Gone to work for a couple weeks...

General use board for NAFHA-related items.

Moderators: Scott Waters, Don Becker

User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by Fundad » October 19th, 2011, 10:19 am

One thing to consider: if someone has to be motivated by stars, they are looking for some sort of awknowledgement or bragging rights. One they have achieved all there is to achieve, where will their motivation go? Will they stop entering data? Slow down significantly?
There isn't one person with over 1500 records not entering data regularly. It's not that crowd we should be worried about. IMO. There are contests that include the top data entering people to motivate if they need it.. It's those that don't have a shot at the contests, but contribute some awesome entries that I want to reach...

The flip side is if you make it too hard (like the contests) than there is no motivation for the middle of the road pack, because they will never get there.

Fundad

User avatar
Owen
Posts: 1922
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 11:35 pm
Location: San Jose', Northern Catcrapistan

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by Owen » October 19th, 2011, 10:29 am

Remember when I said I would bow out because I didn't need the motivation? I lied.

Anyway, seems there is already a metric in place that takes into account total records, total counties, total species, county records, YTD county records, YTD personal county records and 25+ species records. It then totals a point score based on those criteria. Why not just use that 'point total' as the measuring points fo assign the levels.

Based on that, now just determine what those levels need to be.

What do I know, I'm just a caveman...

Image

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3634
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by jonathan » October 19th, 2011, 10:30 am

I would rather have three categories, whether it's counties or county records. It's just more fun that way.

I don't know why everyone has to think they can obtain the top level. I think it adds more meaning if people see maxing out as a really, really tough accomplishment, and therefore gives more weight to those who have 4 or 5 stars, but haven't "maxed out" yet either.

If all the "heavy data enterers" are already maxed out on stars within a couple years, then other data enterers might see that and feel like their stars are insignificant unless they've maxed out. If even the heavy data enterers haven't maxed out yet, then those with only 3, 4, 5, or 6 stars might feel even prouder of their accomplishments.

The first star is a goal that everyone can attain right away. 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th stars are pretty attainable too, though it could definitely take most people a number of years to get there. In my system I'd only see the 7th and 8th stars as "unattainable" for some people....and what's wrong with that?

Remember, it'd be nice for this system to still have significance 3 or 4 years from now....otherwise newbies might see that the star system has lost meaning to everyone who has been around for a while.

Taylor Henry
Posts: 273
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:28 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by Taylor Henry » October 19th, 2011, 10:32 am

Fundad - I wasn't trying to say that for the people who already have 1500 + records at this moment. I'm asking if someones motivation starts with the star system, would they continue being motivated after achieving everything? By the time they have reached that point, do you think they will have a changed mindset like ours - that the data is rewarding in and of itself?

If you do think that people that start out motivated by stars will continue to be motivated by stars, why not add a new star when a large amount of people have reached the full achievement status. That way a new wave of motivation can be created. We could start out with the highest star being 2,000, then if we see a need for it add another for 3000 or 4000.

User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by Fundad » October 19th, 2011, 10:37 am

If all the "heavy data enterers" are already maxed out on stars within a couple years, then other data enterers might see that and feel like their stars are insignificant unless they've maxed out
This is my point..Lets get more MAXED out before we raise the bar if needed..

Setting goals to high is "demotivating". I have raised sales over 20% with companies by convincing the c level executives to make goals/bonuses reachable by at least 20 to 25% of the sales force..

Again we have contests to motive those already pounding the database, if motivation is needed for that crowd.

Fundad

User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by Fundad » October 19th, 2011, 10:39 am

undad - I wasn't trying to say that for the people who already have 1500 + records at this moment. I'm asking if someones motivation starts with the star system, would they continue being motivated after achieving everything? By the time they have reached that point, do you think they will have a changed mindset like ours - that the data is rewarding in and of itself?
Yes I do, and furthermore those entering that much data "can compete in the contests". Its those that can't compete in the contest, that brought about this whole conversation that I want to reach.. Having some goal of 8 trillion records to reach the top is less than motivating.

Shouldn't we recognize those that have 2000 records with a title of some kind?

What I try to explain to companies is motivating your top salesman is NOT needed much, because they are already motivated, and setting goals and bonuses based upon motivating him more is kind of silly. Normally they are already operating at a 90 to 100% efficiency rate, much like our top data people. Its getting the middle of the pack salesmen
motivated that produces results.



Fundad

RobertH
Posts: 1834
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:38 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by RobertH » October 19th, 2011, 10:41 am

Anyway, seems there is already a metric in place that takes into account total records, total counties, total species, county records, YTD county records, YTD personal county records and 25+ species records. It then totals a point score based on those criteria. Why not just use that 'point total' as the measuring points fo assign the levels.

Based on that, now just determine what those levels need to be.
Owen, I think this is an excellent idea. I hadn't even thought of that. That would take care of ALL categories and still leave us with a single-row star system.

Anyone see a reason NOT to use the contest points as a basis for awarding stars?

Robert

Taylor Henry
Posts: 273
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:28 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by Taylor Henry » October 19th, 2011, 10:44 am

Fundad wrote:Yes I do, and furthermore those entering that much data "can compete in the contests"
Fundad wrote:This is my point..Lets get more MAXED out before we raise the bar if needed..

Setting goals to high is "demotivating". I have raised sales over 20% with companies by convincing the c level executives to make goals/bonuses reachable by at least 20 to 25% of the sales force..

Again we have contests to motive those already pounding the database, if motivation is needed for that crowd.
.

Ok that is making a lot more sense and I think I am on board with you at this point. Sorry it took a while for it to sink in :lol:

User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by Fundad » October 19th, 2011, 11:32 am

Owen the thing is the Cali contest and scoring was my idea (partially based on scoring set up by Jonathan), with a few different touches a few years ago and not used in any of the other contests or national contests or all time scorecard.

Fundad

RobertH
Posts: 1834
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:38 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by RobertH » October 19th, 2011, 11:42 am

I had no idea the scoring differed from contest to contest.

How is the all-time scorecard (which I have never even seen or heard of) scored? I mean what categories go into it?

Robert

User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by Fundad » October 19th, 2011, 1:59 pm

Thats a good question Robert.

I have asked that the all time scorecard be placed in the sticky or on the NAFHA site, but he is a busy man...

Here it is.

http://www.naherp.com/reports/overall-rankings.php

All time Score Card..

Takes a minute to load.. Its not a "contest" but it does keep track of things..

I would like to see some categories removed to make it load faster. But that is another discussion. LOL

Fundad

BTW I just noticed that I reached 2,000 snake entries Hip Hip hurray.. :D

RobertH
Posts: 1834
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:38 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by RobertH » October 19th, 2011, 2:58 pm

Thanks for posting the link to the overall scoreboard, Brian :thumb:

Well, from what I can tell the scoreboard has all of the categories we were discussing, plus some others (new species, new counties). So, how about if we follow Owen's suggestion and use the total scores of this scoreboard as a basis for awarding stars?

Then, all we'd have to do is fine-tune the cut-off points, which now that Taylor and Brian agree should not be difficult anymore.

We'd also need to decide whether to use Taylor's 4-star system (using 4 different colors) or Jonathan's 8-star system.

Robert

User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by Fundad » October 19th, 2011, 3:34 pm

Well, from what I can tell the scoreboard has all of the categories we were discussing, plus some others (new species, new counties). So, how about if we follow Owen's suggestion and use the total scores of this scoreboard as a basis for awarding stars?
Yeah I thought it was a given we were using the overall totals. Don is going to have to get involved, and I am sure he could set up a PHP for what we need specifically.

Here is the national contest for 2011 if you haven't see it BTW.

Image

Remember if you click on different categories at the top they will change the placement.

Fundad

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3634
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by jonathan » October 19th, 2011, 3:42 pm

"So how come you have three stars?"

"because I got my 300th entry."




"So how come you have three stars?"

"Um, I think its because I got a certain number of entries and species and counties and county records and I think something else too, ummm, not really sure exactly."




You see the difference?

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3634
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by jonathan » October 19th, 2011, 3:45 pm

"Why do you have 5 gold stars, 2 red stars, and 3 blue stars?"

"Because I have entered at least 500 entries, 25 species, and 30 counties into the database."



Even three different categories are way easier to understand, to shoot for, and to explain to others than one set of stars with some complex scoring system.


Also, people who only are good at one thing (lots of species but little time for many entries, or lots of entries but little species diversity where they live) could feel proud for doing really well on at least one set of stars.

RobertH
Posts: 1834
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:38 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by RobertH » October 19th, 2011, 4:26 pm

Good, that makes sense to me, Jonathan. I hadn't thought of it that way. So, as far as I am concerned, we can go with the three-category plan then.

Anyone opposed? Owen?

Robert

User avatar
Owen
Posts: 1922
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 11:35 pm
Location: San Jose', Northern Catcrapistan

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by Owen » October 19th, 2011, 5:59 pm

RobertH wrote:Good, that makes sense to me, Jonathan. I hadn't thought of it that way. So, as far as I am concerned, we can go with the three-category plan then.

Anyone opposed? Owen?

Robert
You talking to me? Remember, I don't need the motivation to enter data. I've given my humble oppinion and have no vested interest in how to score it. I'm the guy who likes to keep it simple. If y'all thinks that Jonathan's 3 criteria provide the most motivation to enter records, then I'm behind it. I just want to keep it productive and avoid all the obtuse pontificating that went on in the 'ethics' thread.

Go for it :thumb:

RobertH
Posts: 1834
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:38 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by RobertH » October 19th, 2011, 6:32 pm

You talking to me? Remember, I don't need the motivation to enter data.
None of us here do, remember? :D

Robert

User avatar
Owen
Posts: 1922
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 11:35 pm
Location: San Jose', Northern Catcrapistan

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by Owen » October 19th, 2011, 6:52 pm

Doh!

User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by Fundad » October 19th, 2011, 7:35 pm

This is to motivate those not involved as much, those involved in this thread are Data Junkies.. :lol: ( and I am proud of each of you) :thumb:

One last time on this. I think its important to have Top End "Data King" "Data Guru" "insert name here" for reachable goals..

"Why are you a "Data Guru" "

Because I have this that and this..

Oh I see, I want to reach that too..


Last time I ll pull for this.. It up to you guys.. If you make it to hard it wont motivate IMHO... The contests aren't motivating the middle of the road guys, because they are out of it. Keep that in mind.

Fundad

Taylor Henry
Posts: 273
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:28 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by Taylor Henry » October 19th, 2011, 7:47 pm

I like the idea of titles. I have seen that type of thing on other forums.

Were you wanting the titles and the stars be completely separate or would it be like set up like a ranking system, e.g. a 4 star data captain would get a promotion to a data general with one star or something?

How you were thinking the titles would work?

RobertH
Posts: 1834
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:38 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by RobertH » October 19th, 2011, 8:34 pm

I am OK with, and even mildly supportive of, the idea of titles, too.

How about something like:

- Junior Data Collector
- Senior Data Collector
- Master Data Collector
- Expert Data Collector
- Guru Data Collector

If we want 8 different titles, we'll have to get really creative. I, for one, can't think of 3 more. But I am sure my highly creative bud in the high desert will help us out here ... :lol:

Robert

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3634
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by jonathan » October 19th, 2011, 8:49 pm

I'm not a huge fan of titles, but if you want them, you could jump a title every two stars instead of on every star.

User avatar
spinifer
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:48 am
Location: Delmarva

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by spinifer » October 19th, 2011, 9:27 pm

Fundad wrote:Personally I think 2,000 should be the top of the line..
I think we need to first decide on a system, then we can determine how many records each star is worth.

To recap:

Robert/Taylor suggested displaying a maximum of 4 stars, with 3 color levels bronze, silver, and gold (12 total achievement levels)

Fundad suggested a max of 5 gold stars (5 total achievement levels)

Joanathan suggested a max of 8 stars (8 total achievement levels)

Any others?

hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by hellihooks » October 20th, 2011, 6:14 am

The 'rotating arm' star could represent each catergory with one star, that goes up to 10,000.... 3 stars total.... just saying... :crazyeyes:

When I had proposed a badge system, as a means of acknowledgement, I had suggested something like 'newby' member, mentor, guide, guru... but everybody said... "We doan neeed no STINKIN Badchesss" :lol: :lol: jim

User avatar
spinifer
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:48 am
Location: Delmarva

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by spinifer » October 20th, 2011, 7:17 am

In Project Noah you can earn patches for entires. http://www.projectnoah.org/faq (scroll down to earning patches)

User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by Fundad » October 20th, 2011, 2:02 pm

I was only talking about having one title if all the top stars have been accumulated.

Fundad

Taylor Henry
Posts: 273
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:28 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by Taylor Henry » October 20th, 2011, 4:21 pm

Alright so let me try to summarize Fundad's vision:

Five Star system:

Entries "Gold"

1=1 Star
100=2 Stars
500=3 Stars
1,000=4 Stars
2,000=5 Stars

Species "Blue"

10=1 Star
25=2 Star
50=3 Star
100=4 Star
150=5 Star

Counties "Red"

2=1 Stars
10=2 Stars
25=3 Stars
50=4 Stars
100=5 Stars

When someone has earned all 5 stars in each of the three categories, a title is given.

Does this look right Fundad?

I am fine with this. It is simple, focused on motivating beginner to middle range data enterers (which is where the main problem is), and can be changed easily (add stars or levels) IF that ever did seem necessary.

User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by Fundad » October 20th, 2011, 5:28 pm

Alright so let me try to summarize Fundad's vision:

Five Star system:

Entries "Gold"

1=1 Star
100=2 Stars
500=3 Stars
1,000=4 Stars
2,000=5 Stars

Species "Blue"

10=1 Star
25=2 Star
50=3 Star
100=4 Star
150=5 Star

Counties "Red"

2=1 Stars
10=2 Stars
25=3 Stars
50=4 Stars
100=5 Stars

When someone has earned all 5 stars in each of the three categories, a title is given.

Does this look right Fundad?

I am fine with this. It is simple, focused on motivating beginner to middle range data enterers (which is where the main problem is), and can be changed easily (add stars or levels) IF that ever did seem necessary.
:beer:

Yeap..

User avatar
Owen
Posts: 1922
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 11:35 pm
Location: San Jose', Northern Catcrapistan

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by Owen » October 20th, 2011, 6:02 pm

I reckon I'll finish the year at 3-2-0... works for me!

RobertH
Posts: 1834
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:38 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by RobertH » October 20th, 2011, 6:14 pm

Taylor, thanks for getting us back on track. I think I speak for all us when I say that we really want to wrap this up soon.

Like Brian and Taylor, I really like the simplicity of the 5-star system. The problem I see with it is that the steps from 0-2000 are, by necessity, large ones. Say, someone has reached 100 records and earned 2 stars. To earn the third star, he'd have to reach 500, i.e., 400 additional records. This will seem out of reach for most, and they won't be motivated to try. The same logic applies at any of the other stages, e.g, between star 1 and 2. A 5-star system simply is not differentiated enough to dangle the next star in front of people, so to speak. I think this is what Jonathan has been trying to tell us all along.

Jonathan's 8-star system would fix the problem of differentiation. But, like others, I feel that it is visually unappealing. If put the stars for each category in two rows, some people would end up with a 6 rows of stars. Frankly, that's just way too many stars to digest for anyone, and I fear they will become meaningless.

To keep the things clear and simple and at the same time have enough differentiation, the best system we have discussed so far is Taylor's white-bronze-silver-gold star system. It keeps the number of stars shown on the screen to just 4 per row, and the different colors allow for the steps to be small enough to be motivating.

Therefore, I suggest that we go with Taylor's basic system. If and when we have agreed to that, we could then tweak the numbers based on our prior discussions. In fact, I'd suggest that we get rid of white stars and work with just three colors, bronze, silver and gold. That should give us plenty of differentiation, as it would give us 12 achievement levels per category (as opposed to only in 5 in Brian's system and 8 in Jonathan's).

Well, whatdaya think?

Robert

User avatar
DCooper
Posts: 203
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:20 am
Location: Marshall County, WV

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by DCooper » October 20th, 2011, 6:25 pm

Taylor Henry wrote:Alright so let me try to summarize Fundad's vision:

Five Star system:

Entries "Gold"

1=1 Star
100=2 Stars
500=3 Stars
1,000=4 Stars
2,000=5 Stars

Species "Blue"

10=1 Star
25=2 Star
50=3 Star
100=4 Star
150=5 Star

Counties "Red"

2=1 Stars
10=2 Stars
25=3 Stars
50=4 Stars
100=5 Stars

When someone has earned all 5 stars in each of the three categories, a title is given.

Does this look right Fundad?

I am fine with this. It is simple, focused on motivating beginner to middle range data enterers (which is where the main problem is), and can be changed easily (add stars or levels) IF that ever did seem necessary.
I've been following along and from the "middle of the road" perspective I'm very much in favor of this. Challenging but doable with some time and effort.

User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by Fundad » October 20th, 2011, 6:32 pm

Robert your going to have to spell it out like Taylor did for mine. His doesn't have county and species, how do we do those?

There are a ton of people with 200-400 records currently FYI..

Fundad

PS DCooper likes my idea.. 8-)

RobertH
Posts: 1834
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:38 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by RobertH » October 20th, 2011, 6:48 pm

Brian, I think we should discuss the issue of what kind of system we want to use (5-star, 8-star, 12-star) separately from the issue of where the cutoff points are.

I'd point out, though, that a more differentiated system (8-star, 12-star) would make it much easier to agree on the cutoff points because they wouldn't be as far as part. With a 5-star system, we simply can't do justice do everyone.

So, hopefully, we can agree to decide - for now - just what KIND of a system we want to use. Once we have done so, we can then get back to the numbers involved. In other words, I am NOT suggesting that we adopt Taylor's 12-star system, including his specific cutoff points, as is. As I indicated above, I think it needs some changes.

Robert

Taylor Henry
Posts: 273
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:28 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by Taylor Henry » October 20th, 2011, 7:00 pm

Yeah that was one issue with doing the bronze, sliver, and gold with all three tiers. The values of each number and color of star would be different in each tier. That may not be that big of a deal, as the star will still be able to tell a person, "hey that guy has found a admirable amount of species (gone to a lot of counties, or entered a lot of data)."

Here is what might work for the three level star system with the values set to max out as close to Fundad's as possible:


Entries:

Bronze - 1 25 50 75

Silver - 100 200 300 400

Gold - 500 1000 1500 2000


Species:

Bronze - 5 10 15 20

Silver - 30 40 50 60

Gold - 80 100 120 140


Counties:

Bronze - 2 4 6 8

Silver - 10 20 30 40

Gold - 50 65 80 95

User avatar
spinifer
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:48 am
Location: Delmarva

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by spinifer » October 20th, 2011, 7:09 pm

RobertH wrote:Brian, I think we should discuss the issue of what kind of system we want to use (5-star, 8-star, 12-star) separately from the issue of where the cutoff points are.

I'd point out, though, that a more differentiated system (8-star, 12-star) would make it much easier to agree on the cutoff points because they wouldn't be as far as part. With a 5-star system, we simply can't do justice do everyone.

So, hopefully, we can agree to decide - for now - just what KIND of a system we want to use. Once we have done so, we can then get back to the numbers involved. In other words, I am NOT suggesting that we adopt Taylor's 12-star system, including his specific cutoff points, as is. As I indicated above, I think it needs some changes.

Robert
I agree with you Robert, I think the more point increments the better for motiviation. Your/Taylor's idea was a way to have the most increments in a nice compact space.
Fundad wrote:Robert your going to have to spell it out like Taylor did for mine. His doesn't have county and species, how do we do those?
I think we are all agreeing that we are going to do county and species in addition to entries, We just need to pick out how many stars to display.

Taylor Henry
Posts: 273
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:28 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by Taylor Henry » October 20th, 2011, 7:16 pm

An 8 star single line system may not be that bad either. You could always separate them in a way that's easier for the eye to count.

Image

User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by Fundad » October 20th, 2011, 7:44 pm

Entries:

Bronze - 1 25 50 75

Silver - 100 200 300 400

Gold - 500 1000 1500 2000


Species:

Bronze - 5 10 15 20

Silver - 30 40 50 60

Gold - 80 100 120 140


Counties:

Bronze - 2 4 6 8

Silver - 10 20 30 40

Gold - 50 65 80 95
This isn't bad, though if you cut it to 3 in each, I think it would be a little simpler.. (that would be Nine steps per category)

Even that is still "a ton" of stars (We will have to create a cheat sheet for all of this)
Fundad

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3634
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by jonathan » October 20th, 2011, 8:00 pm

I'm okay with however many stars we agree on, so let's pick something! :thumb:

If we're going with this latest one, I'd like a little fine-tuning on the numbers....I've seen over 20 species in a day and 130 in 8 months, so I'd bump those up a little bit. Heck, there are already 26 people in the database with at least 100 species entered. How about the following:

5 10 15 25
40 55 70 85
100 115 130 150


I'm fine with the numbers for entries and counties, as long as we hold it open that we might bump everything up at some point in the future....but why not make the last star for counties at an even 100?

hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by hellihooks » October 20th, 2011, 8:02 pm

So... A person could have up to 12 stars.... :shock: hope there's room left for their name... :lol: :lol:
Only thing I actually question... 1 entry=1 star... seriously... :shock: What are we... the Special Olympics... EVERYBODY gets a trophy... :roll:
So if someone enters 1 entry, to maintain their membership for a year... they get a star too. Personally... if someone gave me a star for something THAT simple... I might consider it condescending and insulting...
Make it 10, or even 5... but ONE??? Sheeesh! The rest looks great... :thumb: jim

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3634
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by jonathan » October 20th, 2011, 8:05 pm

I thought that at first too, but the 1 star does distinguish someone who has entered data in the database from someone that hasn't. That's a pretty huge first step.

hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by hellihooks » October 20th, 2011, 8:09 pm

What if they don't even plan on entering data, but want to be a member... they gotta enter at least one entry for that. Giving THEM a star then becomes a joke...On US.
Edit... 5 I could see... for making the effort, and who can't log 5 in one trip?

User avatar
Fundad
Posts: 5721
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 6:11 am
Location: Los Angeles County
Contact:

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by Fundad » October 20th, 2011, 8:09 pm

I thought that at first too, but the 1 star does distinguish someone who has entered data in the database from someone that hasn't. That's a pretty huge first step.
Thats exactly why I put it at one.. How many times have you talked to someone and you don't know if they have ever entered data?

The first step is often the hardest step for some, in trusting the DB and taking the time..

Fundad

What if they don't even plan on entering data, but want to be a member... they gotta enter at least one entry for that. Giving THEM a star then becomes a joke...On US.
We dont have data requirements do we? (officers yes, but not normal members)? If they want a dam star they have to enter something.. JK LOL

hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by hellihooks » October 20th, 2011, 8:19 pm

If they want to vote, they have to have made at least 1 entry:
# NAFHA Active Member
Definition: any NAFHA Member who meets the criteria for voter eligibility
Membership Type: Voting
Requirements: (1) must be a registered NAFHA Member, (2) must have entered at least one record into the HERP Database within the prior year or current year of the date of the vote, poll, or election.
So... a star tells us they are a voting member too... :roll: :lol: :lol: :lol: They should at least have to enter 2... 1 for voting privledges, one for the pretty star... :roll: :lol: :lol: jim

User avatar
jonathan
Posts: 3634
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 7:39 am
Contact:

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by jonathan » October 20th, 2011, 8:19 pm

When the bylaws take effect you'll need to have entered data within the last year to remain a voting member". Perhaps some people will enter one data entry just to get a vote, but it would still be nice to recognize that they are now contributing members of the database. If all they do is sit there with a single star forever, they'll look pretty silly anyway.

Taylor Henry
Posts: 273
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:28 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by Taylor Henry » October 20th, 2011, 8:24 pm

Jim here is a rough idea of a four star system (it doesn't have the colors, so use your imagination :D )

What do you think? Is that too much space?

Image


or we could even do something like this...


Image

hellihooks
Posts: 8025
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:12 am
Location: Hesperia, California.
Contact:

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by hellihooks » October 20th, 2011, 8:30 pm

just my point... guy does nothing all year... but still gets a star, by golly! Kinda cheapens the value of the stars if you hand them out for free.
Taylor... honestly... a little much for me... and I don't even have an avatar pic posted. Then again... took me 2 years to even put 'Hesperia, Ca." there.... but don't mind me, dude... you did a great job and thank you for putting out the effort. :thumb: jim

User avatar
spinifer
Posts: 2388
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:48 am
Location: Delmarva

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by spinifer » October 20th, 2011, 8:37 pm

Fundad wrote:
Entries:

Bronze - 1 25 50 75

Silver - 100 200 300 400

Gold - 500 1000 1500 2000


Species:

Bronze - 5 10 15 20

Silver - 30 40 50 60

Gold - 80 100 120 140


Counties:

Bronze - 2 4 6 8

Silver - 10 20 30 40

Gold - 50 65 80 95
This isn't bad, though if you cut it to 3 in each, I think it would be a little simpler.. (that would be Nine steps per category)

Even that is still "a ton" of stars (We will have to create a cheat sheet for all of this)
Fundad
Total entries is fine with me.

I dont see why we cant have the same scale for counties and species for simplicity. If you look at the all time entries score card species and counties have similar numbers. Plus it cuts the 'cheat sheet' down by 1/3.

Taylor Henry
Posts: 273
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 7:28 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by Taylor Henry » October 20th, 2011, 8:48 pm

If we did a three star we even have the potential to make it one row...

Image

Potential values for Fundad's three star proposal:


Entries:

Bronze - 1 25 50

Silver - 100 300 600

Gold - 1000 1500 2000


Species:

Bronze - 2 5 10

Silver - 20 30 40

Gold - 50 75 100


Counties:

Bronze - 2 5 10

Silver - 20 30 40

Gold - 50 75 100


Let me know if i'm getting annoying or slowing the decision process down at all.

RobertH
Posts: 1834
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:38 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Re: Gone to work for a couple weeks...

Post by RobertH » October 20th, 2011, 9:13 pm

On a different, but related topic - thank-you notes.

I realized that the star-system has, by now, evolved into something more - and better - than I originally had in mind. It can not only serve as a tool to recognize past achievements, but also as a way to motivate future achievement, especially at the bottom and midfield. That is, provided we structure the star system so that everyone has a chance to move up the ladder without undue effort.

That raises the question of what role the thank-you notes play at this point.

Well, what about sending a thank-you note simply whenever ANYONE - regardless of past achievements - earns a new star? The note would both thank the member for his/her contribution to the database AND congratulate them for having earned another star. That would seem a natural thing to do, and have the side effect of focusing the chapter forum's attention on the fact that other members a) are entering data and b) getting stars.

In other words, I think the thank-you note system will be complementary to and enhance the star system.

And to pitch the 12-point system again: The more achievement levels there are, the more thank-you notes go out and the more attention is drawn to the database and the star system.

No need for everyone to get into this topic right now in any detail, I just wanted to lay the groundwork right now. I may not have time for it later, or forget, or both. But it's another thing to keep in mind when deciding which star system would work best.

Robert

Post Reply