Location
  • San Luis Obispo,
  • California,
  • United States

Top Contributors

Is it just me who find this quite annoying?

"Hi Neil,
Our records indicate that you, unfortunately, did not earn 10,000 points in October. Because of this, your free Premium Member access has expired, and your account has transitioned back to the previous subscription plan: Free Member"

I have never (EVER) used the resources of ExpertsExchange to ask a question. All I do is donate my time, when I have some, to others, and for free, while EE is earning money from those others.

So while I do not particularly care whether I am a "premium member" or a "free member" I kind of object to this approach.

Such a message, in months when I am busy, or in the case of October where I spent literally dozens of hours helping ONE person solve a problem for a total of 1,000 "points", is about as de-motivating as it gets.
View Previous CommentsLoad All Comments (37)
Rank: Savant

Expert Comment

This has been discussed in many other threads and the circles continue.

Find a fair and unbiased system and I'm sure EE-Corp (and possibly several Governments) will welcome it and you might even get some decent swag if it is adopted and implemented.

Say we do away with points.  What replaces it?  Even if we go with just number of solutions it is still a direct measurement of activity.  New people will be behind long term people.  You will still have the same distribution challenges you have today:  Hey, why did I only get 1 star when my answer was first/better/purple/longer/???  and the accepted post gets 5?

Number of Articles?  Who remembers what Expert threw a wrench into that when Articles first came out?

If we go with stars to gauge difficulty, members that want a fast answer will give 5 stars for:  What is 1+1.  No different than 500 points vs 20 points.

None of that drives incentives to drive paid membership.

It is semantics but the same end result:  Contribution efforts needs rewards over non-contribution and there needs to be an upgrade incentive for those asking.
2
Rank: Guru

Author Comment

Neil Fleming2017-11-02 04:40 PMID: 2068660
Meanwhile, to an earlier point, my latest questioner expresses great satisfaction and then tosses in:

"Could you just add a function to email the results to someone?"

https://www.experts-exchange.com/questions/29066156/Excel-Voting.html?anchor=a42352870¬ificationFollowed=199707922#a42352930
1
Rank: Prodigy

Expert Comment

my latest questioner expresses great satisfaction and then tosses in:
One of my recent questioners morphed the question into five questions! I even created a new video Micro Tutorial for the fifth one. Of course, the asker then wound up abandoning the question. Fortunately, we now have the participant-closing feature. :)  Regards, Joe
1
Rank: Ace

Expert Comment

AndyAinscow2017-11-02 11:58 PMID: 2068719
The points an expert has isn't and never will be a indicator of the quality of the comment.  All it indicates is one expert has been here actively longer than another.

I've got 4 million+ points now and I see comments better than mine from experts with less points.  The upvoting with the 'thumbs up' can possibly be more useful as a quality indicator but won't be perfect either.  (Nothing will be in reality.)
6
Rank: Savant

Expert Comment

John2017-11-03 12:18 PMID: 2068768
On a "one-of" basis, you are correct. Any comment can be good or bad, and again, I agree with you on this point. But a steady work ethic, followed by a number of Good Answers does represent a level of overall quality over time.
0
Rank: Ace

Expert Comment

AndyAinscow2017-11-04 03:51 AMID: 2068854
>>But a steady work ethic, followed by a number of Good Answers does represent a level of overall quality over time.

Yes but note the over time that you use.  An expert that isn't as active doesn't have the same number of points BUT is can be just as good if not better.  Points do not equal quality.  They measure something different.

In England the number of TV aerials increased from 1950 to 1970.  
In England the number of people dying from lung cancer increased from 1950 to 1970.
Therefore TV aerials cause lung cancer.
2