Gordon, fair enough. But not sure that it will not lead to abusing this system. Maybe based on views and rateups ?

Views by people other than the poster hopefully or you’ll get the guy refreshing the page non-stop. Remember it counts refresh as a new view. Actually, someone could get a second account to do that.

xsacha, it is obvious that it is impossible to build perfect rating system, that cannot be abused. Marius already told about it and I’m agreed with his words that we simply need “system that is good enough”.

Well at FN Wiki its a group of panelists who judge the quality as well as quantity of the articles and then award the rewards. That way only the best and deserving ones get.

QtK, it is of course the best way to solve wiki quality problem, but Qt DevNet is not so mature as FH is. It needs a lot of moderators to do it. But I hope sometime we will grow enough.

denis, any thoughts on how many moderators say per 1000 users a site like this would require :)

chetankjain, as I think something like 2-3 moderators per user.

Denis Kormalev wrote:

chetankjain, as I think something like 2-3 moderators per user.

per user or per 1000 users .. did I get you right or is your answer based on some recent happenings :P

chetankjain, oooops, per 1000 users of course.

I personally prefer a gratification system based on quality of content too. I see that is kind of unfair that one that invests a reasonable amount of time to create a good wiki article is rewarded the same points as someone who just does some copy’n‘paste from an API docs.

But I also see, that it is difficult to implement that and at the moment the focus here on DevNet is to generate content, hence the rewarding of quantity. Let’s see what the future brings to us. If the site has grown to a critical mass, the system might be changed.

Volker wrote:

I personally prefer a gratification system based on quality of content too. I see that is kind of unfair that one that invests a reasonable amount of time to create a good wiki article is rewarded the same points as someone who just does some copy’n‘paste from an API docs.

I agree Volker, when I answer and solve someone’s problem, a simple thanks from the user brings a lot of gratification … I don’t remember how many points I earned at the end of the day, but I do remember that I solved those 3 problems. Lets wait for the new scoring system that the devnet team is working on based on “thank you” …

To add to this … the bonus system is just a nice add on. Usually it is fun to ask the questions, otherwise we all would not do this job, would we? And often I can learn from the questions I answer too.

Denis Kormalev wrote:

Gordon, fair enough. But not sure that it will not lead to abusing this system. Maybe based on views and rateups ?

You are right – view count is not a good choice, I retract that thought. Perhaps something like Google’s algorithm (people who have good ratings marking something as good boost it much more than people with poor or no rating…?)

It’s clear, that we need a good enough rating system, as Marius said. The thanks system is good enough I think. But we also have to think about wikis, that someone edited for hours, and some other member just modificated it a little bit. I now, that is not to easy to implement (maybe based on the number of charaters, and number of times it was edited by the same user), but if it worths 1 point/per x thanks, then the person who added the most value to it, he/she should get more points than who “just” wrote 1-2 sentences. It can be done, by raising the number of /thanks for the other member.

This discussion really makes me wish I had a few extra web dev guys and a spare week to really dig into making a point system that has higher ambitions than “good enough”. I hope maybe we can distill our collective wisdom down to something that is fairly easy to implement (and scales). And go from there.

Thanks for all the comments on wiki and points, you guys are great, I hope all of you win in one week or the other this December :)

Off Topic: I logged on a minute ago and it showed 656 unread posts. My first thought was “oh dear, did the spammers get us?” Then I realized I was using another browser than usual, it hadn’t been here for a few days :)