Home  | Login  | Register  | Help  | Play 

Staff Rating/Q&A Post Rating

  		Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [AE Forum Resources] >> Forum Support and Suggestions >> Staff Rating/Q&A Post Rating
Page 1 of 212>
Forum Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
5/21/2010 23:20:06   
rykuu
Member

we could rate the staff on their helpfulness, kindness, and anything elss that makes a good staff..... just a random idea, thought i'd throw it out
~~~~~~~~~~

update:

when on question forums you can rate peoples answer (only topic starter can rate), you can rate it from 1-5 stars (or something to that effect).... the best rated answer will appear on the top right under the original post.......... discuss this idea

< Message edited by rykuu -- 5/27/2010 17:49:30 >
AQ  Post #: 1
5/21/2010 23:45:46   
Apocalyptic Silence
Member

I can see some potential problems with this. The first being the forumites giving a staff member a bad rating for whatever reason. This would just portray that a staff member is disliked heavily while in fact someone could just be doing it out of dislike for that said staff.

The staff are already helpful, kind, and respectful. We don't need a rating system to know that, if you have been on forums long enough. ;)
Post #: 2
5/22/2010 0:01:14   
AEgamer15
Member

Yeah that's why we have THIS. AE,We are a part of it.
Nothing can match it in terms of Customer's Joy Factor.
If you know what i mean. :D
DF MQ  Post #: 3
5/22/2010 11:10:55   
Hedning1390
Member

1 I don't think the staff likes the idea of being judged, and since they are the ones that has to agree I don't see it happening.

2 As soon as you have a rating system you have to deal with the fact that it will be abused. Voting bots etc.

3 There is no real need. If you talk to a staff member (I assume you also mean forum moderators etc) you pretty quickly notice how good or bad he is, you don't need a rating to notice that.
AQ AQW  Post #: 4
5/22/2010 11:47:07   
Spy
Member

Sometimes the most helpful staff members are not the most kind, and sometimes the most kind staff members are not the most helpful- How would you judge them?

All in all I do not think this is a good idea because the staff members #1 priority is the game, everything else is secondary.
AQ AQW  Post #: 5
5/22/2010 11:50:45   
Everest
Moving Mountains


 I can't say I'm in favor of such a suggestion, and I hope what I say below will illustrate that I am not afraid of being judged by forum members.

My primary issue with this implementation is that our popularity has no bearing on what we do as forum staff. And I do think that is what a rating system would become - a popularity gauge. Quite frankly, I think that such a system would require impartiality to be beneficial, and would really include no incentives to provide that quality. As an example, while some members may thank and respect a member of the forum staff for deleting their rule-breaking posts, many other members would be furious that their posts are deleted, no matter the fairness or not. These members would then rate a staff member negatively, when we're in all likelihood doing exactly what we're supposed to.

Note here that I am not saying that the forum staff and staff assistants are always perfect. In a situation where a forum member believes a staff member is culpable of misconduct, there is a chain of command to follow. The forum staff is not an old boy's club, contrary to what some may believe, and we do look at both sides of every issue when presented with an accusation. It is in this capacity that we not only accept judgement from forum members, but encourage it.

Now, it's always fantastic to receive a "Thank you" PM. It makes my day, in fact. But I'd much rather receive that PM (as well as others less positive than the one in the example I gave) than have a rating system where we would hopefully receive good ratings on our helpfulness and kindness, but would leave the rating system subject to unhappy forum members who dislike the rules of the forum and the way they are moderated.

In short, there would be very little incentive to rate a forum staff member positively, and relatively high incentive to rate negatively. I don't think that such a system would be very objective.

< Message edited by Everest -- 5/22/2010 11:56:42 >
Post #: 6
5/22/2010 12:44:30   
Dragonnightwolf
How We Roll Winner
Apr/Jun/Aug15


 To add onto Everest's post. A rating system is used on games to indicate level of parental involvement needed etc.

Other rating systems(ie rate your weapon, shield etc) are aligned for what the gamer prefers in his/her opinion.

This kind of rating may not quite work out the way the members would like it to.

Say for example if a mod or an AK feel that the topic is going south for the winter, in that case we have perhaps some idea on how to bring it back around to a good discussion, but other times that isn't what happens.
AQW Epic  Post #: 7
5/23/2010 18:52:00   
Rhia Shirubia
Member

I wish something like this would be put in place, I'm tired of mods contradicting each other on matters and ruining forum experience where they try to help.


< Message edited by Rhia Shirubia -- 5/24/2010 0:56:25 >
AQ DF MQ AQW  Post #: 8
5/23/2010 20:34:51   
Genoclysm
Legendary AdventureGuide!


 Ratings would have absolute no bearing whatsoever on whether or not forum staff should be listened to.

1. That would cause problems when certain forum members choose to disrespect forum staff with low ratings.
2. That wouldn't help Rhia Shirubia's issue a bit and that situation would likely lead straight to problem 1.

Edit: Fixed some typos.

< Message edited by Genoclysm -- 5/23/2010 20:35:56 >
Post #: 9
5/23/2010 20:50:57   
rykuu
Member

i thank you all for your input on this suggestion..... as i said before, i only posted this for the sake of putting it out there, but other than that i knew it would not be popular (especialy among the staff) but i wanted to see what your opinion on this was...... i would appriciate it if you would leave this topic open for awhile longer so i can see more opinions on this. i find this kind of stuff very interesting when it dosnt end up in flame wars, but if it dose come to a flame war lock this up ASAP.
AQ  Post #: 10
5/24/2010 0:55:52   
Rhia Shirubia
Member

not quite, assuming legit evidence of someones feedback was provided problem 1 couldn't occur, if someone cannot give evidence of such an event and it's just an overall poor rating, it could easily be tossed aside, it's a valid suggestion the only problem is certain players who feel the urge to take advantage of it, of course such players are easily recognized and can be dealt with accordingly. Assuming feedback was viewed accurately and wasn't taken personally by those who read it, it could be used as a valuable tool to improve overall community support.
AQ DF MQ AQW  Post #: 11
5/24/2010 1:51:58   
Everest
Moving Mountains


 I suppose I would ask, how? It wouldn't provide feedback or suggestions, but would be only a sounding board. Not to mention if the results are disaggregated, it would distort the results and allow human interference into the overall result. The overarching purpose of a statistical study is to remove human interference and error, and this is really only beneficial when the results aren't tampered with.

What would be much more beneficial is to receive actual explanations with feedback and suggestions, which is... the purpose of this board. Therefore, if you could explain why you believe such a voting system would be helpful, it would be appreciated. Putting aside for a minute the difficulties in objectivity and impartiality with the system, something like a scale of a forum staff member's helpfulness lacks the most important function to increase community support: we would have no idea what to do to adjust, as there would be no explanation alongside the ranking.

Forum members are welcome to PM any forum Moderator or ArchKnight should they have a specific issue to discuss, which would fulfill the same use of an explanation alongside a possible ranking system. So we're more or less back to the numerical rankings, and whether they would be helpful or not. Thus far, I haven't seen any reasons it would be helpful, and I and others have expressed reasons such a system would be detrimental.
Post #: 12
5/25/2010 17:19:30   
timmy1012344
Member

i think all the mods i have meat are very nice
Post #: 13
5/26/2010 9:46:42   
drakathchaos987
Member

quote:

My primary issue with this implementation is that our popularity
I think that the Rateing Of The Staff isn't needed at all, all the others my think that it's needed but my opinon is that the forums and mods don't need to be judged or rated I just think thats mean... And unloyl.
Post #: 14
5/26/2010 15:24:26   
Rhia Shirubia
Member

It's not really that hard to set up a staff rating system as most find it to be, example:

1-10 on,
Helpful
Polite
online

then a section to submit,

Positive feedback:
Negative feedback:
Other feedback:

along with it, all of which can be done by using google documents creating a page where players can fill out such a form, and then all imputed data goes directly to a hidden spreadsheet which can't be tampered with. Once that's done, take an average of ratings and read the feedback.

Also at the above: It's not mean or un-loyal in anyway, the forum staff is designed to serve the community in the best way possible, if they are not serving this purpose or lacking in a given field, they need to know so they can fix it. Having mods which snap back at players is rather pointless and unprofessional. ( <-- an example)

< Message edited by Rhia Shirubia -- 5/26/2010 15:26:39 >
AQ DF MQ AQW  Post #: 15
5/26/2010 15:49:53   
Everest
Moving Mountains
quote:

Having mods which snap back at players is rather pointless and unprofessional.


I happen to agree with you on this point. However, as I've asked you previously, would you please explain two things: first, why the system as it currently exists (private PMs with the staff assistant/staff member with whom you disagree, then moving up the chain of command, or for public issues, using this entire sub-forum to provide feedback) is in some way lacking. And second, explain how a rating system would be beneficial beyond the measures currently in place.

You're focusing on the mechanics of setting up a system, when we could really use discussion of why and how such a system is helpful. I do also want to say that any system, should it be implemented, will almost definitely not use a non-AE resource like gdocs.

< Message edited by Everest -- 5/26/2010 15:51:07 >
Post #: 16
5/26/2010 15:51:36   
Khimera
Member

If you have a problem with a moderator, you can pm Circe and inform him her. Implementing this system will only serve for trolls to give pointless negative feedback to cause aggravation.

Currently: If you like something a mod does, you can send them a private message saying so. As Everest said, this is a nice gesture and they would appreciate it. If you don't then you can PM Circe with the problem.

Your system: Good feedback would be the same as above. Bad feedback could be easily spammed anonymously in order to make people feel bad.

The current system works fine, so there's no need for improvement.

< Message edited by Khimera -- 5/26/2010 17:12:35 >
Post #: 17
5/26/2010 16:11:16   
Sir Gnome
Member

Well, not quite, Khimera. If you're unsure why a Moderating action has been taken, then you can always PM the person who took that action to ask why, rather than going to Circe (who is a "her", by the way :P). If you wish to appeal a Moderating Action, you can follow the procedures set out here.
AQ DF MQ  Post #: 18
5/26/2010 17:12:46   
Fire2219
Member

opinion: It might be a good idea all the staff will want to get the highest ranking so they'll be extra modorating and good :)
Post #: 19
5/26/2010 18:38:08   
The Game
Pegasus Overlord


 Fire2219, that idea has very good intentions, but that does nothing to justify the implementation of such a system. Many of the intricacies of moderation is subjective so the notion of actually ranking and quantifying moderation into such a system is impossible. Also bear in mind that it is not a moderator's job to win popularity contests, but rather to make the best decision possible, so I am reluctant to inform you that getting the highest ranking may actually be detrimental to moderation. Theoretically, a moderator could be the most popular with the highest ranking and, at the same time, do a lousy job at moderation for the sake of garnering popularity.

With that being said, I like the current system. Since moderation is done by humans and is, thereby, prone to human error, simply dropping a polite PM to the AK/Moderator in question if you are unsure of an action works very well. I see no need to publicly call out, for lack of a better term, an AK/Moderator in the form of a ratings system. That would not be conducive when a private exchange, followed by the chain of command if necessary, is actually more polite and effective.

< Message edited by The Game -- 5/26/2010 18:47:38 >
AQ  Post #: 20
5/26/2010 22:43:12   
rykuu
Member

so far this suggestions disscutions have been interesting...... lets change things around a bit....... first post is being updated
AQ  Post #: 21
5/27/2010 12:44:21   
Rhia Shirubia
Member

"would you please explain two things: first, why the system as it currently exists (private PMs with the staff assistant/staff member with whom you disagree, then moving up the chain of command, or for public issues, using this entire sub-forum to provide feedback) is in some way lacking. And second, explain how a rating system would be beneficial beyond the measures currently in place."

^-- yes I'm to lazy to use a quote system which is much simpler then this method >.>


1.) Because for some reason it appears that mods/head mods can't see eye to eye with players on specific situations, I personally refuse to contact a head mod anymore due to their own behavior which doesn't reflect well on their position at all, i will admit there are mods however who will help players. But overall the general position makes it hard to see a players experiences eye to eye or on an even level, trust me i know all about such a thing as I've worked as a mod in another big gaming company, after you know more then the community their values and ideas become somewhat difficult to relate to as you know they actual situations and how they will or will not play out. where as most mods try to level with players others have difficulties doing such, and/or take offense to minor issues, as for public issues in the forum there are a lot of people who have difficulty publicly expressing their views.


2.) To clearly solve the above paragraph.


Edit: @ 1st post, decent new idea, cant' see ti getting much attention in an already existing thread based on a separate issue, but it would allow players to find the most beneficial and helpful answers without searching through spam or incorrect responses. Only issue would be mass mod locks in forums such as the Q&A which would stop the thread owner from doing such an action.

< Message edited by Rhia Shirubia -- 5/27/2010 12:47:30 >
AQ DF MQ AQW  Post #: 22
5/27/2010 14:44:36   
Leumas Dragonsword
Member

The new update in my point of view, has possibility of working, bu they are very small chances. I'll explain why:

1.) I started working in Q&As before I went to any other part of the Forums and would like to say that I know them quite well, the AQW Q&A more than others. The first point is, this system would not establish a healthy environment to ask questions. It would instagate competition within Forumites to get the 'Best Answer'.

2.) You would also define 'Best Answer', what would the criteria be? I personally think that it shouldn't be up to the Original Poster because they're the ones asking for help and have no clue on the subject of which they are asking. If you were to reword the 'Title' and call it "The Most Helpful Answer' that would make more sense, but again, it only fuels competition and that is not what Q&As need. It is supposed to be a place where people can feel free to ask questions and anyone can feel comfortable answering them without being judged by the Original Poster.

3.) I have just read through Shia Shirubia's above post and these is one part I disagree with;

quote:

But overall the general position makes it hard to see a players experiences eye to eye or on an even level, trust me i know all about such a thing as I've worked as a mod in another big gaming company, after you know more then the community their values and ideas become somewhat difficult to relate to as you know they actual situations and how they will or will not play out.


You say that you have been a Moderator in another Big Gaming Company (congrats by the way). And yes that may lend you some sort of experience, but I personally think that it would be unfair to equate your experiences from one Forum to another because as I assume you know, things are run differently in each Forum that you come across.

4.) Just so I don't create any confusion I'll quote the next part too;

quote:

Edit: @ 1st post, decent new idea, cant' see ti getting much attention in an already existing thread based on a separate issue, but it would allow players to find the most beneficial and helpful answers without searching through spam or incorrect responses. Only issue would be mass mod locks in forums such as the Q&A which would stop the thread owner from doing such an action.


In this quote, first sentence you have used the term 'search', the word usually has the connotation of looking through a large mass. In my opinion this is exaggerated. Yes there are some Q&A threads that go up to 20 posts, that's the highest I've ever seen, and around the 11 post-mark Threads I only see two or three times a day. So the Original Poster shouldn't be 'searching' through anything, including Spam or Incorrect Responses. It is up to the Arch Knights/Moderators of that Board to deal with spammers, the incorrect responses may just be a mistake, but with other people posting and giving viable proof such as the Wiki, I would like to think that getting an answer is a 'painless process'.

5.) Last point;

quote:

Only issue would be mass mod locks in forums such as the Q&A which would stop the thread owner from doing such an action.


The only time I have seen 'Mass Mod Locks' is when an there has been no Arch Knight/Moderator on the Board for a certain gievn time, and questions have been banked up into the second page (I have only seen this through the AQW Q&A), that is when there will be one or two AKs/Mods will be going through each question, deleting spam, merging double posters, locking or deleting if that particular question doesn't belong in the Q&A. If you are refering to when Arch Knights/Moderators lock something even if it is just after one post, he/she would have a good reason for doing so. Such as the question has been answered, terefore does no longer need to be open. This is not just to lock for the sake of it, it is to stop parroting, spamming and other forms of breaking the rules.

Hopefully I've explained myself well enough. =)

P.S Thankies. =)

< Message edited by Leumas Dragonsword -- 5/27/2010 23:45:12 >
AQ DF MQ  Post #: 23
5/27/2010 15:31:31   
Fire2219
Member

Most likely a possible Experiment but then the moderators will all be wanting to get it so there will be a lot of commotion and of course most people think artix is the best so they will always vote for him. In my Edited opinion That is a real bad idea because then other mods will not have the chance to get the high ranking because Artix might be the one who always gets the highest and most likely there must be more than 5 stars. If it were my choce I would but the ranking Like the following example: 23/50 the 23 stands for the rank and the 50 stands for the total mods. But even with that Artix will still be the most likely to be 50/50 because, everyone wants to rate the "Creator" Of the AE Inc(not really sure)
Post #: 24
5/28/2010 6:56:38   
Rhia Shirubia
Member


To be clear,

Mass mod locks -> Those are due to the Q&A style, mods have it set up so they have to lock the threads.
Spam -> More or less an example i was more referring to the posts with like 20 pages, for example the GD
forums being different -> Eh in all honesty this ones sketchy some points are different however all in all they all serve the same purpose and are run on very similar grounds.
And working for another company's forums as a mod (Game sage in the given company) does give a very decent experience towards how things are run, and after viewing more then, all in all it's quite fair to compare them, especially since mods here seem to have the same attitudes and work habits.

I find it interesting how everything is taken in a diff way here, then picked apart, it almost feels defensive to me rather then supportive.



Edit towards above: Artix and other staff members really don't moderate the forums, they lurk them for suggestions and the odd feedback, but the headmod/archknight system doesn't closely relate to him, the feedback wouldn't be directed to them as they are more developers



** Non offensive content censored for fail purposes.
AQ DF MQ AQW  Post #: 25
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [AE Forum Resources] >> Forum Support and Suggestions >> Staff Rating/Q&A Post Rating
Page 1 of 212>
Jump to:






Icon Legend
New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Forum Content Copyright © 2018 Artix Entertainment, LLC.

"AdventureQuest", "DragonFable", "MechQuest", "EpicDuel", "BattleOn.com", "AdventureQuest Worlds", "Artix Entertainment"
and all game character names are either trademarks or registered trademarks of Artix Entertainment, LLC. All rights are reserved.
PRIVACY POLICY


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition