07-28-2011 05:12 PM
Yes, that is precisely what I was testing. But I didn't get any points credited for it, or for the actual correct answer I had earlier in the day. I was just testing to see if such an absurd possibility was actually there becaused I had noticed some poster, earlier today, having selected their own response as a correct answer. In short, I was just being curious as well as trying to see if the point assignments had actually been fixed. I don't think they have. Similarly, when I see my own icon, it says that I have had 501 post since Jun 23, 2011. That also can't be correct .. maybe that many posts all-time, but definitely not since June 23rd. Plus, if I've really had that many posts, and you get 2 points per posts, then how come I only have 321 points?
Anyhow, as I've mentioned, I'm really only investigating the matter for the rest of the community as I really am quite past the point in my career where I have a need to receive any type of accreditation.
07-30-2011 07:10 PM
I am simply trying to discover what needs to be corrected in the Forum's background code. Your response was helpful, thus I clicked on the helpful button and, to my amazement, you were actually awarded the points. I'm just surprised, with all of your postings that I've seen on the Forums, that YOU still have a novice status.
I NEVER get points awarded when anyone indicates my post as being either helpful or correct, or any points for posting, but for each post my total posts increase by two.
My point. all along, has been that if points are going to be used as an incentive, quick attention ought to be paid to insuring that they are assigned and accumulated correctly.
FWIW, IMHO you are extremely FAR from being a novice and, to the contrary, should be at the highest possible forum level.
07-31-2011 09:33 AM
Art and others:
On Friday, the 29th, we ran a script that applied additional points for the posts that were done from the date of the launch (23JUN) until 29JUL. We used the same calculation for the posts during the first 4 weeks that we used for the content that was migrated from the original system to the new one. It was not a totally accurate representation of 1 point per post, 3 points for helpful posts, and 4 points for answers. There are other point collectors too, such as setting a status and commenting on documents -- things that we haven't yet encouraged or explained.
Because this work was completed on Friday, I haven't investigated whether or not the calculation of points is progressing appropriately. Like Art is doing with the post, to evaluate I need a few posts to look at then to check against the data tables.
Now, for the names of the levels.... They reflect the use of the system to help the community, not your experience with SAS. I can rename the levels to be more reflective and will work on that shortly. I encourage the community to suggest names that you prefer. I'll post more about the levels to the points discussion in the Getting Started community space.
07-31-2011 10:35 AM
I saw that you had corrected it already and over the week no less. Both impressed and appreciated!
As for names, my own vote would be to only apply names at the top level. I don't have any problem with 'master' or 'guru'. My concern is with trying to apply names to the lower levels. Regardless of what the names were meant to reflect, new users might take the advice of a 'master' over a newbee or novice, simply because they might assume that the names reflect such qualities. I would hate to see them pass up advice given by such true SAS gurus like Howard Schreier, Tom Abernathy, data_null, Art Carpenter, Peter Crawford and a number of others (including many of the SAS developers). If one has to go for surgery do they select the surgeon who was first or last in their class?
Need further help from the community? Please ask a new question.