New MESO-Rx member ranking system

[MESO-Rx Administrator]

MESO-Rx has implemented a new member ranking system that specifically recognizes and rewards posts that are helpful, useful, informative, supportive, and/or inspirational.

The algorithm determines rank based on several variables operationalized from patterns of posting behavior. We hope this new system will encourage members whose contributions are useful and valuable to the AAS harm reduction community at MESO-Rx.

NOTE: Most member ranking systems have heavily relied upon post count as a primary determinant of rank. This often results in rampant abuse on many forums where some new members post useless, non-constructive, and irrelevant messages solely to raise their post counts for the purpose of obtaining a higher ranking i.e. post-whoring.

This will not work on MESO-Rx. In fact, the so-called practice of post-whoring is actually penalized. Trolls and others who have little to contribute will never leave newbie status.

Newbie --> EDIT: New Member
Rookie --> EDIT: Member
Veteran --> EDIT: Well-known Member
Elite
Pro
Master
Legendary

Plus more...

 

[lukiss96]

It's not a bad idea, but sometimes it just doesn't work out as it is supposed to...

rolls and others who have little to contribute will never leave newbie status.

This is not correct in some cases, as join date plays a big role here, I've noticed quite a bit of members who's only "valuable" credentials is their join date. Yet they are so called "veterans" now.

Now in my opinion, it's a bit of stretch to call someone a vet when he's really not and asking newbie questions.

Also I've seen some members who are considered as legends here, their comments to reaction score and join date are outstanding, yet they're not "elite" or "legendary" status. Only "veteran" status, just like the above group I mentioned...

The algorithm determines rank based on several variables operationalized from patterns of posting behavior. We hope this new system will encourage members whose contributions are useful and valuable to the AAS harm reduction community at MESO-Rx.

In my opinion "elite", "pro", "master", "legendary" ranks should be awarded by administrator only, not algorithm.

I know it might suck and you have a lot of things to do, but then again not many members worthy of such ranks.

As they do in the military, you don't automatically reach colonel rank just because system decides, no there is a commission who decides who's worthy or not and it involves much more than some algorithm.


P.S. It's my opinion, if you don't like it just delete my comment. I'm not complaining, it's just something I thought about even before seeing this thread asking for our members opinions. Not trying to be a bad good either.

 

[Millard]

It's not a bad idea, but sometimes it just doesn't work out as it is supposed to...

You're right, of course. No algorithmic ranking system is going to be perfect. It's only a question of how far away from perfect. I'm not going to claim it is anywhere near to perfect. I will only say it is much closer than any other forum ranking system I've seen.

This is not correct in some cases, as join date plays a big role here, I've noticed quite a bit of members who's only "valuable" credentials is their join date. Yet they are so called "veterans" now.

Now in my opinion, it's a bit of stretch to call someone a vet when he's really not and asking newbie questions.

Also I've seen some members who are considered as legends here, their comments to reaction score and join date are outstanding, yet they're not "elite" or "legendary" status. Only "veteran" status, just like the above group I mentioned...

I may have overstated with the following -- "trolls and others who have little to contribute will never leave newbie status" -- at this given point in time. But it is true going forward.

Let me explain. Since the algorithm is a new feature that was applied retroactively, it's calculation were based solely on past forum features/functionality/restrictions/etc. I've recognized some of the past shortcomings. Consequently, modifications have been made to counter these. So, going forward I hope the statement "trolls and others who have little to contribute will never leave newbie status" rings true.

It is incorrect about the role of join date. This is extremely trivial. Of course, it comes into play indirectly - you have to spend some time on the forum to make significant contributions. And all things being equal, those who have been here longer will have made more contributions.

I know what you're saying about the many members with truly valuable contributions who are in still in "rookie" status. They deserve to be recognized, right? I agree. I assure you it is inevitable if they continue on the path.

I think it's best not to "tweak" the criteria to make it easier for them to gain "veteran" status. Especially when you consider your criticism that many "veterans" don't deserve that status. So I need to make the criteria more difficult for them? I can't do both.

This doesn't mean it can't be improved.

Something to keep in mind is that Veteran status is very exclusive with only about 5% of active members. Anything above and beyond that is rare.

79.4% Newbie
15.2% Rookie
5% Veteran
0.36% Elite
0.13% Pro
0.07% Master
0.01% Legendary

Maybe the ratios can be tweaked, I don't know.

In my opinion "elite", "pro", "master", "legendary" ranks should be awarded by administrator only, not algorithm.

I know it might suck and you have a lot of things to do, but then again not many members worthy of such ranks.

As they do in the military, you don't automatically reach colonel rank just because system decides, no there is a commission who decides who's worthy or not and it involves much more than some algorithm.

I don't necessarily disagree. But then it becomes a political system. And political systems just breed nepotism. I don't want to incentivize ass-kissing.

P.S. It's my opinion, if you don't like it just delete my comment. I'm not complaining, it's just something I thought about even before seeing this thread asking for our members opinions. Not trying to be a bad good either.

Why would I delete your comment? It's honest feedback. Constructive criticism is always needed. Going back to my previous point, I'd rather people tell me what they really think than tell me what they think I want to hear because they are afraid of missing out on a ranking award.

Thanks!

 

[Jin23]

Also I've seen some members who are considered as legends here, their comments to reaction score and join date are outstanding, yet they're not "elite" or "legendary" status. Only "veteran" status, just like the above group I mentioned...

I echo this. Seems like everybody is a veteran, people who contribute a lot more knowledge are the same status as people who just "comment". I think this is going to be a though thing for an algorithm to distinguish and as luksis said, might be necessary for an admin to personally hand down. Ofc a human doing this is biased to a degree, but so is an inefficiently coded algorithm, in a sense ...

The problem I'm seeing with humans giving out status badges is that humans are limited in knowledge and can thus be hard to gauge how credible the information given out by the poster actually is, especially if it's far beyond the admins knowledge or in some cases, the use of extra entropic code of language can make seem some posts more scientific and more credible then they really are and thus fooling the admin (same goes for users who are frequently fooled by needlessly complex and technical language). But at least the content is being somewhat evaluated for which an algorithm probably can't do it at all.

Maybe a combination of an algorithm + an admin who overlooks the process might be the best option ...

The coloring scheme though ... Orange, green, ... It looks really bad when you have the "night" scheme. Why not just make it plain text?

 

[Millard]

I echo this. Seems like everybody is a veteran, people who contribute a lot more knowledge are the same status as people who just "comment". I think this is going to be a though thing for an algorithm to distinguish and as luksis said, might be necessary for an admin to personally hand down. Ofc a human doing this is biased to a degree, but so is an inefficiently coded algorithm, in a sense ...

"Seems like everybody is a veteran." This is demonstrably not true. If only 5% of active members are veterans then this is a very exclusive group. The numbers don't lie.

"People who contribute a lot more knowledge are the same status as people who just "comment". Certainly, this true within groups. Some Rookies contribute more than other Rookies. But there is a major difference between groups: Rookies vs. Veterans. Again the numbers don't lie.

The jump from Rookie to Veteran is not that big for all those members who contribute knowledge and assistance on a regular basis. It impossible for them not to reach this status. It is inevitable. So I'm not too worried about this.

The jump from Veteran to anything beyond is considerable and impossible for most. Maybe it should be easier. Or maybe it should be reserve for the few.

The problem I'm seeing with humans giving out status badges is that humans are limited in knowledge and can thus be hard to gauge how credible the information given out by the poster actually is, especially if it's far beyond the admins knowledge or in some cases, the use of extra entropic code of language can make seem some posts more scientific and more credible then they really are and thus fooling the admin (same goes for users who are frequently fooled by needlessly complex and technical language). But at least the content is being somewhat evaluated for which an algorithm probably can't do it at all.

This is all true. Very true.

Maybe a combination of an algorithm + an admin who overlooks the process might be the best option ...

I've addressed my concerns about having an admin choose ranks in my previous post. I'm not so keen on awarding ranks if members have not reach the minimum criteria set by the algorithm. I would be more willing to take away ranks (demote) if the algorithm leads to some egregious outcomes.

The coloring scheme though ... Orange, green, ... It looks really bad when you have the "night" scheme. Why not just make it plain text?

Really? I was thinking the opposite. It only looked good in dark.

The color scheme meaning is inspired by martial arts. Otherwise I feel colors would be arbitrary not that there is anything wrong with that if it looks good. It's just that plain text is so boring

A big thanks for your feedback. Please continue over the months ahead as we see how well it works (or doesn't).

 

[Jin23]

The color scheme meaning is inspired by martial arts. Otherwise I feel colors would be arbitrary not that there is anything wrong with that if it looks good. It's just that plain text is so boring

Yes, and I'm talking to you here from a standpoint of an industry professional. The coloring scheme doesn't make any sense combined with the meso's monochrome black-white + violet theme. It's an insult to the existing graphical interface which is structurally sound. Yes, the colors "pop out", but that is the only thing they do. They look childish and unbalanced and prioritizing "function" over form in such a way in the end makes meso look a bit less credible. This is the way of graphical design. Keeping the names just plain white (BW interface) with the badges as they are is definitely better and more "adult". We are not children who need big glowing colorful name tags : )

You can still do function over form in a more balanced way, that doesn't signify such negative decoding - but I don't have the energy to advise on this now, neither do I know what options are available anyway ... But the point being is, that you just introduced big glowing colors, to an otherwise monochrome - violet color scheme and it's off balancing.

 

[Millard]

Yes, and I'm talking to you here from a standpoint of an industry professional. The coloring scheme doesn't make any sense combined with the meso's monochrome black-white + violet theme. It's an insult to the existing graphical interface which is structurally sound. Yes, the colors "pop out", but that is the only thing they do. They look childish and unbalanced and prioritizing "function" over form in such a way in the end makes meso look a bit less credible. This is the way of graphical design. Keeping the names just plain white (BW interface) with the badges as they are is definitely better and more "adult". We are not children who need big glowing colorful name tags : )

You can still do function over form in a more balanced way, that doesn't signify such negative decoding - but I don't have the energy to advise on this now, neither do I know what options are available anyway ... But the point being is, that you just introduced big glowing colors, to an otherwise monochrome - violet color scheme and it's off balancing.

Tell me how you really feel! Seriously, I appreciate it. I will work on it.

 

[shartking]

I think it's a great start and I appreciate the effort. It will be interesting to watch it unfold over time.

 

[phenominal34]

Yes, and I'm talking to you here from a standpoint of an industry professional. The coloring scheme doesn't make any sense combined with the meso's monochrome black-white + violet theme. It's an insult to the existing graphical interface which is structurally sound. Yes, the colors "pop out", but that is the only thing they do. They look childish and unbalanced and prioritizing "function" over form in such a way in the end makes meso look a bit less credible. This is the way of graphical design. Keeping the names just plain white (BW interface) with the badges as they are is definitely better and more "adult". We are not children who need big glowing colorful name tags : )

You can still do function over form in a more balanced way, that doesn't signify such negative decoding - but I don't have the energy to advise on this now, neither do I know what options are available anyway ... But the point being is, that you just introduced big glowing colors, to an otherwise monochrome - violet color scheme and it's off balancing.

Point me in the direction of your forum with this many members, going for this many years or even just your forum so we can all see what a top notch non-childlike forum is supposed to be, I’ll be here waiting …

…….




…….




……..

get my point ?

 

[ChunkyMonkey84]

I can't post in some threads, it says (You have insufficient privileges to reply here) is this because of the new ranking system? I've emailed MESO but no reply.

Thanks

... other than the posting problems I like the ranking system.

 

[bornSkinny]

I noticed recently all of a sudden I’m a “rookie”.
Can’t say I agree with a system that slaps that label on me. Probably just an objection to the term and it’s general usage. Like a rookie is a person in their first year of play in sport. Or I’d only say outside of that someone with very little or no experience.
I’ve been on Meso eight years, and been using AAS the whole time. I’ve used at least a dozen vendors of various types found here. I’ve learned to homebrew, and done several brews. I could have swore that I even donated to the anabolic testing thing that I see some people have fancy badges for at some point.

So I don’t see how the label rookie fits at all. Im not new to anything. Not Meso and not AAS use. I think a more fitting term would be like “user” or “member”. Something generic that doesn’t offend me or make me write long post and spend too much time crying about a silly internet label.

 

[Jin23]

Point me in the direction of your forum with this many members, going for this many years or even just your forum so we can all see what a top notch non-childlike forum is supposed to be, I’ll be here waiting …

…….




…….




……..

get my point ?

You are taking this to literally mate and for some reason is now acting offended and aggressive. The "childlike" is a general vector towards which the semiotics of the design are point at. It's not an attack from my end, just a professional opinion.

 

[Millard]

I think it's a great start and I appreciate the effort. It will be interesting to watch it unfold over time.

That's a good way of saying it - it's a start... a start that will have a meaningful impact over time.

 

[Millard]

Point me in the direction of your forum with this many members, going for this many years or even just your forum so we can all see what a top notch non-childlike forum is supposed to be, I’ll be here waiting …

…….




…….




……..

get my point ?

No worries. No offense taken at the feedback. It's a fair opinion. Some of us like shiny things. But that doesn't meaning it's the best approach.

 

[phenominal34]

You are taking this to literally mate and for some reason is now acting offended and aggressive. The "childlike" is a general vector towards which the semiotics of the design are point at. It's not an attack from my end, just a professional opinion.

Fair enough, I still think it could have been said in a friendlier way but I respect your response as well you weren’t bashing now I see that.

 

[Millard]

I can't post in some threads, it says (You have insufficient privileges to reply here) is this because of the new ranking system? I've emailed MESO but no reply.

Thanks

... other than the posting problems I like the ranking system.

I'm still fine-tuning some aspects in the implementation of a second phase.

The first phase was primarily aimed at incentivizing helpful, useful, informative, supportive, and/or inspirational (and perhaps disincentivizing less positive behaviors).

The second phase is aimed at minimizing source influence/manipulation in the ranking system, and disincentivizing new member behavior that can be interpreted as loyalty to sources at the expense of loyalty to the harm reduction community.

Some imminent changes in phase two involve: forfeiting participation in the ranking system for anyone who signs up for the forum with the express purpose of extracting money from MESO members; restricting vendor ability to like/dislike positive/negative reviews; and similarly restricting new member ability to like/dislike vendor posts or any other posts in specific subforums; etc.

It's still an open comment period for anyone who wants.

 

[Millard]

I noticed recently all of a sudden I’m a “rookie”.
Can’t say I agree with a system that slaps that label on me. Probably just an objection to the term and it’s general usage. Like a rookie is a person in their first year of play in sport. Or I’d only say outside of that someone with very little or no experience.
I’ve been on Meso eight years, and been using AAS the whole time. I’ve used at least a dozen vendors of various types found here. I’ve learned to homebrew, and done several brews. I could have swore that I even donated to the anabolic testing thing that I see some people have fancy badges for at some point.

So I don’t see how the label rookie fits at all. Im not new to anything. Not Meso and not AAS use. I think a more fitting term would be like “user” or “member”. Something generic that doesn’t offend me or make me write long post and spend too much time crying about a silly internet label.

No offense intended with the "rookie" title. A more neutral title would be more appropriate. So be it.

 

[Country Club Hero]

Pretty cool new feature. Don’t see how it could be bad in any. Not right right now at least. I like it.

 

[T&H]

I'm still fine-tuning some aspects in the implementation of a second phase.

The first phase was primarily aimed at incentivizing helpful, useful, informative, supportive, and/or inspirational (and perhaps disincentivizing less positive behaviors).

The second phase is aimed at minimizing source influence/manipulation in the ranking system, and disincentivizing new member behavior that can be interpreted as loyalty to sources at the expense of loyalty to the harm reduction community.

Some imminent changes in phase two involve: forfeiting participation in the ranking system for anyone who signs up for the forum with the express purpose of extracting money from MESO members; restricting vendor ability to like/dislike positive/negative reviews; and similarly restricting new member ability to like/dislike vendor posts or any other posts in specific subforums; etc.

It's still an open comment period for anyone who wants.

I think the entire steroid underground forum should have no impact into the equation. Given that some members only hang out in specific source threads, limiting their participation outside of it.

It would be nice for this new system to influence members get involved elsewhere around the forum. Even though it's just a title and not reflective of each members real "status" in regards to training, AAS, and knowledge, it's a nice change from what we had before. Which had zero meaning (member and junior member.)

 

[B Ware]

I was part of the group years ago that voted against labels and statuses when it was done away with. It was nothing to get the “well known” member status and later a “awesome member” status was added but short lived.

The way Millard and Admin describes this new system it sounds great but it’s definitely flawed. Sources here are “veterans” when some haven’t done anything but promote their gear, so how did they put out anything useful that gained them their status? I also see members with a vet status when all they do/did is bash/spread hate and they are already belittling those with a lower rank which was one of the reason the old guard voted all this out. Makes you wonder what deemed them worthy of the status when they are already abusing it. If there is truly a way to incentivize those who post helpful educational post then great. All for it, but that’s not the case, yet.

The old system went off likes. How does this one work? Is someone sitting and reading post and determining if that member’s post are beneficial to the community? To me, one of the most worthy things that should boost a member’s status is promoting harm reduction by purchasing and sharing labs such has hplc or blood work but it seems this system has definitely over looked that.

Anywho, just my thoughts. I’ll fall in line with whatever as I’m just a member who is here for the content. I just hope history isn’t repeating itself.