Gone to work for a couple weeks...

General use board for NAFHA-related items.

Moderators: Scott Waters, Don Becker

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, 9:32 pm

We're getting really close, guys :thumb:

Awesome job, Taylor. I can't even begin to understand how you first design the name box and then paste the whole thing into a forum post. I am clearly too old for this stuff :roll:

I really like Taylor's 4-star design, with one row below the other. It has a very clean look, even with all 12 stars.

The 3-star design is only marginally simpler, but has the major drawback that the cutoff points are in some cases too far apart to be motivating. Example: 1 silver stat = 100 entries, 2 silver stars = 300 entries, i.e., you have to triple your entries for the next star. No good IMHO.

I am OK with awarding 1 white star for the first entry. True, it is kinda lame, but Fundad is right in pointing out that for many, the first entry is the hardest. That way, we'd also be able to tell who is a voting member and who isn't. That's kind of convenient.

Robert

Tamara D. McConnell
Posts: 2248
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:42 am

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

Post by Tamara D. McConnell » October 21st, 2011, 3:42 am

I like the stars. We teachers love us some gold stars.
The thank-you notes, not so much. An automatically generated thank-you note reminds me of junk mail...which I see way too much of, anyway.
Kudos to ya'll for the time and effort you are putting into developing this.

User avatar
brick911
Posts: 3488
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:52 am
Location: Morrisville, PA

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

Post by brick911 » October 21st, 2011, 5:10 am

The thank you notes were gonna be posted on the forum too, but personalized. Whoever's job it was (I mentioned the VP doing it for each chapter) would write a very not-generic thank you that would detail the person's new level, and mention a few "notable" entries since the last thank you. eg. Your glass lizard was only the fifth entered from Mobile County. *I have no idea if that's cool or not, but hopefully someone in your chapter would.

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 21st, 2011, 6:44 am

I highly prefer four stars to three stars. It looks much cleaner, it's easier to understand visually, and it gives more levels to achieve.

Nate - the only reason all-time counties is similar to all-time species is because some people have been putting in counties from their entire adult lives of herping. If you're new, though, it'd be extremely difficult to get very high on counties. I've been herping pretty good and have found 180 North American species since 2007, but I only have 53 counties. You can go out on a simple neighborhood herping trip and easily find 5-10 species in a day, but think about how much more work it takes to go out and herp 5-10 counties.

People only catch up on the counties when the numbers get into the hundreds....once you get 200 species it gets more and more difficult to keep adding more, but you can always get out and add more counties. I'd support the same top levels for counties and species only if they were much higher - like 300 or so.

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 21st, 2011, 8:40 am

Look... this is a great idea, and absolutely worth doing, and I'm NOT trying to be a curmudgeon... but if we're posting even one thank you note a week... within a month people will be ignoring them... like stickies... :roll:
Sure... the first star should be fairly easy... but the next 2/3(?) colors should be exponentially harder to get... not just plodding along... getting another star every 200 (or whatever). Value is BASED on rarity... the more stars that are out there, they LESS they will be appreciated, admired, OR envied... it's just human nature... :roll:
We're going with the 'more = more' system... I respectfully suggest (again) that 'Less is More'... make it so that at the higher levels, you actually have to BE A STAR, to get a star. Highly Motivating for the seasoned data-enterer, far less 'thank you notes' hit the front page, making them actually 'noteworthy' (that pun was too easy...pls ignore).
1--> 100... white
101--> 1000... silver
1001--> 10,000... gold
I personally had set my goal for this year at 730 entries... but would redouble my efforts to reach 1001, if it moved me from the Silver to Gold level... and, I got a thank you note for a 'true hallmark'... 1000... :thumb:
And again... 'Multiple Stars' HAS an accepted connotation... it means 'better'... not 'more'. A 5-star Restaurant is not bigger than a 3-star Restaurant... it's BETTER. IMHO, We DO NOT want to imply that any person is 'better' than another... :roll: back ta work :( jim

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 21st, 2011, 9:29 am

As soon as we are close, we get further away.. Ugh..

I do not support a 10 000 entry goal.. (Again for the 500th time we have CONTESTs for the more motivated)

Currently we have people that stopped entering data because they fell out of any chance to WIN..

Set the goals reasonable. See DCoopers response. Keep it simple..

We don't need a star for every 5th entry.. Just enough stars to motivate to the next level..

Set the goals to where 20% to 25 percent of the people can get there with a serious, yet realistic effort.

Not everyone paint curbs or can get out 4 days a week, or even has time to enter data ALL the TIME, like many of us do.

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 21st, 2011, 9:50 am

but if we're posting even one thank you note a week... within a month people will be ignoring them... like stickies...
I see what you mean, Jim. But think of it this way: If it really does happen that way and people are just gobbling up stars like there is no tomorrow and we need to send out several thank-you notes every week, this means the star system IS WORKING, NOT THAT IT IS NOT WORKING. Granted, the thank-you notes may then become obsolete or at least less important, but that's OK. As long as people are motivated to enter data, everything is good. We can always scrap the thank-you notes, if we feel it's just a waste of time because people are earning stars left and right.
alue is BASED on rarity... the more stars that are out there, they LESS they will be appreciated, admired, OR envied... it's just human nature...
That's why we have different levels. It will certainly be rare for anyone who hasn't already entered 500+ records today to earn even one gold star (500 records). Only a handful of people, probably. I suspect that it will also be uncommon for anyone who hasn't already entered 100+ records today to earn one silver star (100 records). Maybe, 10 people. So, I don't think we need to worry about too many stars floating around the forum. Anythin beyond 3 bronze stars (50 records) will likely – and unfortunately – remain rare.
We're going with the 'more = more' system... I respectfully suggest (again) that 'Less is More'... make it so that at the higher levels, you actually have to BE A STAR, to get a star. Highly Motivating for the seasoned data-enterer, far less 'thank you notes' hit the front page, making them actually 'noteworthy' (that pun was too easy...pls ignore).
1--> 100... white
101--> 1000... silver
1001--> 10,000... gold
"

Jim, the star system is not intended to motivate seasoned data-enterers. It's primarily supposed to recognize them for their past efforts. Otherwise, we'd go with much higher milestones for top honors (4 gold stars). Remember that it was Fundad – a seasoned data-enterer - who convicingly argued that 5000 entries as the top threshold is too high, and that 2000 entries should suffice to receive top honors.

Your specific milestones are also so far apart, especially at the top level, that by the end of my first year of herping I may well end up at the same level as Brian Hubbs, Fundad, and Mike Pingleton – one gold star. Now, THAT, is not motivating for the seasoned data-enterer.

At your midlevel, once someone has reached 101 entries and earned a silver star, he'd then have to enter another 899 records to get to the next level, a gold star. Again, not motivating to those who haven't already done so by now.

In terms of 5 stars connoting "better" not "more," I'd say that in case of data enty, more is indeed better. More data entry is, after all, our main goal for the star system (and the thank-you notes).

To reward people for qualitatively superior entries, we are throwing in species and counties, for which people can earn separate stars. So, you can think of entry stars as quantity stars, and species and county stars as quality stars. Note that there are actually two of the latter, and only one of the former. I.e., you can earn more quality stars than quantity stars.

Am I making sense?

Robert

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 21st, 2011, 9:59 am

Brian,
yeah... I seem to keep forgetting that this is specifically for the motivation of the new/lower 25%, and trust that what you accomplished at work, should work here as well.
Carry on as planned. :roll: :thumb: jim

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 21st, 2011, 10:03 am

Set the goals to where 20% to 25 percent of the people can get there with a serious, yet realistic effort.
Why limit ourselves to motivating only 20-25%? That's seems to set the bar very low.

I think we should try to motivate EVERYONE by setting goals everyone can reach. Even if average performance at (close to) 100% participation is low, say, 50 records, that's still more records than average medium performance, say, 100 records, at only 20-25% participation. It depends on the exact numbers, of course. But usually, broad participation yields better quantitative results than narrow participation (e.g., in fundraising).

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 21st, 2011, 10:05 am

Alright we have come a long way since the beginning and I think it would be good to figure out where everyone stands at this point.


Lets go through some of the main points a couple at a time then once we have reached a consensus move on to another couple points. I will try to get all of the options we have narrowed it down to, but let me know if I have left out any others.


1. Number of stars:

Three
Four
Five
Eight


2. Star Levels:

Three levels for each tier - Bronze, Silver, and Gold
One White star for first entry, then three levels for each tier - Bronze, Silver, Gold
One Level for each of the three tiers - Gold, Red, Blue


My vote is:

1. Four Stars
2. Three levels for each tier - Bronze, Silver, Gold


Once we figure out these two things, we can move on to values.

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 21st, 2011, 10:35 am

My vote is:

1. Four Stars
2. Three levels for each tier - Bronze, Silver, Gold
seconded.

User avatar
brick911
Posts: 3488
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 8:52 am
Location: Morrisville, PA

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

Post by brick911 » October 21st, 2011, 10:42 am

thirdeded

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 21st, 2011, 11:27 am

Same here (not sure how to spell fourthedthede or whatever :lol: )

Robert

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 21st, 2011, 11:38 am

RobertH wrote:
Set the goals to where 20% to 25 percent of the people can get there with a serious, yet realistic effort.


Why limit ourselves to motivating only 20-25%? That's seems to set the bar very low.

I think we should try to motivate EVERYONE by setting goals everyone can reach. Even if average performance at (close to) 100% participation is low, say, 50 records, that's still more records than average medium performance, say, 100 records, at only 20-25% participation. It depends on the exact numbers, of course. But usually, broad participation yields better quantitative results than narrow participation (e.g., in fundraising). Robert
Brian said earilier:
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.

Motivating new/lower level enterers will pay greater dividends over time, than trying to re-motivate middle to upper echelon guys... What we really NEED is more folks starting to enter data.
Brian's strategy is proven, and IMO sound. jim
As for the rest... I just bumped my head, and I'm seeing all kinds of rows of stars (and birdies too) flying by... they all look nice... so I'll go with what's agreed upon. :crazyeyes: jim

edits... trying to fix the quotes... :x

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 21st, 2011, 11:45 am

Why limit ourselves to motivating only 20-25%? That's seems to set the bar very low.

We are not trying to motivate 20 to 25% we want that percentage to "make it", and that will motivate the others to get there eventually, or at least strive to get to that "reachable" goal. People like to be a part of something they can reach, but it is often a turn off if they think they could Never get there.


Fundad

Carry on..

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 21st, 2011, 12:03 pm

Ok, so it doesn't look like anyone is vehemently opposed to the four star system with three levels for each tier - Bronze, Silver, Gold. Let's go with that unless anyone has any further objection to those two aspects.


Lets look at values now.


Here is the one that I proposed:

Option 1:

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


Option 2:

Jonathan's proposal kept the values for entries and counties the same as mine, but changed the species to:

Bronze - 5 10 15 25
Silver - 40 55 70 85
Gold - 100 115 130 150



I will stick to my original proposal.

My vote is:

Option 1


If anyone has any other values to propose or if I forgot any please speak up.

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 21st, 2011, 12:08 pm

Option 1

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 21st, 2011, 1:23 pm

I did a quick check on my entry totals... and by Taylor's option I come down on all three categories in the middle of the silver range, whereas by Jonathan's values for species, I barely make silver, and that includes trips from nor cal, to SD, which would suggest that Taylor's scale is more consistent/ in line with the other values.
Option 1, please. :D jim

Tamara D. McConnell
Posts: 2248
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:42 am

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

Post by Tamara D. McConnell » October 21st, 2011, 2:43 pm

Both options are excellent, but I prefer 1.

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 21st, 2011, 3:43 pm

Cool guys :D I think this is going to be really neat and help the cause.

Not everyone has chimed in, but it seems like we are almost ready to call it a wrap on the star system. Again if anyone has any changes or ideas they think would work better with the stars please speak up.


At this point we should probably try to get the the okay from Scott and check with psyon to make sure this is all possible.



We also had some other things to figure out.


Titles:

1. One single title given to someone that maxes out in the star system (ex: Data Guru)
2. Several different titles given out to people for specific achievements (Can be decided on what those achievements are)
3. No titles


I vote:

1. One single title given to someone that maxes out in the star system (ex: Data Guru)

(My only worry is that our avatar area will really start to get pretty busy, not sure how big of a deal that is though. Because of this I could easily change my vote to "no titles")


Then there are the thank you posts/messages. I'm not sure what exactly in involved in them and how we would go about it, so hopefully Robert can head that discussion.

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 21st, 2011, 4:22 pm

How about make both species and counties:

2 4 6 8
10 15 20 25
50 75 100 125

I really dont see the need for 2 scales, that are very similar to eachother (Option 1). Just make them the same, this one falls in the middle of what Brian proposed.

*Edit: Also easier to remember.

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 21st, 2011, 4:44 pm

You guys are doing great dont stop now..

:thumb:

I am good with any of these, close enough for me..

I am on board..

Like Taylor we should check with Don and Scott. :shock:

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 21st, 2011, 5:35 pm

spinifer wrote:How about make both species and counties:

2 4 6 8
10 15 20 25
50 75 100 125

I really dont see the need for 2 scales, that are very similar to eachother (Option 1). Just make them the same, this one falls in the middle of what Brian proposed.

*Edit: Also easier to remember.
I do like the idea of having them the same for convienience, however the number of species really can add up pretty quick. I find it takes much more work to get counties than to get species, but I suppose its all subjective. I've seen 6 different species just right outside my front door.


I think we should see what others think though.



Species Values:

Option 1:

Bronze - 5 10 15 20
Silver - 30 40 50 60
Gold - 80 100 120 140

Option 2:

Bronze - 2 4 6 8
Silver - 10 15 20 25
Gold - 50 75 100 125


My vote:

Option 1

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 21st, 2011, 5:47 pm

True, I can go with either one so long as they are the same.

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 21st, 2011, 6:00 pm

Strong vote for option one. I've hit 25 species in a weekend before.

Something to remember is that it's easier to add species earlier than it is later. Getting your first 25 species in the database is a cinch. Getting the next 25 is a bit tougher. Adding on more once you get to 150 is pretty rough unless you're herping a number of different parts of the country.

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 21st, 2011, 6:03 pm

On titles, I'm fine with any of the three options:

1) No titles

2) One title

3) Three titles (for filling all the bronze stars, all the silver stars, and all the gold 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 21st, 2011, 6:24 pm

Species: Option 1.

Ttitles: Preferably no titles, but I don't really care.

I'll chime in on the thank-you notes later.

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 21st, 2011, 6:37 pm

If someone gets all the gold stars IMO they should have a tittle..

How bout "Data Junkie" :lol:

or
"Data All Star"

Or
Data King

Or
Data Guru

Or
insert thought here..

Thats the goal we want people to reach for in the end

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 21st, 2011, 10:30 pm

Spinifer - I really don't think that the species and the counties should have the same values. I feel like if the counties were the same values as the species from option 1, it would be extremely hard for the average person to get all four gold stars in the county category. It also seems like if the species values were brought down to the values of the counties from option 1, it would be way too easy to get all the stars for the species category.



In regards to titles, what if instead of having an additional thing displayed in our avatar area, we had something like a Hall of Fame similar to what is seen with the Most Contributing Member Award? I do think that anyone that achieves all four gold stars definitely deserves to be recognized...


Has anyone contacted Don or Scott or should I talk to them?

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 22nd, 2011, 9:16 am

Taylor Henry wrote:Spinifer - I really don't think that the species and the counties should have the same values. I feel like if the counties were the same values as the species from option 1, it would be extremely hard for the average person to get all four gold stars in the county category. It also seems like if the species values were brought down to the values of the counties from option 1, it would be way too easy to get all the stars for the species category.
Yeah, I 100% agree. I've got over 400 records this year and one county. That's mainly because I don't have time to drive long distances since I'm working from home on my own business. I'm sure there are others that don't have the means or time to track down over 100 counties. Freakin' San Bernadino county is bigger than many states and if you live in the middle of it, it's 2 hours to a county border. BTW, 10 oreganus yesterday (9 vouchered)... diligently entering my new data :thumb: I still have that pile of May to August stuff hanging over me :(

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 22nd, 2011, 10:31 am

Spinifer - I really don't think that the species and the counties should have the same values. I feel like if the counties were the same values as the species from option 1, it would be extremely hard for the average person to get all four gold stars in the county category. It also seems like if the species values were brought down to the values of the counties from option 1, it would be way too easy to get all the stars for the species category.
Fair enough, species are easier to get than counties. I took a look at the raw data for people who have at least 5 counties (data posted below). The relationship is slightly greater than 2 to 1. (ie, 2 species for every 1 county entered). I drew the line (black) representing a 2 to 1 relationship.

I also added lines for Fundad suggested county and species limits (red lines). Everyone above both lines currently have 4 gold stars for both species and counties. Perhaps these limits are too low, idk?


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 22nd, 2011, 11:01 am

How bout "Data Junkie" :lol:

or
"Data All Star"

Or
Data King

Or
Data Guru

Or
insert thought here..
Alpha-data Dude, Beta-data dude, and Mega-data dude.... :lol: :lol: :lol: Actually... don't care on titles/notes, or the rest...good job everyone... :thumb:

Nate...If you ever by chance do a graph regarding women's breasts...be sure to impart a skew for a more realistic distribution... :crazyeyes: :lol: :lol:

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 22nd, 2011, 5:49 pm

Nate - That's really neat and a great visual. Thanks for putting that together :thumb: There are 1,608 users of the database at this time. The graph shows that 13 or 14 of those users would have all the gold stars in the species category, and 8 of those users would have all the gold stars in the county category. 14 and 8 out of 1,608 is not very many. If anything that would imply that the system is relatively challenging. It is ok that there will be some users that are maxed out to begin with. Those users will be the ones more concerned with the contests and will set a good example.

The most agreed upon values for species and counties as of now:

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


It's not a perfect 2 to 1 ratio, but I think it should be close enough. Let me know what you think.

Shane_TX
Posts: 603
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 5:44 pm
Location: Upper TX Coast

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

Post by Shane_TX » October 22nd, 2011, 7:37 pm

Good job guys. Now, who's going to implement the shiny things and who's going to give it some pause for vote?

Shane

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 22nd, 2011, 8:36 pm

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
I think those numbers will work very well. I say we go with those numbers and move on.

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 22nd, 2011, 8:47 pm

RobertH wrote:I think those numbers will work very well. I say we go with those numbers and move on.
Ok i'm all for moving on :D I just wanted to make sure we didn't ignore Nate's thoughts before making the final decision on the system.

What is the next step?

I brought up the need to talk to Scott and Don.

There is the idea of titles (I also brought up the alternative of a hall of fame).

There is the idea of thank-you posts.

Shane_TX
Posts: 603
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 5:44 pm
Location: Upper TX Coast

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

Post by Shane_TX » October 22nd, 2011, 9:31 pm

I just wanted to make sure we didn't ignore Nate's thoughts before making the final decision on the system.
Who is Nate?

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 22nd, 2011, 10:18 pm

Taylor, it seems that no one has the umph right now to agree (or disagree) on any additional ideas.

So, I suggest we call it a wrap for now and just move forward with implementing the star system we have worked out. We can always take up the other issues - thank-you notes, titles/hall of fame - later.

As I am the one who suggested the thank-you notes, I will start a new thread soon, proposing more specifics. In the meantime, those who are strongly in favor of titles/hall of fame may want to think about the specifics involved in those ideas and then come back and make proposals.

As far as contacting Scott and Don are concerned, why don't you, Taylor, go ahead and do so if you can? You are basically the one who came up with the star system we ended up adopting, and you also seem to understand the technology involved and can have a coherent discussion with Don about the technical details (which I can't say about myself :roll: )

Will that work for you, Taylor? Anyone opposed?

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 22nd, 2011, 10:29 pm

I say "aye" to everything Robert just said.

Shane_TX
Posts: 603
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 5:44 pm
Location: Upper TX Coast

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

Post by Shane_TX » October 22nd, 2011, 10:45 pm

As I am the one who suggested the thank-you notes,
That's the best idea this thread had to offer, IMO. Keep it simple...new species for you and you entered it, thank you.

Shane

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 23rd, 2011, 5:42 am

Shane_TX wrote:
As I am the one who suggested the thank-you notes,
That's the best idea this thread had to offer, IMO. Keep it simple...new species for you and you entered it, thank you.

Shane
Shane,
just out of curiosity, how many 'thank you notes' would you have received this year? Now X that by 1608... :roll: Who's going to write and send all those notes? Acknowledging Hallmarks only, is keeping it 'simple'.... a note for every new species is simple, all right... 'simple-minded'... :roll: You should think more, before you go negative... :| 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 23rd, 2011, 7:35 am

Yes, wrap it up. :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 23rd, 2011, 8:13 am

just out of curiosity, how many 'thank you notes' would you have received this year?
The answer is zero, Jim :lol:

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 23rd, 2011, 9:13 am

Ok sounds good, guys. I'll talk to those two and see what they think.

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 23rd, 2011, 1:28 pm

Great, thanks, Taylor. :)

Shane_TX
Posts: 603
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 5:44 pm
Location: Upper TX Coast

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

Post by Shane_TX » October 24th, 2011, 3:15 pm

Shane,
just out of curiosity, how many 'thank you notes' would you have received this year? Now X that by 1608... Who's going to write and send all those notes? Acknowledging Hallmarks only, is keeping it 'simple'.... a note for every new species is simple, all right... 'simple-minded'... You should think more, before you go negative... jim
Zero for me. I've already found 95% of the stuff around here and focus on the difficult targets (a couple probably don't exist).

Send the e-letters once a year; I thought it was obvious enough to not mention.

Shane

User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4733
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

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

Post by Brian Hubbs » October 25th, 2011, 5:56 pm

I'm fine with whatever you guys come up with...except Brownie Buttons! :x :lol:

Spinifer: Am I the diamond shape on the far right of your chart? 8-)

ADCIII
Posts: 100
Joined: August 26th, 2010, 9:56 am

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

Post by ADCIII » October 25th, 2011, 8:31 pm

Careful Brian, if you get 30+ more counties , you'll be off the chart and we might lose you. :lol: :lol: , Art

User avatar
Brian Hubbs
Posts: 4733
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 10:41 am
Location: "Buy My Books"-land

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

Post by Brian Hubbs » October 26th, 2011, 12:16 am

OK Art, I'll slow down for awhile... :lol:

Shane_TX
Posts: 603
Joined: June 8th, 2010, 5:44 pm
Location: Upper TX Coast

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

Post by Shane_TX » October 27th, 2011, 5:05 pm

Any forward momentum with the star system?

Shane

Post Reply