We belatedly realized that not including Likes, at some modest level, was a bad idea when evaluating trust level 3 (leader) criteria.
We don’t want the criteria to force people to post, Lurkers can be Leaders … that’s why only 10 topic replies are required in the last 100 days. But a leader certainly should give and receive likes over time, with an emphasis on giving!
hmm… giving out likes isn’t something I do willy nilly and shouldn’t. This effectively would force me to potentially lower my threshold of what deserves a like. Likes shouldn’t be mandated (at least I don’t think it should).
I think this is a big step backwards.
Now receiving likes is an interesting idea. But I’d rather see it as a percentage of your posts in the last 100 days. That would be more meaningful to me. If the leaders aren’t posting quality items any more (and if they are, they are likely getting liked), then it makes sense to not keep them as a leader.
However, the way it is phrased above, it sounds like 20 likes can occur on my old posts (that are outside of 100 days) and it will keep me as a leader. It isn’t based on the posts within the last 100 days.
Correct it is based solely on date the like was cast, not the date of the post it was cast on.
So you can like or get likes on posts from 3 years ago, and they count toward the last 100 days. The only thing that matters is the date the like was created.
That doesn’t mean as much to me as getting 5 likes on posts in the last 100 days though. At least if they get 5 likes in the last 100 days, you can evaluate they are still contributing useful responses/engaging the community. If you are looking beyond that, you are simply saying, what they did over 100 days is still popular.
Also @cpradio you are wayyy over the minimums here for the record
We set the minimums pretty low for a reason… I just feel leaders really should be liking stuff, and getting some nominal amount of likes, on a regular basis. That’s part of leadership, encouraging others and posting content that others think is positive.
Yeah, I figured I probably was, as I like a lot of bugs, but I think it will be interesting to see how that translate on different forums/communities.
I’m slightly playing devils advocate, but I also believe limiting what posts the likes were received on, makes a lot of sense. Because the leader could be riding on stuff they did over a year ago that is being viewed by new members. Just a thought, trying to form a discussion on it
And just to give fair warning, as this is a new added requirement – of our complete list of currently 32 leaders you need to cast / receive a bit more likes to meet the new TL3 thresholds:
I appreciate this change; there have been a few users on my forums who’ve hit trust level 3 without contributing all that much substance. Even they were surprised to have gotten access to the lounge:
Leaders should definitely hit a Like quota before being promoted.
I’d start with that personally, but I believe that is a good idea. It helps identify that the leaders are still creating quality work in the community.
I can appreciate the intent behind this, but I think it should be a lot clearer as to how close you are to being a Leader. I mean, people generally won’t keep track of events for 100 days, so they won’t know if they are becoming Leaders or not, and it can raise confusion among them.
I’m sure that a progress bar approach has been suggested, but I’d really like to see this implemented in some way or the other. Preferably in the Profile page and only to that user and the administrators.
I definitely don’t want my users to know all the specific numbers needed to become a Leader for fear of spamming, but I do agree there should be some way to communicate if a user if close to becoming a Leader or losing their Leader promotion.
What’s being done to make sure users are aware of these magical requirements?
And I don’t mean retro-actively (notifying current leaders), I mean new users.
You say
I suppose that’s reasonable, but how will the discourse software platform communicate this to it’s users?
Because your proposal of coupling trust level with “likes” is kind of invisible to most users, it’s “magical” in that sense and not a convention that I think I’ve seen anywhere else.
How does my mom know that “liking a post” has more significance than just communicating that she likes something?
AFAIK, the whole documentation for trust levels is a topic somewhere here on Meta. Questions about gaining trust levels seem like obvious FAQ entries, if the default FAQ ever gets any Qs.
