ottawa foodies

In the interests of quality control I'm introducing a user ranking scheme. Every user will now have a qualifier under their icon in the comment and forum sections of the site.

The ranking isn't based on how many comments a person has made -- such an approach would encourage quantity over quality. Rather, it looks at how many "fans" a user has, and also how many "fans" the user's fans have.

The assumption is that people will add someone as a friend when they either know/like them or they find their contributions to be of high quality.

Having Newbie under your name doesn't make you a bad person! It just means that you are a bit of an unknown. Keep contributing in a positive way and people will mark you as a friend.

For more info, just click on the Newbie/Bronze/Silver/Gold label to be taken to the relevant section of the help.

Let me know if you have any comments or suggestions on this. Please bear with me while I iron out details of the algorithm. No, I don't plan to be the only "Gold" contributor... ;-)

I can see right off the bat that too many long-time contributors are being marked "Newbie." I will rework the calculation to take other variables into account to fix this...

Okay things look much better now. Long-term contributors are showing up as Silver or Gold. Neato! :-)

Cool feature! Nice addition.

oooooooooooooh :)
im bronze!

Testing 1,2,3

FF won't this make anyone you're friends/fans of automatically a "Gold", since you yourself have so many "groupies"? (lol)

PS - please don't remove me from your favourites :P

I like the idea - and I like that it's based on your fans and fans of fans. That pretty much guarantees that trolls will be singled out and if folks just stick around for a while they'll become "gold" soon enough :)

monty, actually anyone I'm a fan of would automatically be "Silver" based on the current calculation. But this is a good thing. The idea is that if a lot of people consider me worthy of adding as a friend, then my opinion of others should carry plenty of weight.

It's the ultimate democracy, in which everyone votes for each other and those who accumulate the most support have the biggest say. Well, except this isn't politics and there aren't any big decisions being made. ;-)

neat feature. perhaps it will encourage people to reevaluate (or start) their "favourites" list. i just added a bunch of people whos reviews/forum comments i enjoy reading.

while you're at it people, start using the 'voting' function as well!

I guess I'll have to start marking people as "fan of" - I've pretty much ignored that function so far lol. I wouldn't want to shaft anyone :P

Fresh Foodie - sounds inovative, although I haven't figured it all out as of yet. ;-) You go dude!

Ottawa Foodies popularity contest? When did this become facebook? :)

I'm not getting good vibes from this idea. I don't need a guide to tell me whose opinion I should trust.

Will this dissent demote me to bronze? :)

Good idea, not so good implementation. The word looks rather clunky there under our names, in the same colour and font. I'd change the font and probably make the colour the same as the rating. Or better yet, give every picture a picture frame of the appropriate colour, and get rid of the word completely.

zymurgist, hit shift-reload and it should look a little better. :-)

I considered doing a colourized frame instead (because I hate clutter), but that would mean that visitors to the site either don't notice it or have no idea what it means.

Similarly, ollie, I don't need a guide to tell me whose opinion I should trust either, but the majority of visitors to the site do need such a guide. Most people don't hang out here quite as much as you and I do. ;-)

Awesome! I won a silver! Hehehe... Another forum I lurk in bases their ranking system on the number of posts. I know this because I am a junior member - makes me feel young again! (Although I dread being a senior...) Although I would have to agree with Ollie I feel a little like I'm on facebook.

The stubborn non-comformist in me wonders if I can opt out of the system... just give me an "n/a" or something. :)

i was going to reply last night as the "lone dissenter", but now i see i'm joining ranks w/ Ollie on this.

I find the feature, as described and implemented to this point, a bit cliquey, a bit of a distraction and unnecessary. All said in reverence and due respect for the great work FF has done here. :)

Maybe i'm in a minority, but i deliberately reserve my fandom for a few of the restaurants (and food) discussed, not for the individual contributors here. Its not an anti-social response. I simply don't want to be distracted here (at OF) with the "responsibility" of remembering to spread my admiration to the (many) people here who's contributions i value. There's just too many people to like here, so where do i stop? Its simpler not to begin (attaching fandom to people).

And that noted, while there are individuals whose contributions i value (for originality, writing style, expertise, etc.), a more important "feature" is the interaction between those users, not not the individuals themselves (whether they're a newbie or a goldie) that compel me to read (and occasionally post).

i feel the site already offers an excellent way to infer an individual's "reputation" (or at least their reliability or expertise) and that is by using the site's (very well implemented) tagging system to return a user's posting history. I prefer to rely on that, instead of algorithms based on a friend of friend + other (not yet revealed) calculations.

So, in short, i'm not excited by the ranking system, as it now exists.

And as another follow-up, if a ranking system is desirable (or deemed inevitable for the purposes of keeping the trolls at bay), i'd vote for one that aggregates us into a flatter grouping, e.g., "newbie", "trusted" and "troll" users. Newbies would be those that have just joined or with few contributions. Trolls are those rated as such by more than one "trusted" user (and there should be penalties for misusing that authority). Trusted users are those who have moved out of the newbie category, by virtue of participation and/or not being a troll.

And, if there's overwhelming consensus (or a decision from the top) for retaining the more nuanced / hierarchical ranking system, i would try to find a way to factor in the more "custodial" contributions that some users make that might fly under the radar of the fandom-hood. I'm thinking of along the lines of reporting closures, new openings, providing clarifications / directions, etc. I sometimes do these things for the communal good, but i assume they're too low-profile to influence higher rankings?

At first I thought.. wahoo.. I'm GOLD. But then I thought so is Food Is Hot, and zymurgist! Obviously zym and I are not as good looking as FiH, so your rating scheme is evidently quite broken!

Hey now, speak for yourself Pete - I'm [phatbastard]Sexah[/phatbastard]

:-)

itchy feet - not sure how this could be a distraction to be honest. just ignore it. it's 'bling' for sure. but it's easy to ignore

Distractions come in all sizes and shapes, but yeah, i can ignore it, esp. given that i can barely make out the word. :)

But, i wasn't really referring to the aesthetics or the bling-ness of the feature, more my distaste for the underlying idea and the ranking system itself. Just my perspective is all.

Pasta lover, you're right that the "normal" way to do this in most forums is by number of posts. Unfortunately, that encourages quantity rather than quality.

ollie, I had considered making the labels visible only to visitors who are *not* signed in, specifically to avoid the perception of cliquiness and because those who are signed in typically already have an opinion of whom to trust. I decided to make it visible to everyone though. That said, I could let you opt out of *seeing* the labels but I couldn't let you opt out of being labeled; however, I don't think that's what you meant. ;-)

itchy feet, I understand what you're saying, but the last thing I want to deal with is a stream of emails and complaints from people who've been marked as a "troll." Because of this, I prefer to have the ambiguous "Newbie" label and the for-sure Silver/Gold (maybe I should get rid of one of them). Doing it the other way around and having a for-sure troll label could become an administrative nightmare! This also fits in with my "focus on the positive" approach to reviews (hence why I encourage adding a food to a vendor only if you particularly *liked* it).

Anyway, your concerns are all valid. I need a way to score users though, whether or not it is visible. At the very least, I have to find a way to indicate that a user is new and/or has not gained people's trust. I'm going to think about this some more. Enjoy your "badges" while they last... ;-)

gotcha: i appreciate the need to streamline administration and to skew things toward the positive. Stamping peers as a "troll" is avidly not a positive thing, so i officially retract that from my earlier suggestion / preferred system. :)

Thanks for elaborating itchy feet, I agree with everything you wrote.

I understand the thinking behind the sytem and appreciate that I'm in the minority but it's a turn off. It might even intimidate a "newbie" from posting among a sea of "gold" member comments. Not all newcomers, for sure, but I don't think something that might promote exclusion is a good idea.

"In the interests of quality control I'm introducing a user ranking scheme."

Begs the question, is there currently a quality control issue?

"is there currently a quality control issue?"

Yes, as time goes on, there are more and more single-post types of users. People have a bad experience, google the restaurant's name and end up here, then they sign up for an account to flame the restaurant, never showing up again. There are also (admittedly very few) others who post multiple times but just complain or make questionable comments. I don't feel right just deleting them (the users or the comments).

It's easy to maintain quality when there are just a handful of users. It becomes more difficult as the userbase grows. I'm trying to find innovative ways to maintain quality in the face of a large user population. (They are innovative by definition because to my knowledge no other restaurant review site has ever managed to become large while maintaining the sort of quality we've been enjoying here.)

I think Fresh Foodie would need a quality control device of some sort. Most boards have spammers so he is probably finding some way of keeping them away. The only system I know is from the other board I visit that goes by number of posts. Just a note to Fresh Foodie - it may not be the best way to keep the spammers out. But in my other board the number of registered users was growing to the hundreds but only twenty or so were actively posting. Last year the board owner deleted all accounts that were opened and never used. He posted a list after saying that the following x accounts will be kept active and if your name does not appear on the list then contact him directly to have your account kept active. It doesn't keep the spammers out but maybe it's a starting point?

"Begs the question" - no it doesn't, it "raises" the question.

"Begging the question" is a philosophical term that has nothing whatsoever to do with raising questions. But it's quite often misused.

Sorry, pet-peeve as a former philosophy student :-)

We must be able to come up with a comprimise that everyone is happy with (famous last words lol) - ollie (and others of like mind who don't like it), is it that you don't agree with a rating system period, or is it that you don't agree that it should be based on "friends" (popularity contest)? Or is it a mixture of both? Would it be better if there was only 2 distinctions - newbie and something else, so that long-term members are not broken up into further "classes" but one-time posters can still be identified? Is there any "rating" system that you would feel more comfortable with - such as based on length of time being a member, number of posts etc? Or are you wholey against the idea entirely with no possible modifications to the idea making a difference?

That gold prefect badge suits you perfectly, Hermione! ;-)

Seriously though, thanks for your post FiH. I'm sure we can't please everybody but as always I aim to offend as few as possible.

FiH - "we" don't have to come up with anything. "We" have to accept whatever FF decides :-)

And just to complicate things, I'll mention that I would personally prefer a 1 to 10 rating rather than the current one. More, not less :-) And the ratings should have something to do with food. Like "sous chef" and "chef" or something.

I want my title to be Gordon Ramsay. But just to be fair, one of you can be Anthony Bourdain.

:p

zymurgist, from one pedant to another, I appreciate the correction. ;)

FiH, yes, it is the popularity contest aspect of the system that turns me off.

Having said that, I'll work with whatever system is in place. I enjoy the site too much to let it ruin a good thing. :)

p.s. on my site the ratings start at "tun scrubber" and go on up to "brewmaster"

So perhaps we could start as "dish washer" or even "wait staff" or something :-)

zymurgist, I was originally planning a scale like:

* dishwasher
* line cook
* sous-chef
* chef

But then I started thinking that, aside from being disrespectful to dishwashers, this might rankle with those professionals who have earned the title of Chef in real life. Also, the intended meaning of these labels is not as clear as newbie/bronze/etc, especially for someone visiting the site for the first time.

Anyway, I've found that it's pretty darn hard to implement new stuff without stepping on people's toes! :-)

"Anyway, I've found that it's pretty darn hard to implement new stuff without stepping on people's toes! :-)"

Is the implication here that all users are to great new features with sunshine and roses? :)

C'mon! Criticism and second guessing new ideas is a good thing. Keeps you on *your* toes. :)

fwiw, FF, i managed (and developed) a couple like applications (in different domains and on a smaller scale) and completely sympathize with the woes of pleasing the masses (or percentage thereof). And like Ollie, the decision you take on this issue certainly isn't going to drive me away.

I can see the value in a project like this, but wonder if the particular implementation, basing the "rating" on a formula derived from linked "favourite foodies", does seem a bit like a popularity contest. Very myspace-y and facebook-y.

Would an alternate solution be to find a way to evaluate a user's actual contributions? Kind of a "did you find this review helpful?" method that is based upon the content that is being contributed, instead of basing the reliability ratings (partially) on how funny and personable somebody is on a message board. Steer away from the "social networking" paradigm, and more towards what is done by organizations that actually rely on trust from other users (eBay's feedback, and Amazon's review usefulness). It's a bit more complicated to code (a lot more complicated if you want to link it to the contributors), but it would focus more on the substance of the contributions.

Turning a democracy into a meritocracy is hard.

But hey, take this for what you will, as last I looked, I was only rated a Bronze.

While although it leans somewhat towards a popularity vote, there's a correlation with the rating and the contributions one has made to this site.

I couldn't help but notice most of the 'golds' are users who have contributed significantly to the forum discussion or with their reviews/pictures. This is a good thing. Not to call anybody out, but most of bronze/silver posters I checked have very little votes/reviews/contributions.

I don't see a big difference between "Did you find this review useful" and (essentially) "Do you find this reviewer useful".

What I am trying to suggest essentially is the same as mr. zymurgist is saying, but that the "usefulness" be based upon the content itself, and more directly. I would like to see such a reliability rating get separated from the idea of declaring people as favourites, which always seemed clique-y to me (hence no favourites after being a member for a year and a half).

The "rating" is supposed to support the quality, and reliability of the content that is being read, right? Why not base that on the actual content contributed in the past. It just seems more relevant to me.

Something just struck me... these user rankings are totally irrelevant to the forums. They should only show up in the food/vendor comments.

I'll fix this ASAP. A pleasant side effect is that the perceived cliquiness should diminish greatly. :-)

Looks like my 'off the wall' humor, example:

ottawafoodies.com/forum/779

and my 'kooky' references like The City of Ottawa Crack/Harm Reduction Kits:

ottawafoodies.com/forum/803

is not winnig me any friends ( I only got three now) or the prestigious Gold Rating.

Oh Well....

I'm just glad that Fresh Foodie has not asked me to 'stay focused' or banned me from Ottawa Foodies.

OH looky everyone .... I just made GOLD !!!

But how can I make gold with ony 4 friends ?

Fresh Foodie : Can I be a Bronze ? oe even a Newbie ? .... I'm not comfortable being Gold. Too many expectations to live up to.

If not,... Can I be in a new category ??? Say, "Phyllo Pastry" ??? as opposed to "Pie Pastry" or " Puff Pastry" ??

Captain Caper - Congratulations on your promotion.

Does this mean you are now knowledgeable enough to get to work the Customer Service Counter? LOL

Thanks for the congrats Food & Think.... but I don't want a promotion.... I want a de-motion or a com-motion !!

I love this site, but I don't come here that often. Nevertheless, I was disheartened to find I was only a "Bronze"--when I found out what it meant, that is. I don't think it's obvious to anyone who isn't a "regular".

Hey, that's it: from my old Pub waitressing days...

Glinda - Poor Fresh Foodie, he has struggled with this new concept fot the last couple of days. I understand what he is trying to do, unfortunately, you can't please everyone when you implement a change.

Bronze is good... H3LL you have a whole age named after you, the "Bronze Age" trust me no one has ever heard of the Newbie Age, the Silver Age or the Gold Age. If we are here long enough, OLD AGE will be our reward.

;-)

According to Step 6 of www.videojug.com (warning: video with sound), telling me that the user ranking scheme sucks is akin to going around to your Auntie's house and "curling one out in the teapot."

;-)

I thought earlier that I didn't really want to be part of this new 'rating system' but.... Now I'm hungry for gold.

I am going to launch a new thread. "Captain Caper Goes for Gold !!"

So I know I'm 3 days behind on messages, but I want to be Gordon Ramsey *pouts*

Not sure if it helps.. but the least I can do is 'favourite' you since you and Momomoto were the only ones that came to our 'All Hail Fresh Foodie' night. ;-) You might need to ask FF.. my endorsement might actually drop you down a notch or two...

I wanted to go to the 'All Hail Fresh Foodie' night, But Pub Italia? ottawafoodies.com/vendor/783

To me, and others in Ottawa Foodie-land, find the food either hit or miss, or just so-so.

I did not want to just sit around , drinking yummy obscure beers, will the rest of the gang had food.


Maybe time for another one soon, say, the spring time, on a patio !!

Cap'n: True enough: if you're not going there to drink yummy obscure beers, you may not get what you're looking for.

I was thinking about this yesterday, actually: it'd be fun to do that again sometime, somewhere! It was ridiculously fun.

I agree! Let's do it again.