I think that @spoon and @cjd are talking about the same thing, but just different ways of going about measuring it. For the record, we ARE working on a system that will give people a distinction of being an "Expert" or "Top Contributor" (not sure the terminology yet) in a certain category. In order to make this a democratic process though, I think that the only fair way to determine a Top Contributor would be to see how many Best Answers they have in a certain area.So, if Dr. Matt had the most best answers in Psychology, then he would be the top contributor in that category, while Darcy may be the top in Writing, etc. Just providing a lot of answers and activity wouldn't be enough - it would have to be GOOD activity that is recognized as such.
And since we can't (or shouldn't) just appoint people to be top contributors, I think that this seems like the fairest way. @cjd did bring up the point that it would only take a few best answers to be a top contributor in certain categories - which may actually make it more interesting for people to see if they can be tops in the categories they enjoy most. Since most people would have to work day and night to catch Darcy or Easyeboy on the total points list - it may be more realistic and doable for people to become tops in their own category.
We are still figuring all of this out, so any input and feedback is greatly appreciated.
We are going to be adding "Top Contributors" for each category shortly. Three members will be listed at the bottom of each page, and will be based on the number of "Best Answers" you have in that category. So, you could be the Top Contributor for Pets, while I might be the top contributor in Science Fiction Movies.
I do not agree with that... just because someone contributes a lot doesn't mean they should get a special label. What I would rather see is the top members of the site be given special roles in area's they have given the best answers in... so members like Dr. Matt could be a subject matter expert in Psych while Darcy could be a subject matter expert in Writing. As the site grows it will become easy to see who is a true expert in their field and a label could be placed on their profile to denote that fact.
Maybe, but maybe just the top 3 or so per category, based on best answers. Also, you should be able to get TC status in multiple categories.
For the record, we ARE working on a system that will give people a distinction of being an "Expert" or "Top Contributor" (not sure the terminology yet) in a certain category. In order to make this a democratic process though, I think that the only fair way to determine a Top Contributor would be to see how many Best Answers they have in a certain area. So, if Dr. Matt had the most best answers in Psychology, then he would be the top contributor in that category, while Darcy may be the top in Writing, etc. Just providing a lot of answers and activity wouldn't be enough - it would have to be GOOD activity that is recognized as such.
And since we can't (or shouldn't) just appoint people to be top contributors, I think that this seems like the fairest way. @cjd did bring up the point that it would only take a few best answers to be a top contributor in certain categories - which may actually make it more interesting for people to see if they can be tops in the categories they enjoy most. Since most people would have to work day and night to catch Darcy or Easyeboy on the total points list - it may be more realistic and doable for people to become tops in their own category.
We are still figuring all of this out, so any input and feedback is greatly appreciated. I think that @spoon and @cjd are talking about the same thing, but just different ways of going about measuring it. For the record, we ARE working on a system that will give people a distinction of being an "Expert" or "Top Contributor" (not sure the terminology yet) in a certain category.
In order to make this a democratic process though, I think that the only fair way to determine a Top Contributor would be to see how many Best Answers they have in a certain area. So, if Dr. Matt had the most best answers in Psychology, then he would be the top contributor in that category, while Darcy may be the top in Writing, etc. Just providing a lot of answers and activity wouldn't be enough - it would have to be GOOD activity that is recognized as such. And since we can't (or shouldn't) just appoint people to be top contributors, I think that this seems like the fairest way.
@cjd did bring up the point that it would only take a few best answers to be a top contributor in certain categories - which may actually make it more interesting for people to see if they can be tops in the categories they enjoy most. Since most people would have to work day and night to catch Darcy or Easyeboy on the total points list - it may be more realistic and doable for people to become tops in their own category. We are still figuring all of this out, so any input and feedback is greatly appreciated.
I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.