You can allow a group to run this Data Explorer query for themselves to see their progress:
I think you could add a link to the query to user profiles with a component like Custom Components -- add button or text at any plugin outlet
2 Likes
Yeah though I think being transparent about underlying logic and goals doesn’t need to translate to literally showing all the numbers. I’d see trust level progression engagement more in this direction:
So we could show a rough estimation of progress (probably wouldn’t even need to be %). And conditional tips depending on level and metrics (without stating the actual numbers).
The leader level at the end doesn’t match the current logic (where leader is manually assigned). But to me that progression scale never made proper sense, it should just be one automatic scale, and manually assigned access levels apart.
11 Likes
I’m not certain I’d want progress displayed – or even the existence of trust levels made more visible than it is. I think I’m okay with my most active users discovering the concept when they receive a little surprise.
But if it was going to be an option, this looks like a really nice way to go about it. Excellent work.
3 Likes
As a user: yes, I’ve been wanting this for a while. Losing TL3 and not knowing why is the worst feeling and having something to combat that would be great. Even if it’s something like a smaller nudge (“Make sure to be reading more topics and engaging with more replies!”) it would be a great help
As a site owner: Maybe the exact numbers should be hidden? But I’m not sure the data is sensitive enough to care (I’m pretty sure you can check by peeking in the console anyways) but even if we don’t show the exact numbers like I suggested I think this could still be beneficial
3 Likes
Yeah I do like the pattern, but I should also point out that it’s really just a very quick exploration using a generative model. The underlying pattern is from Duolingo. So they certainly put a lot of work into this, it’s a core driver of the app:
I was just referencing that pattern and giving a rather simple instruction in Figma Make:
Generate a trust level progression indicator for Discourse. Trust levels are explained in Understanding Discourse Trust Levels
The indicator should follow the attached design. Give tips about what’s missing to move forward without revealing the exact metrics. E.g. “Spread the love”, “Stay curious and read”, “Share your knowledge”.
And that more or less produced the cards I shared above. I think it’s great that we can quickly explore a design direction like this. On the other hand the investment can be a bit misleading because it often looks so polished, when it’s really just a quick exploration. In this case just this idea how it could look if we not only stated some numbers, but visualized the overall trust level progression.
1 Like
Just a thought, if the indication is sent on demotion - when a person loses TL3 - that means it goes to someone who was previously a Regular. So it somewhat removes the problem of people gaming the ratings to get TL3, but it helps people who have semi-mysteriously lost TL3.
For myself I think I prefer to make TL3 more sticky.
3 Likes
Personally I find myself believing UTL4 is just ultimately better designed. I’d love to hear from the team whether UTL3 was specifically envisaged as a bridge between UTL2 and UTL4 because - and I sincerely mean no disrespect - it feels a bit like a compromise-by-design or perhaps designed-by-committee in ways that designated half-way houses often can.
As something that gates what I generally think of as being ‘soft’ moderation tools, I can absolutely appreciate the desire to avoid gamification there - you don’t want people “earning” those and then potentially running amok. But, on the other hand - I found myself really swayed by @joebuhlig’s point regarding people becoming invested in Lounge topics. I also really found @Ed_S’s point on “demoting” valued community members compelling.
So I can understand the role that UTL2 is trying to fill, and the niche that UTL4 is trying to serve. But UTL3 feels awkward by comparison - as if there was a perceived overly large gulf between UTL2 and UTL4 and so something was slotted in accordingly. Some of the elements of UTL4’s moderation capacity, but specifically a small number of ‘safe’ ones. Maintaining UTL2’s automated nature to avoid overly burdening staff members with promote-me-above-UTL2 requests.
I find myself a bit wary of UTL3, truth be told. I’d personally prefer to make a conscious decision when it comes to granting any access to moderation tools whatsoever, meanwhile I’m not sure valued cornerstones of the community returning from a holiday, a death in the family, or a hospital visit to hear they were demoted in their absence is really the Discourse forum package at its best.
1 Like
TL3 is not just meant to bridge the wide gap between TL2 and TL4, but also to slowly allow more active TL2s to get more responsibility in managing the community, e.g. retagging or recategorizing topics. Note that TL3 permissions are few compared to TL4.
I’ve been on forums where getting TL3 is a means of being promoted to TL4. Since one is active, shows responsibility in using the slightly more powerful tools given to them, the admins would be more comfortable to promote the best TL3s to be TL4s. Think about it this way: if there was no TL3s, how would you sieve off the best few to promote?
2 Likes
I feel like we are essentially agreed.
Because I do recognise why there is something between UTL2 and UTL4 - but arguing the gap between them is too large really does nothing to support the existing design of UTL3.
I think if I was designing a notional UTL3;
- It would include access to the Lounge
- It would be possible to lose UTL3 but only through sustained inactivity
- It would not include any moderation functionality of any kind
To answer your question - while I’ve never been hugely involved in Wikipedia itself, I’ve accrued tens of thousands of edits over the years on wikis each of which resolve around a single game. And we decide, as communities, who should be an Administrator and who should be a Bureaucrat by talking - discussing policies; discussing previous scenarios in which hard lessons were learned; discussing cases believed to be too borderline to have a single true ‘correct’ answer and which side a prospective community member would come down on and why.
I know Discourse is a piece of software, and there can be a temptation to give a piece of software functionality to solve every perceived problem. But it’s also a community platform for free-flowing exchanges of ideas, opinions, and information. There’s something wrong if you need the forum software package to tell you which community members you trust and which you don’t.
1 Like
I am not sure I understand these points. There is no longer a lounge category by default. But when it existed, the default security settings were viewing and posting for TL3 and up. So TL3s were included in the lounge. You can still create such a category, and if you have an existing lounge category, you can also change who is able to access it.
Which moderation functionality do you mean? Most permissions are controlled by site settings. So if you don’t want users with TL3 to edit topics (improve titles, tag, recategorize), then you can remove that group from the edit_all_topics site setting.
I wouldn’t phrase it that the software decides who you can trust. For me, trust levels are an automated system granting the user more permissions after showing a certain interest in the forum. The trust they earn is about them not abusing the permissions they receive—for example, to post spam.
I like the image Jono Bacon used in his YouTube video about Discourse trust levels: Think of a new member in your community like someone ringing at your door. You don’t know that person yet, so you don’t know whether they want to become your friend or sell something to you. So before letting them further into your house, you want to get to know them better. In the same way, you don’t know whether a new member of your community is a spammer, a troll, or a good person. That’s why it makes sense to limit the permissions of what new members are allowed to do. And with more than a few users, you need an automated process to remove those limitations.
Also, I feel like your posts might deserve their own topic because they seem to be about trust level 3 in general, not about showing the progress to users.
3 Likes
Going back to the original, original request of having some progress indicator, I am attempting this with a plugin; still in its early stages. No promises, but I hope it works out 
.
4 Likes
Having made very good progress in terms of the plugin, I encountered a tiny problem: what if the user was locked at TL2? Would it then make sense to show ‘You qualify for TL3’, however, the user can’t actually get it? Do admins want users to know if they are locked at a TL? I’m curious to know what people think.
2 Likes
Locking a user at a certain trust level, to me, is a way of making sure they don’t ‘game’ the trust level requirements usually because they have already shown worrisome behavior so I can see reasons to not inform them of their progress or lack of ability to be promoted or at least make it an option.
3 Likes