When we first released the beta version of the reputation system back in August there was a lot of discussion on the topic of how to award points on an article based on the effort put into it. It's impossible to say "an article is worth 100 times a forum posting" because one person may whip up an article in an hour, and another (like yourself) may spend months. We have no "How long did you spend on this article" field in the article wizard, and scoring an article by its length would not be realistic.
The discussions centered around trying to realistically reward authors for their actions, and the only method I could see that was fair was to have the community - those who actually use your articles - award you. If we increase the base award for articles then that applies to all articles, even the crud that gets submitted after final exam time. I, personally, don't think it's fair that an author churning out rubbish has a chance at Gold or Platinum status. It should simply be impossible for them to get it. Having the automated, one-size-fits-all award be modest means this is less likely, since the true value of the article will be in the votes, not the initial post.
This raises another side issue: what if an author spends a great deal of time on an article but it's simply of no value? It could be a long, well formatted article written over 3 months, but it could be simply the worlds most convoluted Hello World app. Our system can't (and should no) make s judgement call on this article. The readers who actually read and use the article should make the call.
Since we're now talking about metaphysical reality, how about giving each CP editor (I mean employees here) 10000 points per month, to award to articles as they see fit? Sort of like "editor's choice" rep points. Presumably, these would be awarded based on actual usefulness and merit.
Too limited, lacks flexibility. I'm sure your editors all have different opinions, and they each see something different in an article, concerning its relative merits. Why not just trust their judgments?
OK, so instead of fixed points, they can vary the points?
Hmm, I dunno. I'm prefer to have those who use the articles vote on them, instead of an editor pinning a start on, say, 5 articles a month while another 20 of equal value go unrewarded. My thinking is that a jaded editor will only award an article if it's really special, and will award big. Editors only get to briefly view all the articles that come in during any given month so the combination of running out of points and missing some deserving ones will mean it's uneven coverage.
Just seems fraught with potential for lots of emails begging to have points awarded to an author's articles.
I know it's complicated, Chris - that's why you get the big bucks.
I can't give you any solid proof for this, but I'm coming to the conclusion that many CP members vote on articles based on whether it's useful to them at the present time. Maybe they think that by voting that way, they can influence what articles get written? I don't know, but I think that the CP editors will have better judgment than these idiots.
I'm sure that CP editors each have different opinions, and letting them award points separately makes sense. They are also more likely to consider the whole package: code, article text, screenshots, and design issues/background.
Yes, it's possible that an editor might overlook some articles, but by forcing the selection of only a single article, you're overlooking a lot of articles. You can still keep the present system's net result: the article with the most editor points is the editor's choice.
What if we could agree upon a number of articles you want awarded each month, and each editor kept putting them on a list and we collectively decided how to award points from a single pool of editors points, thereby balancing each other's jadedness out?
I am only swayed by envelopes filled with tater tots, not e-mails
It's the word 'collectively' that gives me pause. This is your show, but personally I would suspect that group-think begins if you all get in a meeting and try to come to a consensus. All I'm saying is, let each editor get a number of points to award as he/she wants. Or don't you think that would work?