I was saying a while back that the removal of the influence score would mean that the top contributors would engage less. That is exactly what has happened. There are some that keep the cogs moving, but for the most part, when I look at blog posts (less of an indicator), and comments, questions and answers (more of an indicator), it's substantially down. Saving Changes...
A different approach they could consider is to come up with a "contribution score" which gives points based on how much someone has contributed over a period of time.
This score would be weighted in favor of higher value content (e.g. webinars, blogs, articles) and by the length and volume of discussion generated in threads.
It could be tracked on both a weekly and an annual basis. The benefit of this would be to see who was a rising "star" and the annual reset would make the top rankings reachable which was not possible with the old influence score (although I got REALLY close to it ?? ).
Kiron
Hi Kiron. I think many of those things were factored into their previous alogorithm weren't they? Saving Changes...
Dear Sante
As you know I did not stop participating because the "ifluence" was removed
Some time ago I created a topic to announce that I was going to stop actively participating in the community and the reasons that led me to do so
Nothing has changed since my topic.
Hi Luis, time will tell. Let's wait and see the new makeover. I recall your reasons for less engagement. Mine is mainly to do with my studies, but that doesn't stop me from having a gripe every now and then or contributing in a positive way. Saving Changes...
I feel though influence factor might be an attraction point for few people to come forward and contribute in terms of poll, discussion, blog articles etc.
But It might not be the best way to engage people to provide useful contributions.
People who really have some topics to share with community will not stop just because they don't have an influence factor attached to it.
May be it would be good if PMI look for possibilities of refactoring the quality of contributions and recognize accordingly.
As Kimberly mentioned let's wait for PMI to come back with better possibilities. :) Saving Changes...
I wonder if it is coincidental, or attributed to online fatigue. I know for myself, my online engagement has significantly dropped. Lots of factors, though, influence is not really one of them. Again, at least from my perspective.
Certainly, there will be an impact, as there is with any change. The curve may be steeper in the beginning and level off as time passes. Long-term, it is hard to ascertain exactly what the impact will be, but hey, the theme of 2020 thus far is the new normal, so it will be interesting to see what that will look like and how it will continue to play out.
I vote for on-line fatigue! I have to recognize that I experienced that in the last weeks, my inbox is full, my social medias are abandoned...
I joined here to learn from others give back and network, I personally don't need an score. Saving Changes...
Anton OosthuizenSenior Business Analyst / Project Manager| Self EmployedPretoria, Gauteng, South Africa
Sorry but if you contribute to get an influencer score or badge then you are contributing for the wrong reason. The absence of something that I considered useless should not have any impact on meaningful contributions. It will, however, have an impact on meaningless contributions in which case it does not really matter. Saving Changes...
Product Operations Program ManagerBarcelona, Cataluña, Spain
I second Kiron's suggestion. It would require a mechanism that rules out short non-value-adding contributions like "Thanks for sharing". Saving Changes...
Thomas WalentaGlobal Project Economy ExpertHackenheim, Germany
Hi Eduard
while I often share your perception about these short contributions, reflecting on it I think the value could be for the author, similar to the vote button (which is not used so often).
It avoids a feeling of being ignored and strengthens an argument. Saving Changes...
Stéphane ParentSelf Employed / Semi-retired| Leader MakerPrince Edward Island, Canada
Comments should not increase the contribution score of the comment writer. It should increase the contribution score of the owner of the discussion, blog, poll, article or webinar it was made against.
...
1 reply by Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
May 25, 2020 2:40 PM
Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
...
It should probably be both. That way a commenter gets a "point" for their comment, and the author of the discussion, blog, poll, article or webinar get a point for every comment. But alas, it's moot now.
Comments should not increase the contribution score of the comment writer. It should increase the contribution score of the owner of the discussion, blog, poll, article or webinar it was made against.
It should probably be both. That way a commenter gets a "point" for their comment, and the author of the discussion, blog, poll, article or webinar get a point for every comment. But alas, it's moot now. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
