New MESO-Rx member ranking system

[Millard]

For example I only need to take a break from forum for sometime in order to get that vet badge too, only thing I don't have is minimum join date, all else considered and compared to other members with such badge, I have more than enough credentials to fit requirements.

No, join date has nothing to do with it. The involvement of join date and post count is trivial in and of itself. It's only comes into play indirectly because members need to post to be helpful and they need to continue to post somewhat regularly to be even more helpful.

I want to discourage anyone from posting just to post so they can increase their post count. The so-called practice of post-whoring is actually penalized by the new algorithm

My advice is just to be respectful and help others any way you can. Don't worry about chasing any status or numbers.

The formula isn't that straightforward anyway with all the different inputs. And sharing the details would only expedite the abuse of the system. I have no doubt people will find ways to manipulate it so I don't think we should make it easy.

Another thing, when member is being awarded vet and above status, imo it should request admin confirmation (not automatically slap on) just for admin to review whether that member is truly a vet or something else, if yes then click accept, if not then click deny. Something like this, since only 5% are vets it shouldn't require a lot of time.

I'll take in under consideration. I could introduce my own biases to override. But why?

 

[Jin23]

Then why do you allow madbret and btcowboy to continuously insult other members who they disagree with. Literally half of their posts are calling people names instead of contributing to the discussion or problem. I’m curious why that is? But I’ve seen other members banned for this.

There is a difference in contributing to a discussion with your personal views and feelings, and continuously insulting other members as a form of belittling others they don’t agree with

Are you serious? Just because you've been called a shill by @MadBret , and by your behaviour in the thread linked below, I don't particularly disagree with him, you are now trying to get him banned? This is low, very low. At least have the balls to tag the users you're speaking against.

Tesofensine by Qingdao Sigma Chemical

The sample Liska sent to Janoshik looks different than what the other guys have received by QSC, doesn’t it? But could be just the same crystals but grinded down to fine powder as well.

thinksteroids.com

 

[Deleted member 134759]

Are you serious? Just because you've been called a shill by @MadBret , and by your behaviour in the thread linked below, I don't particularly disagree with him, you are now trying to get him banned? This is low, very low. At least have the balls to tag the users you're speaking against.

Tesofensine by Qingdao Sigma Chemical

The sample Liska sent to Janoshik looks different than what the other guys have received by QSC, doesn’t it? But could be just the same crystals but grinded down to fine powder as well.

thinksteroids.com

Well if I’m a shill I’m not a very good one. I’ve posted bloodwork, physique pictures, and oil reviews in other vendors threads. Both of them called me a QSC shill but I’ve never posted any of that in QSCs thread. Instead of blindly believing everything someone says you could have just read my post history.

 

[MadBret]

Instead of blindly believing everything someone says you could have just read my post history.

That's what got you labeled as a shill.

 

[Millard]

Then why do you allow madbret and btcowboy to continuously insult other members who they disagree with. Literally half of their posts are calling people names instead of contributing to the discussion or problem. I’m curious why that is? But I’ve seen other members banned for this.

There is a difference in contributing to a discussion with your personal views and feelings, and continuously insulting other members as a form of belittling others they don’t agree with

Members are not banned for doing this in the Steroid Underground subforum. Members have been banned only outside for the Steroid Underground subforum for this type of behavior.

The Steroid Underground subforum is tricky. It is full of agendas. And not all of them involve promoting harm reduction.

There are a lot of members who have valid criticisms of products/services. We want to make it easy for them to bring attention to potential harm in these matters without fear of censorship.

There are a lot of members whose sycophantic behavior shows a disregard for such matters. The explicitly say they don't care.

So tensions flare.

I don't agree with the way @MadBret and @btccowboy are behaving but I fully support and encourage their desire to bring attention to matters of potential relevance to the harm reduction community.

The level of bigotry on the forum has always troubled me. (FFS, there are even academic papers that discuss the level of bigotry, and homophobia on MESO!)

I don't have much tolerance for it on this forum anymore. I don't think it projects a credible voice for the harm reduction community. So let this be notice that MESO will crack down on racial, ethnic, homophobic slurs immediately with warnings that are followed by bans if necessary.

But by all means, I strongly encourage members to continue to call out potential issues related to harm/fraud/etc. Just leave the bigotry at home.

And rest assured that I will continue to find ways to disincentivize new members who choose loyalty to a source over loyalty to the harm reduction community at large.

 

[lukiss96]

I'll take in under consideration. I could introduce my own biases to override. But why?

Biased or not, you have to make certain very important decisions and sometimes it's just a right thing to do and not always by the book.

I just don't trust robots, systems and other automatics I'm old school on that one. I believe human moderation is more necessary than we think when it comes to such things.

In my opinion it's more like a system gives you a member who might just need some re-review if he truly fits the criteria, nothing personal here. I've seen a few examples and I'm sure others too, those type of veterans who mostly post in source threads, but out of respect to this forum I will not mention any members in particular.

 

[Deleted member 134759]

Members are not banned for doing this in the Steroid Underground subforum. Members have been banned only outside for the Steroid Underground subforum for this type of behavior.

The Steroid Underground subforum is tricky. It is full of agendas. And not all of them involve promoting harm reduction.

There are a lot of members who have valid criticisms of products/services. We want to make it easy for them to bring attention to potential harm in these matters without fear of censorship.

There are a lot of members whose sycophantic behavior shows a disregard for such matters. The explicitly say they don't care.

So tensions flare.

I don't agree with the way @MadBret and @btccowboy are behaving but I fully support and encourage their desire to bring attention to matters of potential relevance to the harm reduction community.

The level of bigotry on the forum has always troubled me. (FFS, there are even academic papers that discuss the level of bigotry, and homophobia on MESO!)

I don't have much tolerance for it on this forum anymore. I don't think it projects a credible voice for the harm reduction community. So let this be notice that MESO will crack down on racial, ethnic, homophobic slurs immediately with warnings that are followed by bans if necessary.

But by all means, I strongly encourage members to continue to call out potential issues related to harm/fraud/etc. Just leave the bigotry at home.

And rest assured that I will continue to find ways to disincentivize new members who choose loyalty to a source over loyalty to the harm reduction community at large.

In my opinion there is a difference in contributing your opinion and just name calling. The latter serves no purpose other than to bully other members. Im not sure why this is prohibited in the rest of the forum, But not the underground. Im not talking about someone calling someone a shill, That is an opinion. Im talking about insulting and name calling. This contributes nothing to the forum or the discussion. It only serves to belittle and bully others when they cannot contribute to the discussion at hand.

Just my two cents. I realize this is not my forum nor my decision. Appreciate your reply though!

 

[Millard]

this are just some broad ideas and the % thing, I have no idea what it really means in terms of the algorithm currently used. But what is clear is that some categories should use different criteria altogether then others.

First, thank you for the thought and time you put into sharing this.

Next, I think you (along with @bornSkinny) have made me recognize the importance of semantics. I admittedly didn't give much thought to the labels as it just representative a natural progression. I was more concerned about creating a balanced distribution among the groups.

I've previously changed the "Rookie" to "Member". I've come around to seeing what you mean with the "Veteran" designation and have changed it from "Veteran" --> "Well-known Member".

As far as your recommendations, which in sum are:

Lower % "Newbies" with quicker advancement thereby increasing % "Members".

Make it harder to advance to "Well-known Member" and easier to advance to "Elite" category.

The former seems like a good idea. The latter will basically decimate the WKM distribution.

As far "trusted members" and manually awarding titles, this is probably a no-go for me. I can go into more detail as to why at a later date. But for now, I will say the unique aspects of this forum involving its connection the underground make it ripe for the abuse of awarded trust and statuses for purposes in which do not want to be involved.

 

[Millard]

Biased or not, you have to make certain very important decisions and sometimes it's just a right thing to do and not always by the book.

I just don't trust robots, systems and other automatics I'm old school on that one. I believe human moderation is more necessary than we think when it comes to such things.

In my opinion it's more like a system gives you a member who might just need some re-review if he truly fits the criteria, nothing personal here. I've seen a few examples and I'm sure others too, those type of veterans who mostly post in source threads, but out of respect to this forum I will not mention any members in particular.

I'd still prefer incentives and disincentives to guide behavior. It certainly would be easier if we created a blank slate to see what would happen with the new algorithm. As it is, the algorithm reflects a relic of the past which utilized the old incentives.

As far as your latter example, @T&H suggested deactivating the likes/reaction system for all source threads. This isn't off the table. Or something along those lines.

 

[Millard]

In my opinion there is a difference in contributing your opinion and just name calling. The latter serves no purpose other than to bully other members. Im not sure why this is prohibited in the rest of the forum, But not the underground. Im not talking about someone calling someone a shill, That is an opinion. Im talking about insulting and name calling. This contributes nothing to the forum or the discussion. It only serves to belittle and bully others when they cannot contribute to the discussion at hand.

Just my two cents. I realize this is not my forum nor my decision. Appreciate your reply though!

I don't necessarily disagree with you. In fact, I think you are right. There are other considerations at play as well. And here it is:

I want members to feel completely free to call out out any and every source for any suspected fraudulent/deceptive practices/behaviors/products that could potentially harm consumers.

It is REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT that members are encouraged to hold sources accountable with minimal restrictions. It is one of if not the most important driving principles behind the moderation decisions.

This means considerable discretion is used when moderating the Steroid Underground subforum. Behaviors that are not permitted in other subforums are given more leeway in Steroid Underground. MESO allows most things to "play out".

There are still limits. For example, these limits include real or imagined threats of violence, flooding the thread with unrelated or duplicate or pornographic content, etc, in order to make the thread unreadable i.e. "bury the thread". And now, racial/ethnic slurs, etc.

As far as personal attacks and insults are concerned, ad hominem attacks pervade the Steroid Underground. The outright banning of individuals who engage in ad hominems while attempting to hold sources accountable could have a stifling effect on the criticism of sources.

This would happen in spite of the fact members are still free to leave negative feedback/opinions/reviews/criticism.

It could create the outward perception that this type of speech is banned even though it is not.

This perception could further be promoted by any individuals (who may be banned for any violations related to insults/harassment/stalking/biogtry/racism) that promote the false narrative that they were banned for "calling out a source" rather than accept personal responsibility for their unacceptable behavior.

There are more effective ways to hold sources accountable than ad hominem attacks. I wish more members would choose them.

Maybe we can work on that later.

But for now, my focus is more on doing something about the large number of new members who gravitate towards a single source thread, camp out, and repeatedly promote/praise the source while defending the source against, and/or deflecting. seemingly all criticisms.

I don't think most of them consider themselves shills or intend to be shills. But for whatever reason(s), including the polarizing effects of member personal attacks that put them on the defensive, they are being pushed in that direction.

 

[Jin23]

As far "trusted members" and manually awarding titles, this is probably a no-go for me. I can go into more detail as to why at a later date. But for now, I will say the unique aspects of this forum involving its connection the underground make it ripe for the abuse of awarded trust and statuses for purposes in which do not want to be involved.

Ok, fair enough.

Make it harder to advance to "Well-known Member" and easier to advance to "Elite" category.

The former seems like a good idea.

Hm, but if you make it easier to advance to elite, wouldn't that make the "Well-known Member" kinda a short, transient place? And you'd end up with a lot more Elites? I'm having a hard time imagining this, maybe it can work out as you imagined, idk ...

Yeah, semantics play a big role! It would be different if you just had Level 1 through 10 members ... : )

 

[Jin23]

Well if I’m a shill I’m not a very good one. I’ve posted bloodwork, physique pictures, and oil reviews in other vendors threads. Both of them called me a QSC shill but I’ve never posted any of that in QSCs thread. Instead of blindly believing everything someone says you could have just read my post history.

I mean, I'm not actually that interested, I just randomly stumbled upon that thread and your behavior was structurally vectorizing towards the general direction of Shilling's Town. QSC is very obviously spin doctoring, it's very clear but it might not be clear to you, so idk how much of it you're doing on purpose and how much out of some other reasons like ignorance - but honestly I don't really care.

 

[Millard]

Ok, fair enough.



Hm, but if you make it easier to advance to elite, wouldn't that make the "Well-known Member" kinda a short, transient place? And you'd end up with a lot more Elites? I'm having a hard time imagining this, maybe it can work out as you imagined, idk ...

Yeah, semantics play a big role! It would be different if you just had Level 1 through 10 members ... : )

Let's separate the two and remove the semantics from the equation for the moment. Let's say there are categories 1 through 7. Let's further establish that categories 5-7 will be almost impossible for anyone to reach - maybe even unnecessary. That leaves us with 4 meaningful categories.

What percentage should be in each category?

Now, it's essentially ~80%, ~15%, ~5%, ~1%

I'm on board with moving in the direction of 65% / 30% on the first two but not so much goin in the direction of 3% / 2% on the last two

 

[Millard]

Is it possible to see how would the numbers look if members who have less than 30 posts / post less than one post a month be excluded?

It might also be worth considering excluding inactive accounts ( < 1 post / mo ).

What do you think?

There's no obvious way for me to access the data with that specificity.

Accounts that have been completely inactive for a certain period of time can be excluded where inactivity is determined by last login (and not by last post).

I don't think accounts that post infrequently (such as you describe i.e. < 1 post / month) can be.

 

[Jin23]

Let's separate the two and remove the semantics from the equation for the moment. Let's say there are categories 1 through 7. Let's further establish that categories 5-7 will be almost impossible for anyone to reach - maybe even unnecessary. That leaves us with 4 meaningful categories.

What percentage should be in each category?

Now, it's essentially ~80%, ~15%, ~5%, ~1%

I'm on board with moving in the direction of 65% / 30% on the first two but not so much goin in the direction of 3% / 2% on the last two

I'm not completely sure why you'd want only 4 "active" categories? The problems is in inadequate delineation of "high end" users which makes them fall in the same category. This is why you need to increase "resolution" in the higher end, not decrease it. If I am understanding you correctly here?

However, it's hard to advise on anything substantial, based only on this %, as it's not clear how the algorithm works and how this percentages are actually achieved.

Putting that aside and using some imagination on what the percentages actually mean, I do agree that 80% and 15% on the first two isn't adequate. Newbies should be phased out more quickly and there should be more "members". But the members then shouldn't be a permanent category so yes, I think the 5% should be lowered and then the 4th category should be harder to achieve but still not impossible as you've got 7 categories left so that wouldn't make much sense.

 

[mawen]

I can't reply to source threads when I have issues, frustrating

 

[Millard]

I'm not completely sure why you'd want only 4 "active" categories? The problems is in inadequate delineation of "high end" users which makes them fall in the same category. This is why you need to increase "resolution" in the higher end, not decrease it. If I am understanding you correctly here?

Do we really need to further delineate "high end" users?

I think you are more concerned with the top 5% and the differences among them.

Whereas I'm more concerned about the other end of the distribution - it's really the whole point of reintroducing the ranking system.

Obviously, there will be huge differences among users in the 5% forum users because it is a very long-tailed distribution. This is expected.

I know there are people in the real world 5% who squabble over things like net worth. The 5% ranges from people with a bit less than $1M to those with over $200B.

I guess some of those people want to make a big deal over how much more $100M is over $50M and $50M over $10M, etc. But to most everyone else, they are all fucking rich!

Maybe we can just sit back and evaluate the 5% based on our merit rather than try to fine-tune the resolution of high-end users. Because there is no currently available metric that can directly evaluate the actual content of the posts.

 

[Millard]

I can't reply to source threads when I have issues, frustrating

Are you sure? You should be after you posted your initial message(s) /\

The new ranking system encourages members to make an introductory post (as per our instruction when approving member registration) before they are granted posting privileges.

It's sorta the algorithmic way of saying be polite and introduce yourself and tell us why you joined.

 

[mawen]

Are you sure? You should be after you posted your initial message(s) /\

The new ranking system encourages members to make an introductory post (as per our instruction when approving member registration) before they are granted posting privileges.

It's sorta the algorithmic way of saying be polite and introduce yourself and tell us why you joined.

You have insufficient privileges to reply here.

I just did the intro thread now though, hopefully it gives me auth to reply to source thread soon..

 

[TTren]

You have insufficient privileges to reply here.

I just did the intro thread now though, hopefully it gives me auth to reply to source thread soon..

Me too