Learnhub´s system of gaining authority points, of `becoming an authority´ within a certain social system by contributing to it, by offering communication, by sharing, attending, by `simply´ communicating (or solving trivia ;-) seems to me very challenging, realistic a n d visionary! What about transferring this – for all participations of the system (teachers, students, authorities) – into classrooms and schools?!
Seems odd for me to say this given my “authority” level, but I think “authority” is the wrong word for what’s being measured here. I’m also not sure I would call it visionary. It needs more complex metrics to actually measure authority or the value of a member to LearnHub as a whole.
Because you get a boost for how many contacts you have and how many things you’re involved in, it rewards people who over post (or as I call it spamming). This is something I have tried hard to avoid doing. I have only joined groups that I genuinely think I can add something to and get something from.
In turn, I don’t add posts unless I think they add value to the lesson or discussion (usually).
The authority doesn’t reward people who are deep instead of wide (in terms of knowledge). Meaning an actual established authority in a specific field would not have a very high authority ranking on this site if they were only involved in that segment.
(and no… I do not intend to give back my prize for most authority… I’ll do a lesson on hypocrisy for penance)
I think you would have to come up with a very sophisticated rubric to make an “authority” system work in a classroom. It would become a game and that actually might be really engaging… but I’m not sure it would have the intended effect.
Seems odd for me to say this given my “authority” level, but I think “authority” is the wrong word for what’s being measured here. I’m also not sure I would call it visionary. It needs more complex metrics to actually measure authority or the value of a member to LearnHub as a whole.
Because you get a boost for how many contacts you have and how many things you’re involved in, it rewards people who over post (or as I call it spamming). This is something I have tried hard to avoid doing. I have only joined groups that I genuinely think I can add something to and get something from.
In turn, I don’t add posts unless I think they add value to the lesson or discussion (usually).
The authority doesn’t reward people who are deep instead of wide (in terms of knowledge). Meaning an actual established authority in a specific field would not have a very high authority ranking on this site if they were only involved in that segment.
(and no… I do not intend to give back my prize for most authority… I’ll do a lesson on hypocrisy for penance)
I think you would have to come up with a very sophisticated rubric to make an “authority” system work in a classroom. It would become a game and that actually might be really engaging… but I’m not sure it would have the intended effect.
I have my own forum system and I specifically removed post count to discourage spamming.
I don’t need a number to represent my authority. I’ll write good lessons and assist others.
I don’t think a point system is really needed but its an interesting concept.
The authority system is really wonky right now. I’d rather see it go instead of watching the numbers fly up and down for unknown reasons.
“The authority system is really wonky right now. I’d rather see it go instead of watching the numbers fly up and down for unknown reasons.”
Interesting idea of confusion! In a systemical meaning of the system´s creating new information…)
Well, I felt challenged in the last 10 days by all of learnhub, including gaining `authority´. I felt an increasing `belonging to´ by this and I enjoyed it.
What I feel increasingly too is a responsebility to make good/better creations.
Will I be disciplined enough to fight the seduction of all that ideas and individuals :) that attract me so very much? Will I avoid the superfical association and the too quickly posted thought? Will a deepen my creation?
But how? If not by communicating again (your “wide”, Rachel, in opposite to “deep” – interesting difference you made)?
So I would like to suggest the idea that quite easy and genial editing lessons (now or later) and discussing and debating by posting i s a/the process of deepening, is the responsibility we want from others and from ourselves.
I am critical with the actual “authority”-system, too, because there is no quality-measuring of any kind but post-volume and public resonance. The reason why there are raising numbers at the moment is, that now views count, too.
Given the line beneath “Who can you trust?” i fear, that the actual rating system has very little to do with reasonable trust. As i don’t know what system to install instead of the now used system I agree with Andrew: I’d rather see it go for now. But this is sort of “off topic” – let us discuss these questions:
in the community Where do we want to lead learnhub to?
I am really thinking about all that’s said here and I BOTH agree and disagree, so I’m just going to have to pick a button when I’m done and it will leave out half of my intention. So much for binary systems (LOL).
I, too, am not sure that “authority” is what is being measured. It seems to me what’s being measured is “participation” and “contribution.” And while those are certainly valuable social behaviors … and we should trust people who engage in valuable, positive social behaviors, I’m not sure that this makes them authorities.
I do, however, really respect the team for what they’re experimenting with and I’m watching my own response to the “carrot” they’re dangling by offering points. Like Tayyana, I find I am feeling more like I “belong,” the higher my own score climbs. It’s funny watching my thoughts arise around this as we float around in this virtual relational cloud.
Today, I created a course which I am offering for free. And I made that decision for two reasons:
1) I want to test a course plan that I will offer later and charge for and I want as many participants as are interested to help me test it.
2) I am guessing that I won’t get as many points (because I won’t get as many students enrolling) if I charge for the course …and I am interested to see what kinds of things happen as my “authority” score rises here. Both inside me and outside, in the social space.
Because I’ve been trained as an ethnographer, I can’t help but participate in new “cultures” with one eye on my social success and one eye watching the “rules” of the game and wondering about how the rules create and reinforce overt or covert social norms and behaviors.
My authority jumped almost 50 points today just because I created a course out of the lessons I had been building as distinct units. I was surprised by that.
I’m being transparent with my observations and my motivation for the sake of the debate.
And I’m curious about what others are noticing about the effects of the authority system on your choices about how you enjoy engaging here.
I disagree, I am a depth of post proponent, many of us have busy lives beyond Learning Hub and while it is a unique way to “measure” authority it does cause some to simply post— when if they were not trying to increase their “authority” ranking, they may have not added their thoughts in. What for instance would happen in the next week to my authority if I added over 400 posts (I am on vacation), would all of these posts be worth reading, and of the quality I expect from myself? Probably not, 1 of 7 or 8 might actually say something. No I am not going to do that, but based on the current matrix my authority level at this site would increase dramatically. So it is a somewhat artificial measure of who is an authority. No matter my authority level, I believe that I will post as time permits and when I actually have something that might add to the conversation besides “wind” Have a great night and I hope the “wind” isn’t blowing too much in this post :). Besides what definition of authority are they using? “That is the Question.” (I Robot – Asimov)
