With the recent threads and Future of Inbound.org post, I've been thinking maybe we're missing a trick with the influential members listing.If the idea is to showcase the people who set the best example, how about three or four badges which showcase one member/website/link for each of them?
Run each of these on a rolling 7-day basis.
1. Hottest New Website on Inbound.org2. "Chatterbox" - member who commented the most and got the most comment upvotes (something along those lines to recognise people adding to discussion).3. Hottest Discussion on Inbound.org4. Top Member (retain the same algorithm)What do you think?
I think a healthy bit of gamification does help a community like this one but I wouldn't obsess about it. Also I'd rather reward people sifting through and voting on incoming stories, because that's what Inbound lacks most.
Good call. Will have to think of an effective reward for that
What you reward will influence how people share. So, what you've suggested isn't bad, but it will have repercussions like people frantically trying to comment on everything or particular sites trying to flood inbound with their content over and over in the same week.
I think badges/"Acheivements" are a good idea, you just need to be very, very careful about what kind of activity you reward. For example, you'd definitely want to choose the person who got the most upvotes on their comments (denoting quality) instead of just who blabbed on and on the most.
I think you're on the right track as long as you take time to imagine the long-term outcome of rewarding any particular behavior.
Exactly. I'm trying to be vague about hinting how an algorithm for a "chatterbox" might be made up... but there are all sorts. You could take the mean upvote count of the top 10 comments per user per week or something like that? Wait, that could work...! ;)
I don't think that is right Stuart.
Inbound will be full of really smart folk who you aren't aware of, simply because they aren't submitting articles and getting lots of karma.
If making some changes like Ed is suggesting would help draw them out into,the community, there will be a lot of great intelligent discussion taking place which will ultimately help all of the members & users of the site, not to mention lift the profile of the site in time.
Personally I could care less either way. It only takes a 10 mintues on this site to know who they are anyway.
It seems to me that the current list of influential members are pretty accurate. I'm not just saying that because I'm currently on the list. As I look at the four people above me, I know each one is constantly submitting good stuff, and getting natural upvotes, hence why they are there. So I don't think that there needs to be any change in the algorithm. No use is fixing something that isn't broke right?
Even with the gamification of inbound.org the articles that reach the top and stay at the top are quality articles that receive real comments and votes. If someone tried to game the system and submit their crap articles they would a) only get so many upvotes because inbound seems to check your IP address and it would just be a huge pain in the butt to get all those upvotes b) fall quickly to the bottom as quality articles around it would continue to get votes and c) assuming the moderation here is good, it would get removed if it was complete crap.
I've discovered some brilliant minds here at Inbound.org because the gamification aspect. It allows unknown marketers in the industry to get discovered. If you are looking at a way to hurt those that are just gaming the system and submitting crap content, I would introduce a "down vote" option, which would actually take away some karma for doing a bad deed.
Don't have an account? Sign up
Have an account? Login
Great! Click here to connect with HubSpot