What are these little stars by my name?

[FrankS]

I noticed that there are a certain amount of stars by everybody's name when they post.

[Horton]

Well I made a tweak this morning an it looks like I missed a step.

 

@FrankS it means nothing

@Brent it is the number of days until I threaten to ban you

[Horton]

OK serious answer.

 

I am looking for a way for new users to know who the long standing Ballers are and a way to show who knows what they are talking about.

 

@Brent has 3 stars because he posts a lot and most of it is good content. (I can not give him too much positive feed back or he will crash my server by posting too much) More than three stars is very hard to get. @Brent is a content all star.

 

Stars are based on number of points.

Points are based on number of good posts.

 

You will see that @skidawg has the text "Open or 55K Rated Skier" next to his name where the stars should go. That is because he is one bad Mother *****r! You will see the same for other very high end skiers.

 

 

[luckyone]

can i buy some stars ?

[Horton]

Nope

[TylerR]

@horton what about those of us more likely to spill whiskey on your ski than help improve your skiing? What special gifts do we get?

[Horton]

Nothing

[SkiJay]

Soooooo basically, all us peons who've not been bestowed with three or four stars have just had our contributions pretty much invalidated.

[Than_Bogan]

Drat -- for about 1 day I had 4 stars. Then Horton must have woken up...

 

I was wrong about this general issue (the points) the last time, but nevertheless I'm gonna start out as against the star designation. The fact that I have given more advice (and other nonsense), does not necessarily mean I will be giving better advice than others in the future.

 

My mistake last time was to assume this forum was similar to other ones, but I'm just gonna go ahead and make that same mistake again: My experience elsewhere suggests that the most starred folks aren't a whole lot more reliable than anybody else. Indeed, they are often just people without lives (and yes I realize I am talking about myself).

 

I do like the idea of designating pros and near-pros with something, though. Us regulars know who those folks are, but with a huge rate of new faces around here, that would be a good thing to know.

[Brady]

@Than_Bogan. In regards to your comment, "most starred folks aren't a whole lot more reliable than anybody else," can I give you a take from a newbie, pond scum, with no stars? Being new to this site--fully addicted with no life, mind you--I really like the stars. I realize I have none, but thankfully I don't determine my worth based on how many stars I have on a website no one has heard about outside of the skiing community. Fact is, I love reading the advice from others, and in my honest and humble opinion, I like separating the potential crap and mis-advice from the great wisdom bestowed on us from fellow ballers such as yourself. It is like a filter, the more stars, the more I should probably pay attention to what was said, cause, like you said, to get three stars, you probably have no life and you live on this site....and if those two items exist, you are probably going to give great advice!!! I know hanging with @scotchipman, the guy is a walking encyclopedia in regards to all things skiing. I try to soak up every thing that comes out of that guys mouth. Not to mention, he is a cool as hell dude. I also know when I see a post from guys like @SkiJay--who suffers from lackofstaritis, like me, I value his opinion, cause I see him here all the time, and I know his stars are a matter of time.

 

If you want to be really good at something, hang out with the people who are the best and listen to what they say. That's kind of what I think @Horton was trying to accomplish. That or he just found a new shiny web tool to play with.

 

Now I just realize I disagreed with a 3-star legend who has been growing a goatee longer than I have been married--18 years--so please please please don't hate on me for that. I promise to give you likes and awesomes for the next 4 months! :)

[Than_Bogan]

P.S. Now OB has more stars than I do, too! As Candace (Phineas and Ferb's sister) would say: He's GOIN' DOWN DOWN DOWN!

 

Oh, and I expect to have the same amount of success at that as Candace does...

[andjules]

For what it's worth @Than_Bogan, I consider you a worthy 4-star general of the armies of BoS.

 

I like the stars on the positive side (reading posts of starred contributors). But on the negative side, @SkiJay has a point. It will be hard not to associate lack-of-stars with lack-of-credibility. (And I've no idea why I'd have stars when @SkiJay has contributed so much more... or @jody_seal or @eleeski... well I guess we all expected @Horton wouldn't validate @eleeski!).

 

I notice in other forums they sometimes resort to 'cute' titles. At one forum I frequent, some users are 'summer students', some are 'grad students', 'lab assistants', 'research assistants'... you get the idea. Very similar to stars, it gives some sense of context & contribution. But somehow it lessens the seriousness and value-judgement of it all.

[Brady]

@shilpa173, just out of curiosity, how is @SkiJay 's post off topic? I thought it was about as on topic as you could be. hmmm?

[Than_Bogan]

@douglaslbrady That last one is the easy one: When using a mobile device, it's fairly easy to accidentally hit Dislike or Off Topic, so most likely someone just made a mistake.

 

Man, now I have to apologize for what turned out be Compliment Fishing! (But thanks for the compliments, folks.)

 

The stars are really only for the newer folks, so if they are finding them valuable, then I guess I am wrong yet again!

[Skoot1123]

My two cents - it is a start that can always be tweaked as the need arises. For those new to the site it will provide at least something of a gauge for evaluating the advice of the person posting. Something - is better than nothing.

[Waternut]

I think it's a neat concept, maybe bragging rights for some, and a way to tell you've been contributing to the community positively but I wouldn't really consider it a practical thing for newcomers. I'm fairly new to this site and I will say that when I first got on here, I thought it was pretty obvious which people really know what they're talking about. Before this post, I only assumed what the stars meant based on previous knowledge of those people.

 

Glad to see you experimenting with new ideas though @horton.

[Horton]

Just trying to make the site less anonymous and show who has been around the longest. If it really pisses enough of you off I will do way with it. @skoot123 pretty much nailed what I am trying to do.

[ToddL]

I think the idea of marking contributors who's input has been valued by others is a worthwhile goal. I think having the users indicate which posts are of noteworthy value is also key. So, when you read something, try it, and find success in it; then please mark it with a like or awesome. This also will help a new member who has extremely valuable contributions quickly rise in points and thus stars.

[Wish]

Agree with @Brent. Plenty of posters to correct loose or misinformed posts. To me that's what drives the site. Folks feel comfortable posting differing opinions. Posts generally seem to come to conclusion/results based consensus (most of the time). Would lack of stars stop someone from posting a valid and perhapes eye opening opinion based on...."I'll be disagreeing with a three star poster? . Would having a 3 star post that is perhaps wrong bring less critasism based on "they know more". ....food for thought.

[SkiJay]

This is an awkward issue. On one hand, @Horton's intentions are good. Making it easy to tell who has credibility to a casual visitor has merit. Unfortunately, that knife cuts both ways. It also implies that all unendorsed contributors lack some degree of credibility.

 

In addition, it’s nearly impossible to rate contributors accurately. What if Glen Campbell posts (a world-class pro that many newbies may not recognize)? Glen has no stars and undermined credibility. Some contributors have buddies who “like” and “awesome” every silly comment they make. In fact, it seems far more likely you'll get an “awesome” for making fun of someone than if you take hours to craft a post that is in-depth and thought-provoking. Then there’s the fame factor. I’ve seen Marcus Brown reiterate what the previous five posters just said and get 15 awesomes just for showing up; while the previous equally valid posts got no love. I’m not questioning Marcus’ cred on any level here; I’m questioning the use of the point system as the basis for establishing credibility. In the extreme, should someone who has generated a ton of points by being a prolific poster of drivel for his buddies over the last five years have stars, while Glen Campbell has none?

 

And why five stars? Someone is always going to feel slighted by not getting more stars. Furthermore, the stars imply that Mr. Three Stars is correct while Mr. One Star is wrong in any debate, and this just isn’t always true. A five-star opinion isn't always four starts better than a one star opinion. At most, it should be a one-star system, signifying that Horton believes that at least most of the time, this contributor has earned "the" star by demonstrating credibility, and the ability to play well with others. Maybe two stars can be given to real heavyweights like industry insiders and lifetime pros.

 

No stars is just fine too. It’s the internet. Unless they’ve been living under a rock, nobody expects every post they read on any forum to be fact or pure truth, and there’s no shortage of members poised to pounce on any post that is clearly off the mark. Besides, we can already look at anyone’s profile to decide if they seem credible or not. Do they post their real name? Do they list their email address? How long have they been a member? How many likes and dislikes have they accumulated?

 

I like what Horton is trying to do, but it’s tough to get right.

If this issue were polled, I’d vote: No Stars

 

[skibug]

@Horton sees everyones true identity in thier account. If a professional jumps on here that hasn't contributed before; I am sure @Horton will rank him accordingly.

[A_B]

Amen to that OB

[danbirch]

why not just link the poster's USAWS "Average" next to their name? Then, we'd see their ski abilities (without having to change pages to usaws ski site)?

[MattP]

@danbirch I thought of this idea. If you want to search each user and input the data by hand go for it. It is just way to much back end work.

[Marco]

Its pretty easy to open a new window and do a Rankings List search. Thats the only way to get up to date information, since averages change weekly during the season.

[MattP]

@OB you are grumpy that you dropped 60 places after your injury.

[danbirch]

Seems that many (if not most) people use that method (individual's scores) anyway. Would be cool, but understand it may not be easy. No biggy.

[Horton]

@danbirch not a bad idea but seems a little aggressive and way too much work

[Waternut]

@skijay gets an awesome for yet another well thought out response. Honestly, I was shocked when I saw that you didn't have any stars.

 

I'll throw this out for what it's worth... One concept that may work better and would probably be less political is just to give a quick count of "likes" and "awesomes" beside each person names instead of stars. Another site I'm on would list total post count and total "thanks" and if you go into their profile, it shows how many threads instead of posts they've gotten a "thanks" to. So basically if you've responded to 2000 threads and been thanked in 20 of those threads, you're probably just talking but someone who's responded to 200 threads and has gotten 50 "thanks" is probably giving very helpful information.

[ToddL]

Regarding AWSA averages...

 

The best coach doesn't have to be the best skier... I've gotten some pretty crappy coaching from some extremely skilled skiers. I've also known some pretty good coaches who have an eye for something that their own bodies haven't achieved. Obviously, the ultimate is one who is an awesomely skilled coach (one who can elicit a change for the better in a student) who is also excellently skilled in the same discipline (knows what it feels like to do it right).

 

And just so you don't have to go look mine up, I ski mid-28 off. National Rank: 192/292, Level 6.

[scuppers]

Gotta go with the stars, if anything. Take Someone like Jody Seal the best boat repair etc advice on the site but maybe not a 39 off skier. Leon Larson, tops in tournament admin and judging yet probably not a top ranked skier. I (think) I know a thing or two but I am at a point where my scores are going down or have not competed for years.

[Horton]

I moved this thread to Members Only. Pretty sure this is not about ski fins or bindings

 

Fact: 99% of all readers never log-in or post.

[ToddL]

I'm a member of the 1%! LOL!

[Horton]

@OB because thousands of skiers come by and most folks just want to read.

 

Mid summer there were 3x as many visitors to this forum as USAWS has membership. (about 26K visitors)

 

That % is pretty typical of forums. I am pulling numbers from memory so do not quote me.

[Than_Bogan]

Should the "pro" designation say "Open/Masters Rated"

 

"55k rated" doesn't mean much to me, and I think might mean nothing at all to the newbs who most need this info?

 

Even if you've never heard of "Masters" in this context, you're gonna assume it means some kinda serious skill, which it does.

[andjules]

+1 to @Than_Bogan above

[ToddL]

So I understand what @SkiJay is saying... I don't know how the stars have been assigned thus far, but it seems that IF they could be associated solely based upon the number of Likes and Awesomes, that it would sort of all work out in the end. Ski Manufacturer Reps, Open/Masters Skiers all have a different weight. I get that, too. What if they also had stars? Then, if a ski rep or elite skier is also recognized by the forum population (lots of likes and awesomes), then they'd really stand out.

[ToddL]

@Horton - I assume that those 20k+ visitors are counted using unique IP addresses... so, when I view from my phone w/o logging in and from my work w/o logging in and then from home while logged in, I would count for 3 visitors. And, if I further access multiple wifi hotspots via my phone, those each count as unique IPs, too. That's the way it works for a site I manage...

 

BTW, I know a lot of skiers who read BOS but never post. It's neat when someone starts talking about something they saw here...

[estrom]

@Horton, I think what you're attempting to do has great merit, but I'm not sure how necessary it is, nor if it's worth all your time and effort. It's not rocket surgery to hang here a few weeks and figure out who's who. I mean, I haven't been here all that long and I already know not to take advice about picking up ladies from ShaneH!

 

[Ed_Obermeier]

"why not just link the poster's USAWS "Average" next to their name? Then, we'd see their ski abilities (without having to change pages to usaws ski site)? "

 

Well less than 10% of all "serious" skiers (however you want to define that) ski in tournaments of any kind, much less USAWS sanctioned tournaments, so no average available to go by. Pretty much a worthless measure IMO.

 

Ed

[danbirch]

Since your scores are not the criteria for getting stars, then exactly how does one earn a star? What is the definition of a "good" post?

[luckyone]

changed my mind,i dont want any stars,only ski 32,----------------------------------------mph.

[Drago]

I got nothin here. Just wanted to see if there are any stars next to my name.

[Drago]

Ouch

[Horton]

All I know is everyone is mad and traffic is up. I should have saved this for January.

[RichardDoane]

@ed obermeier - I totally disagree that the USA Waterski average means nothing, since it is one of the only benchmarks of skiing ability.

[SkiJay]

@richarddoane USAWS is an excellent indicater of tournament skiing ability for its members. But that is a small sample of the overall waterski community and a fairly narrow focus in the sport. It excludes the expertise held by people in ski manufacturing and marketing, the organizers of tournaments, 39-off recreational skiers (I know three of them to whom tournaments are a waste of nice weather), and everyone in direct contact with industry insiders and pros. These are valuable non-USAWS opinions that lose merit with a star system. Some of the sports top coaches don't even ski anymore.

[6balls]

I must be posting crappy content...I lost a star. I was at three, then got a note saying congratulations as I was promoted to level 2.

 

[SkiJay]

Ther'd be fewer hurt feelings if it were a one star system...

[danbirch]

Didn't Sly and the Family Stone once say, "Everybody is a Star"???