Dec 18, 2007 at 10:23 am #1226348
My BPL ranking was 3.96 — until my BPL subscription ran out yesterday. Today, it's 0.61.
So, 85% of the ranking is the annual BPL subscription all by itself! Pretty silly…Dec 18, 2007 at 10:57 am #1412935
@sarbarLocale: In the shadow of Mt. Rainier
Your no longer one of the cool kids. Sorry Ben.
Hehheh!Dec 18, 2007 at 11:04 am #1412936
Are you gonna get dumped from being a peer reviewer if you are not a paying member?
If you would like to participate in peer review, you must:
1. Be an active BackpackingLight.com Premium Member;
2. Regularly read published content at BackpackingLight.com and/or Backpacking Light Magazine (print version);
3. Maintain interest in lightweight backpacking trends and information;
4. Have an awareness of information published by others on the topic of wilderness backpacking.
"My BPL ranking was 3.96 — until my BPL subscription ran out yesterday. Today, it's 0.61.
So, 85% of the ranking is the annual BPL subscription all by itself! Pretty silly…"Dec 18, 2007 at 12:15 pm #1412946
@rcaffinLocale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
> So, 85% of the ranking is the annual BPL subscription all by itself! Pretty silly…
False assumption, too. MUST be false: new subscribers have a rating of 0.00, not 0.61 .
Perhaps the rating is compiled from summarising contributions in the Forum (IF you are a paying member) plus contributions to Reader Reviews (member or not). Try paying your subscription and see what happens to your score?Dec 18, 2007 at 12:22 pm #1412948
Here's how I figured:
Ranking @ 12/17/07: 3.94
Subscription expiry: 12/17/07
Ranking @ 12/18/07: 0.61
Ranking drop (pts) = 3.94 – 0.61 = 3.33
Ranking drop (%) = 3.33 / 3.94 = 84.5% or 85% after rounding.
In other words, as soon as you stop paying, you get the revelation that nothing else you did really mattered at all!
Of course, the ranking system itself doesn't matter all that much either. Just my observation — and perhaps a cold reflection of BPL's corporate philosophy / priority.Dec 18, 2007 at 12:25 pm #1412950
That math looks excellent. You get a gold star.Dec 18, 2007 at 12:39 pm #1412951
Hey Ben – do you know whether Bob Molen has a higher score than you do?? LOL!
SvenDec 18, 2007 at 7:43 pm #1412988
@bjamesdLocale: South Coast of BC
I like the outdoors because there is no status system there: you're all reduced to pretty much the same level, no matter who you are in "the real world."
Assigning a Mason-style numerical status to community members (based mostly on their contributions BPL owners' car payments as you have pointed out) seems as petty and "city" as gauging people by their post counts.
I think that if you want to "rank" your fellow community members, you should do it based on their contributions: helpfulness, insightfulness, civility, humility, knowledge, and background. These can all be gleaned from reading a few of any member's posts, and they *cannot* be quantified by a 3-digit number.
When I was "assigned my rank" (by those who outrank me?) I was thinking of being annoyed — until I realized that the ranks are more or less random anyway so most people probably ignore them.
I know I do.Dec 18, 2007 at 8:33 pm #1412994
NmDec 19, 2007 at 3:13 pm #1413118
No, you're mistaken. Your ranking is actually 10.61, however, the ranking field doesn't display the significant digit.Dec 19, 2007 at 4:54 pm #1413134
Thanks, George. That's got to be it! :)
Brian — when FamilyGuy thinks he outranks me, that's personal. :(Dec 19, 2007 at 5:03 pm #1413135
@dondoLocale: Colorado Rockies
>>In other words, as soon as you stop paying, you get the revelation that nothing else you did really mattered at all!
I was about to write:
"Yes, Ben. It's true. You have to pay for your ranking AND the esteem of your peers. So re up or face your lowly status".
So I'm glad George cleared it up for us.
But I have to go. There's a sale on indulgences down the block.Dec 19, 2007 at 6:34 pm #1413154
Well Dondo, if paying for an indulgence gives you a leg up in the afterlife — that's a pretty darn good investment for your money if you ask me! :)Dec 19, 2007 at 9:00 pm #1413164
@owareLocale: Steptoe Butte
I too noticed that my sub just ran out and the 3 to the left
of the decimal disappeared.Dec 28, 2007 at 7:43 am #1413935
.Dec 28, 2007 at 10:27 am #1413944
@michaelreaganLocale: Southern California
Don't many internet forums have some sort of ranking system for members/posters? I have seen everything from stars to name-ranks used to rate people's participation in a particular forum. I don't see anything wrong with the practice, even though I habitually post less than many folks and thus am perpetually at the bottom of the heap in many forums. Who cares?
I for one would never add a meaningless post to a thread just to drive up a ranking that means little to me anyway. No really; I would never do that. Heh-heh…
MichaelDec 28, 2007 at 11:46 am #1413953
@hechoendetroitLocale: South Kak
IMO, the current ranking system is the best option for BPL at this point. The system encourages people to post, buy gear, and pay membership dues, which, in turn, helps the BPL community. It may not be an accurate measure of quality posting, user reviews, etc, but it does serve a purpose.
It would be a nightmare to attempt to discern the quality of individual posts, so that is not an option. Think of the labor that would be involved with such an endeavour.
One idea would be to use a system similar to what Practical Backpacking (better known as Bernie's Backpacking) utilizes. Bernie's system relies on fellow members to assign credibility to others. It appears nobody uses that option over there, so enough said on that.
Some people take things too seriously, and in that case, please ignore my post due to my low ranking! (haha)Dec 28, 2007 at 5:16 pm #1413980
@ouzelLocale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
I think forums, by their very nature, subject posts to the gold standard of reviewing. It's called peer review. Throw it out there and, if it withstands the hoots, catcalls, and occasional attaboys of the peer group, the poster may be on to something.Dec 31, 2007 at 7:39 am #1414261
I have noticed that recently the BPL rank is not showing up in forums next to a users avatar (on my computer anyway). I never had a good understanding of what went into establishing the rank, but generally knew that people with a high rank could probably be trusted.
Fortunately now that I have been reading forums on this site somewhat regularly for a while, I recognize several people who constantly have good advice (Ben Tang and David Olson are among them… despite their new low rank) and can probably get by without ranks displayed… but would still like them back.
p.s. I do realize you can still get to a users rank by viewing their profile, but I am not about to do that just to check up on users as I browse the forums.Dec 31, 2007 at 8:53 am #1414276
Thanks, I'm flattered. :)
Reading your post, I suddenly realize that the ranking next to each member's name/avatar has indeed disappeared! I think this happened no more than just a day or two ago.
Maybe BPL has finally made it past their denial stage and realized just how silly their ranking algorithm is!Dec 31, 2007 at 9:37 am #1414285
@fperkinsLocale: North East
Personally, I liked the ranking system. It's not perfect, but who cares. Maybe a simple formula of gear reviews + forum posts would suffice to help define a user's activity on the website.Dec 31, 2007 at 10:05 am #1414287
I hope this is a stage on the way making the ranking invisible to anyone but BPL staff and the member concerned. If so I will consider renewing my membership, though I will probably wait for the development of a membership which allows online access to the magazine. I seem to remember this was sort of pre-announced some time ago together with a promise of more articles.Dec 31, 2007 at 11:01 am #1414295
@gungadinLocale: Pittsburgh, PA
It amazes me that so many people get so offended by the ranking. We are here to talk about lightweight backpacking. You know, keeping life (at lease in the wilds) as simple as possible. To me, part of this is not letting petty issues like a ranking bug me. My ranking seems pretty high; this certainly doesn't make me an all-knowing soothsayer or something. Let's talk about what makes our loved activity (or way of life) of backpacking so great and how to improve our experience with it. We should try to avoid gettting mired in the mundane details of a relatively unimportant number. We are all winners here;), no matter your number!Dec 31, 2007 at 11:13 am #1414298
@awsorensenLocale: South of Forester Pass
And just like that the ratings are gone.
Now don't change it from the way it is.
I have been saying to change it to the way it is now on all of these topics about this.
I personally like to be able to go into someone’s profile and see there rank, (the way it is now).
I like this because if I see the same old question that has been asked a 1000 times I will check out the rank before I answer it.
Basically, I am looking if it's someone who has knowledge and may be trying to get some different info than he already has, or if it's just the .001 ranked person asking about what bag he should use…ect…Dec 31, 2007 at 1:32 pm #1414313
You are right — because the ranking is so silly that at the end of the day, the only pertinent question is indeed: "who cares"!
But I think part of the complaint is the simple fact that some of us just plain don't like to be ranked!
Here's an analogy. Say you've got a cameraman pointing his camera at you. I can say to you "who cares, why should you let it bother you… it's not touching you or hurting you". But if you have a camera pointed at you and following you every step of the way — even if from a distance — then I think you have the right to express your annoyance — if indeed that's how you feel.
I like this forum — not so much because of BPL per se — but because of the community itself. BPL's silly ranking system doesn't bother me enough to sign off the forum — but it is the reason why I have chosen NOT TO RENEW my subscription.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.