to have some basic understanding of who is who, primarily for newcomers or those who arent' regular participants, I think some more basic categories , such as one sees on standard forums, would be preferable. For instance, on many standard online forums, there is a post counter, and each person's display by their post shows their name, avatar/photo, and the number of posts they have historically posted on that forum. I participate in some online common-interest forums where some of the members have 1700 posts or even 34,000 posts --- this clearly indicates their experience level compared to someone who has 6 posts, and people who are quite new to the forum and asking a question, generally come to attention quickly when they see someone respond to their question, who has a large number of posts. Showing # of posts only, does not imply a rank or value. People who are more talkative could have a large number of posts, or those only saying, "hi" to everyone could have that -- and people know that. I think group members would prefer being presented with mere facts, such as total # of each member's posts, and being given the freedom to attribute their own meaning or value to those facts, rather than have some machine or system sitting outside the community, invisibly observing all and algorithmically translating facts to value.
Alternatively, or in conjunction with # posts, one could use a limited number of categories to represent experience on the forum, such as "Saying Hello" to those who have fewer than 15 posts, "Getting to Know Others" for those with 15 to 50 posts, and "Helping Sustain the Community" for those with 50-100 posts, and "Committed to Community" with over 100 posts. On an online forum I run, for instance, I have named the first level as "New in Town", the next level as "Been Around the Block", and the next as "Knows the Neighborhood" and then the higher levels I named "Neighborhood Fixture" and "Tour Guide." One could peruse numerous online forums to see what terms are used on different forums. IN a forum for backyard chicken keeping that I participate in, the beginner level is "New Egg". THe next level is "Just Hatched", then comes "Out of the Brooder" and then "Out of the Coop" and "Chillin' with my Peeps", and so on. The advantage of using phrases like those instead of numeric levels, is that the phrases could express equal praise, equal appreciation, and would be less competetive. Words or phrases could be designed so that they dont' suggest superiority/inferiority. (A light sense of humor can help, but it should be a grounded sense of humor, and words/phrases should not sound silly, hokey or lovey-dovey -- heed the lesson from the Airbnb billboard flop in San Francisco --!)
I don't think that any "levels" or categories indicator that is used, should be punitive in any way, such that one could see one's level or category drop based on inactivity. Hosts may go on vacation, or have to take a break from hosting due to family urgencies or illness. To come back and participate again and find that they have been dropped several "levels" after their elderly parent or child died (for instance) I think will be not very nice, and they will not like being treated that way by their community.
Jonny
Very fair points, @helga and deborah. I was just talking to @mayka and Peter this morning about this as well, and they felt the same way regarding "levels" feeling too competitive/divisive.
Deborah, thank you for those suggestions regarding labels to connote engagement levels rather than the numeric value. I'll discuss this with the team, and see what can be done.
Thank you!
Helga (helgaparis)
@jonny, you should be honest about the reason for those levels. Either indicating the rank from least experience to maximum experience would have a positive effect on some naive soul who can't judge a statement for it's value. I doubt it, but let's concede that.
If the aim is to mark experience, then it makes no sense to let the achieved levels drop again - if deborah or any other experienced host makes a break for 4 months or a year, her advice would be as good after the break as before. So it would effectively induce in error the naive soul (not to trust her) if her level is lower then before.
So, by conclusion, I believe the other reason: to keep the posters hooked on their levels, to keep them contributing. And you do it the cheap way too, not a person judging, an algorithm judging.
As far as I have seen in all the statements, no one thinks those levels a good idea but a lot of people dislike them.
I wanted to give this forum the 100 days new politiciens get, but after not even a month I'm already pretty much demotivated.
There is no joy on this board, no fun, no socializing.
The structure and the ranking and the complicated way to keep track of things are all discouraging. Maybe I'll find me a forum about chicken farming too.
