Proposed change to "shares for posting"

Should we change the current "shares for posting" rewards as proposed?

Poll ended at Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:05 pm

Yes, change to the proposed system
12
36%
No, leave it as it is
21
64%
 
Total votes: 33

richard@imutual
Posts: 4250
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 10:19 am
Sharing: 3stars.png
Has thanked: 1751 times
Been thanked: 3462 times
Contact:

Proposed change to "shares for posting"

Post by richard@imutual » Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:15 am

You may be aware that, a while back, we introduced a shares incentive for posting to the forum. In summary, you could earn 1 share per day if you started a new topic, and a further 1 share for posting at least one reply. Some of you have expressed concern that, by giving out shares in this way, it risks devaluing the worth of shares in the eyes of current and potential members.

It's a valid concern but I would first make the following observations:
- The principle on which we issue shares is that it should be for activity that benefits (or potentially benefits) the company
- Having an active forum most certainly benefits the company; it helps to build a core 'community' which is essential for the future growth and success of imutual
- The share incentive, if you agree that it influences people to post, has clearly been a major success. As evidenced by the amount of time spent by members on the forums and the record number of posts
- I see no evidence of there being a large number of 'worthless' posts as a result of this initiative.
- The maximum daily reward is only 2 shares. Compare that with 100 shares for a single sign-up via your referral link. If people were motivated to post purely by shares, they could spend their time more effectively on other methods

Having said all that, I think the forum is now probably mature enough for us to consider amending this reward scheme, with emphasis on quality rather than quantity of posts. The obvious measure to use would be how many times a poster gets thanked; I have reservations about whether this will create a "You thank me and I'll thank you" situation but I suggest we try it and see.

My proposed system is as follows:

Each member can receive a reward of up to 50 shares per month, based on thanks received for posts they have made (this is in addition to "Posts of the month" awards). You get 1 share for every member who thanks you (during the calendar month) BUT can only receive 1 share per post . So to receive the maximum of 50 shares, you need to get thanked by 50 different people for 50 different posts.
Example 1:

Kev (fictitious name, and resemblance to real people is purely coincidental etc etc) makes four posts, A, B, C and D

Post A is thanked by Bruce, Raich and Superman
Post B is thanked by Bruce and Raich
Post C is thanked by Bruce, Raich and Planteria
Post D receives no thanks

He has been thanked by 4 different people but only across 3 different posts. Therefore, he receives 3 shares
Example 2:

Garindan makes one post, which is thanked by 20 different people. He receives 1 share
The above example sounds harsh, but the solution is to make more than one good post a month :twisted: Note that in the above extreme scenario, his one post must also stand a good chance of winning a prize in "Post of the month"

The idea of capping rewards based on unique posts AND unique thankers is:
- To encourage members to post multiple quality posts, rather than relying on a single 'blockbuster' (already recognised in POTM)
- To minimise abuse of the system, where the same posters keep thanking each other

If people are reasonably happy with the above, I suggest we start using it from 1 February

I'm also intending to introduce share rewards for posting deals and using the "quick share links", but that will be the subject of a separate post

The only other aspect I wondered about is whether to give some kind of incentive for 'thanking' :?

Thoughts please :?


**** UPDATE ****
Some figures to help put the current and proposed systems in context. During December, members earned a total of 142,076 shares. The percentage of these shares that were earned for posting was 0.84% (1188).

If we had operated the proposed system, the number of shares awarded for posting would have been reduced from 1188 to 394 (0.28%)
Thanked by: expressman33

dorisifa
Posts: 754
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 10:23 pm
Has thanked: 285 times
Been thanked: 815 times
Contact:

Re: Proposed change to "shares for posting"

Post by dorisifa » Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:37 am

I don't really understand. But as it's only shares it doesn't really matter.
Thanked by: Oggy
But apart from that Mrs Lincoln how was the play?

Oggy
Posts: 789
Joined: Thu Jul 01, 2010 7:28 pm
Has thanked: 343 times
Been thanked: 307 times
Contact:

Re: Proposed change to "shares for posting"

Post by Oggy » Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:38 am

Looks OK to me.
Thanked by: dorisifa

blythburgh
Posts: 14735
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 7:14 pm
Location: The Far East
Has thanked: 26504 times
Been thanked: 5416 times
Contact:

Re: Proposed change to "shares for posting"

Post by blythburgh » Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:31 pm

I find the idea of "thanks" getting a reward a pointless one. OK I do not consider the shares to be more than pie in the sky but live in hope. A bit like buying a lottery ticket, you hope but,in truth, do not expect to be rich.
Thanked by: dorisifa
Keep smiling because the light at the end of someone's tunnel may be you, Ron Cheneler

Kalpesh
Posts: 333
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 12:29 am
Has thanked: 88 times
Been thanked: 50 times
Contact:

Re: Proposed change to "shares for posting"

Post by Kalpesh » Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:33 pm

I personally like the old way of gaining shares to be honest.
Thanked by: rayf, dorisifa

William Joseph1
Posts: 10610
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 8:14 pm
Location: The Isle of Dreams
Has thanked: 2168 times
Been thanked: 5088 times
Contact:

Re: Proposed change to "shares for posting"

Post by William Joseph1 » Tue Jan 24, 2012 2:45 pm

This seems to me to be fair. Unlike Richard I do think there was an element of posting for shares and never mind the quality. This I think will encourage better posts. Although the overall number may go down. I think that will be acceptable if the quality increases.
Thanked by: dorisifa

aupt
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:04 am
Has thanked: 49 times
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

Re: Proposed change to "shares for posting"

Post by aupt » Tue Jan 24, 2012 2:49 pm

It seems a reasonable idea to me. Presumably we can see how it works and then it can be reviewed as and when necessary.
Thanked by: dorisifa

disneyfan
Posts: 414
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:37 pm
Has thanked: 227 times
Been thanked: 116 times
Contact:

Re: Proposed change to "shares for posting"

Post by disneyfan » Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:13 pm

Doesn't bother me either way - I only post if I have something to say and I only thank if I feel it is justified - I don't expect shares for doing this.
Thanked by: dorisifa, Squire

uglysteve
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 5:20 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 64 times
Contact:

Re: Proposed change to "shares for posting"

Post by uglysteve » Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:17 pm

richard@imutual wrote:The idea of capping rewards based on unique posts AND unique thankers is:
- To encourage members to post multiple quality posts, rather than relying on a single 'blockbuster' (already recognised in POTM)
- To minimise abuse of the system, where the same posters keep thanking each other
I don't really agree:

1 -the 2nd 'best' post of the month gets a reward disproportionately lower than one post with one thanks. Seems grossly unfair and removes entirely the incentive
2 - Abuse of the system by reciprocal thanking would be trivial to detect, why not just do that?

Why not make it 1 share per unique 'thanker' per month, up to 50, and weed out the cheats and terminate them (or their accounts)
Thanked by: dorisifa

rayf
Posts: 1493
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 8:50 pm
Has thanked: 374 times
Been thanked: 602 times
Contact:

Re: Proposed change to "shares for posting"

Post by rayf » Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:34 pm

Kalpesh wrote:I personally like the old way of gaining shares to be honest.
I'm happy with it as it is - seems to work well. :)
Thanked by: dorisifa

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests