Forum Profile

Here is my real concern about “rankings” and the measurement thereof. Probably the biggest complaint in the education and teaching field is that with all the emphasis on measuring academic quality and “success”, treachers have been forced to teach to the test. NOT exactly the best way of inculcating a love of learning in students and certainly not what teachers want to be doing in class. Teaching to the test creats a circular success measure that has relatively little value in what students know and can apply in the real world.

What I worry about with your adoption of a ranking measure is that this site’s forum participation will end up focusing more on what the participant needs to do to get a higher rank. Will the quality of advice, contribution and comment change for the better or the worse. I don’t know but the free wheeling attributes of much of what is found here may diminish as participants try to out rank each other. We may end up with participation that fits more with what you are measuring than what is needed or wanted. I can not remember what it is called but I believe that there is actually a scientific concept that expresses this idea that once you start measuring something, that something ends up being transformed by the measurement methodology.

Are we headed this way? I hope not. Much of what I like about these forums would be lost in the process.

Mitchell,

Your concerns are certainly NOT baseless, but i’d like to give most/all of the regular Forum participants more credit than that. Please, don’t take that as an insult; it truly is not meant to be. I believe that there will be some who will do just as you say. The rest know that their “rank” won’t in slightest assist them in their backcountry endeavors, nor help them attract young ladies at REI (as another Poster has previously facitiously suggested).

What you’re thinking of is found in quantum physics. Often one hears that it is the “Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle”, but it is not, though it is often confused with it.

What you’re thinking of is the principle of the “Observer Effect” and is classically (how’s that for a Physics Oxymoron?!!) illustrated by “Shrodinger’s/Shroedinger’s [sp???]Cat”. I know “Shroedinger’s Cat” sounds strange and i’m NOT attempting to make another bad joke. It is the real question put forward by Erwin Shroedinger [sp???] to illustrate a point he was making about quantum mechanics.

Mitchell,

Your concerns are entirely valid.

After the not-yet-installed-new numerical “quantitative” algorithm runs its course for awhile, we’ll certainly address the qualitative issues, that would be Phase 2.

Our goal with the BPLRank program is twofold:

1. To provide incentives (someone brought up the idea of gift certificates earlier) for those that contribute *meaningfully* to BackpackingLight.com.

2. To provide public recognition among peers for contributions.

This will go far beyond forum posts and user reviews, and it will be rather difficult to pad your rank with these. Yes, they’ll be components, but they will not be the only components.

Shouldn’t we also offer BPLRank incentives for those users who submit articles for publication? Or submit website typos to Customer Service? Or give us feedback about the gear sold here? Or remain plugged in to BPL’s education by purchasing memberships each year? What about users that present our BackpackingLight.com “Backpacking Light 101” clinics to their local communities? Or maintain their memberships with local trail organizations? Or go out and do a thru-hike of the PCT in lightweight style? Or are otherwise recognized and respected by their peers?

I’m not saying any of these things will go into the BPLRank algorithm, but the direction we are heading is not one that recognizes only quantitative contributions, but also, qualitative contributions that are recognized as “meaningful” to the BPL.com community.

A challenge? Yes. Uphill battle? Yes. Complex, potentially? Yes.

But, let’s play a simple game.

In 2006, eaglemb, pj, craig_shelley, dwambaugh, verber, and bfornshell have BPLRank’s > 6.0 based on the current, raw, crude quantitative-only algorithm.

If one were to go back and look through the quality of their posts and reviews, few would argue that these people have not made significant contributions to the BPL.com community, and if we publicly recognized them as key contributors, would that be a bad thing?

Questions will arise when (1) someone ends up in that list who contributes a lot of “volume” without “integrity”, or (2) someone is left off the list who contributes “little volume” with lots of “integrity”.

We are working to avoid (1) at all costs because it’s not fair to those that take the time to contribute meaningfully. As for (2), there has to be some value to volume, whether it’s the number of times you renew your subscription (and thus, remain educated, with some probability (!), about the techniques, gear, etc. communicated in members only articles), the number of times you post in the forums or reader reviews (the more engaged you are in the community = the more opportunity for other forum users to get to know and trust you).

Please remember, this is early beta here, and a long term project in the making, not some “quick-add” database query designed to illustrate those that can blow the most hot air.

>Are we headed this way? I hope not. Much of what I like about these forums would be lost in the process.

Agreed. I’ve already begun to ignore Rank because it doen’t seem to correlate well with my personal opinion of the poster’s experience OR contribution. It’s an interesting exercise, but I don’t think I will care much about it.

Also, please continue to work on having a ‘disable Avatar display’ option under My Profile, rather than being thread-specific (fairly useless). Maybe a ‘disable Rank display’ would be useful too.

>> Rank … doesn’t seem to correlate well with my personal opinion of the poster’s experience OR contribution.

I think if you keep rank in perspective, as Douglas has noted, then we’ll all be fine. Douglas’s comment pretty much nails it. I hope the algorithm can be successful enough such that your comment evolves to:

“Rank ‘sort of’ correlates well with my personal opinions of the posters and their contributions”!

>> >> Rank … doesn’t seem to correlate well with my personal opinion of the poster’s experience OR contribution.

I think if you keep rank in perspective, as Douglas has noted, then we’ll all be fine. Douglas’s comment pretty much nails it. I hope the algorithm can be successful enough such that your comment evolves to:

“Rank ‘sort of’ correlates well with my personal opinions of the posters and their contributions”!

Number of contributions, maybe. But I can’t see how an algorithm can factor in the quality of those contributions or poster’s experience. For example, Chris Townsend, a member with more experience than most of us, has the lowly rank of 1.25, based on the fact that he has three posts to his name. The rankings seem to have a higher correlation with a poster’s proficiency as a typist.

On the other hand, I noticed a dramatic increase in the number of reader reviews since the rankings were introduced. So maybe harnessing our competitive instincts isn’t such a bad thing. A toggle on or off for the rankings may be a good idea for those of us not interested in playing the game.

I’ll second Dondo’s “Rank Toggle” idea.

I’d probably prefer not to see other’s ranks.

Additionally, i also wouldn’t mind being able to initiate hiding my own “rank” from all others users as part of my “Profile” options, rather than relying on them to choose not to view ranks.

If the option was available, i believe that i would choose not to let others see my rank.

Please don’t take this as a complaint about the ranking system. It’s truly not intended to be such. An earmark of good software is flexibility and user control/configuration.

I think that the intent of the ranking system is admirable and soon its functioning will not be an issue with many either.

However, i believe that i would still choose to hide my rank regardless of its numerical value. Let each post stand on its own merits.

I guess if i could feel confident that only my Posts containing accurate info in areas where i might have some knowledge or experience (and not my “thank you” posts, my congratulatory posts, my posts intended solely to encourage another or foster a friendly community atmosphere, or my weak attempts at humor) were being used to calculate my rank i might(???) feel differently. But then again, i might not and would probably still choose to hide my rank from others.

Just some thoughts. I know it’s difficult for BPL to accomodate everyone’s desires.

Paul: you’re ideas are sound but it’s not going to happen. We’re actually going in the opposite direction with your rank. It will be advertised on the home page in bold red type, and moving, like …

… a stock ticker.

Except we’re going to title the ticker:

“PJRank”.

Ouch!!!

Let’s see consulting “Webster’s Online Dictionary” for “rank”, and not emphasizing below those definitions that obviously can’t be meant when “rank” is coupled with “pj”, we’re left with the following underlined meanings:

Main Entry: 1rank
Pronunciation: ‘ra[ng]k
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English ranc overbearing, strong; akin to Old Norse rakkr erect and perhaps to Old English riht right — more at RIGHT

1 : luxuriantly or excessively vigorous in growth (sort of like my Avatar’s beard)
2 : offensively gross or coarse : FOUL
3 obsolete : grown too large
4 a : shockingly conspicuous <must lecture him on his rank disloyalty — David Walden> b : OUTRIGHT — used as an intensive <rank beginners>
5 archaic : LUSTFUL, RUTTISH
6 : offensive in odor or flavor; especially : RANCID
7 : PUTRID, FESTERING
8 : high in amount or degree : FRAUGHT
synonym see MALODOROUS, FLAGRANT
– rank·ly adverb
– rank·ness noun

Is this what you meant by “pjrank”?

I guess “pjSTANK” may be what I meant. Sorry for the typo…!

Hey all, watch my rank go up with these last two useless posts.

Double Ouch!!! [but i brought it on myself]

While it was fun figuring out the ‘puzzle’ numerics, like others, I’d just as soon not see the #’s (or pull out the matrix math again:).

I like the site because I can get good information on what gear and techniques are good, how to save my knees and keep hiking, and I expect others do it for similar reasons (and maybe try to catch PJ :)

If Ryan want’s to use if for BPL analysis, that’s fine with me, but I didn’t think it was a race, and vote (do I get to vote?) to not show them.

MikeB

>>If Ryan want’s to use if for BPL analysis, that’s fine with me, but I didn’t think it was a race, and vote (do I get to vote?) to not show them.

I have a feeling that this is more of a benevolent(?) dictatorship than a democracy. ;-)>

Ranks are always a thing of wonder. Obviously pj is great, as are all the rest of the people — if not so prolific or even relevant or accurate sometimes IMO.

I simply love the site and the info … especially given that most of my neighbors here on the mountain (there are only about 300 people in the area) have quad machines, jeeps that ride like torture devices, love hunting as much as hiking or camping out, and so on …

so for me posting doesn’t come from being rank or ranked … it is just a great community for those who love UL SUL and UUL and XL … b.d.

Yo Dondo, ultimately, every commercial entity is a customer driven democracy….. (;->)

In the short term, however, we may still not get a vote :)

For incentives, personally I would like trading cards with pictures of various Avatars: “I’ll trade you 3 PJs and 2 Verbers for 5 Fornshells.”

I see this thread (the one discussing useful vs. useless threads) has taken a turn for the worse. Or shall I say it has become a bit rank – to use one of PJ’s lovely definitions.

>> For incentives, personally I would like trading cards with pictures of various Avatars: “I’ll trade you 3 PJs and 2 Verbers for 5 Fornshells.”

Ah, RobertSon.

Finally, me get vision out of mess! Many thanks!

Ummm…one question.

Who’s the Joker?

>> Who’s the Joker?

I vote for Doug Johnson! :-O

I have read all the mis-information and speculation about BPLRank, and I need to reveal the truth. The BPLRank is a secret recruiting tool used by Dr.J and the others to rank and then select the best and brightest SUL-ers to join the BPL staff. Much like the intro scene from Mission Impossible 2 (with an UL twist), you might be free-climbing a mesa somewhere, in your possum wool beanie, cuben fiber thong and trail-runners, when a black helicopter appears and drops a canister containing glasses which play a video when worn.. “Your mission, should you choose to accept it..”

Ryan wrote:
> > For incentives, personally I would like trading cards with pictures of various Avatars: “I’ll trade you 3 PJs and 2 Verbers for 5 Fornshells.”
> > Ummm…one question.
> > Who’s the Joker?

Ah, Ryan, you should ask!

Ok, i’m worthless the rest of the day.

first thing i do when i get to work (b/f officially going “on the clock”, so to speak) is check out the new Postings.

y’all are a riot. some very funny people here. my co-workers already know i sometimes mutter to myself when i’m trying to debug code (“Johnson, you idiot!” is often heard; and yes, i do know who’s doing the talking that i hear – it’s DrJ!). today, i’m sure that they will hear some chuckles as i recall some of these Posts.

just one word of correction: at the current rate of exchange it’s any-given-number-of-pj’s + 5 Verbers = 5 Fornshells; pj’s, while rare [“thank goodness”, i can hear y’all thinking] are just a placeholder; they essentially have no intrinsic value; if you want proof, just ask my wife, particularly since i discovered this website over two yrs ago the things to fix around the house have been piling up. I’m off work nearly all Dec. this yr and she has a “honey-do vacation” already planned for me (y’all have heard this one, right? “honey, do this; honey, do that”).

Beware of forged BPL Trading Cards! I’ve detected 4 already, on the “WM Megalite” thread for 11-29-2006. In order to guarantee the integrity of the partially born True Cards, it will probably be necessary to use the latest micro-dot technology, involving entangled atomic states, as hinted at in the Two Slit Experiment. (The official Two Slit Experiment had nothing to do with sex. If you have perfomed other types of 2 slit experiments, I don’t want to hear about it because my mind is pure.)

Uhh.. I think we just found the Joker card.

Are you saying I’m funny? Funny how, funny in the head? Funny like one big walking joke? Funny like a mobster in the movie “Good Fellas”?