yes, I have missed you being omnipresent these last couple of days.
I understand and agree with most of what you say on rep points and votes.
However, offering instant points will influence instantaneous behavior.
FYI: messages accumulate votes over time too; I have quite a collection of standard replies, and every time a fitting question pops up, I dump a standard reply and collect votes on that!
I wish to write articles and I won't stop (I have several in the works); all I said is I won't publish them on CodeProject right now as it is too much pain, I would rather spend my time on content rather than on fighting the system.
Changing the gold requirement to a silver one (for avoiding the approval list) would solve it for me, not for people who have even fewer author points (fewer articles) so far. The fundamental problem here is you try and use rep points as a quality filter, however rep points are to a large extent quantitative, they reward the number of articles; yes they also reward votes, hence quality, but that only works over time, as you just pointed out; so a recent author has a choice of creating more articles and going through the painful process for each of them, or just sit and wait for votes until he reaches the right color, then write more. That can not be what you intended? IMO you want something that measures quality from the start. Here is my suggestion:
needNoApproval=articleCount>=5 || (averageVote>=4.0 && coloredVoteCountOverall>=5)
where coloredVoteCountOverall could be the total number of unweighted up-votes by silver/gold/platinum authors and authorities (i.e. excluding new accounts and backroom debators).
The formula means a single article, appreciated by the community, is enough to open the gates; and getting 5 articles published is also good enough no matter their rating (you might bring in a rejection ratio here, however I'm not sure it is available nor necessary).
Please remember, you want to stimulate article writing, and the approval scheme got introduced to avoid the real crap. Your sentence said something like "...if the author made an effort, by all means, approve". IMO your current system does not really fit the original goals.
Chris Maunder wrote:We've had the opposite complaint: too many approvers so that the only articles an approver sees are the poor ones
We have had this conversation before. It still is my opinion that your approval scheme is completely flawed. You want to discourage and hide bad articles, and the only immediate tool you offer is an approval button. Well, if one uses that, the better articles disappear from the list and the lesser ones remain. Normally, the quality assurance department has a "reject" stamp, yours has the opposite.
Due to this situation, I have chosen to install AdBlocker and hide the articles-needing-approval list from my CP home page, as that list is tempting but always ended in a disappointing waste of time lacking the right tools. Give me a reasonable way to judge entries, and I will be happy to participate though.
IMO the major problem with unrighteous approvals is caused by historic golds. All it took to get approved was a single old account willing to click the button. I suggest you increase the number of approvers, install a voting system, and make sure not a single person (except maybe platinum) is capable of approving or disapproving. Hence my 10-point suggestion.