Closed timwintle closed 9 years ago
Yes that is interesting and I am wondering about the incentives that it would embody, basically not encouraging GDE's to spend the time updating their activity details.
I need to spend some time designing an approach to automated data collection that is not a burden on the GDE's.
I believe that if estimates used are strict lower bounds to what a user would enter manually (i.e. there's no way a user would be entering a lower value), then you definitely won't incentivise users to not update their information.
It might slightly reduce the incentive for users to actually manually update their information - but I'm not sure if that's a significant detriment.
You are right no doubt. New scoring came live today. Let's set what Galen's over the next few days as I prepare some doc around the scoring and try to get a larger consensus a and tool (GAS) to get the data in.
On Fri, 5 Dec 2014 17:23 timwintle notifications@github.com wrote:
I believe that if estimates used are strict lower bounds to what a user would enter manually (i.e. there's no way a user would be entering a lower value), then you definitely won't incentivise users to not update their information.
It might slightly reduce the incentive for users to actually manually update their information - but I'm not sure if that's a significant detriment.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/maiera/gde-app/issues/160#issuecomment-65780406.
(Thought while watching your talk..)
If the impact weightings are dramatically affected by having a total impact value at all, then a lower bound can be added for calculations, which would improve the accuracy of results where people have been able to enter activities..
For example for G+,
lower_estimate(total_impact) = max(plus_ones, reshares)
(Other bounds available for other tracking event types)