Loading Profile...
Twitter,
Facebook, or email.
Does anyone know when is quirky going to fix the faulty voting algorithm?
You know, the one where you vote for something that gets chosen, get next to no influence then the top 3-12 people get about 50 times the influence for voting.....oh wait that's if you're lucky some get 200 times more.
And please don't say it's based on how many you vote for because past history and common sense would show that is not fully what is going on......
I’m
irritated that it has gone on this long
NEWFLASH: Defective voting algorithm from hell still eats up potential influence for voting do to error in design.
Promoted
Responses
-
I’m
still waiting for Q to do the right thing for the previous debacle. This issue just adds frustration & removes confidence.
3@Nathan you said, "Awesemo didn't do anything wrong..."
.
I agree Awesemo was not "wrong" but Quirky was not "right" in that the option to rate wasn't available to members on all platforms.
.
Also when are we going to get the final word on the influence from products bought in presale before the change to the Pricing Game? There were many in the community that were doing "right" and in this case the option to buy in presale was available to all.
.
Why is Quirky so quick to leave Awesemo's influence in place for actions that occurred within a broken operating platform, and yet renege on awarding presale influence that was promised on the previous working platform? Where's the consistency Quirky? -
I’m
smiling you get to see what phase 2 means
3Frankly I'm very disappointed in Quirky and it's entire handling of nearly everything the last 18+ months. I guess it's time for phase 2.... -
3@stazy, I think he means the old iPhone app wasn't updated when the website was in August...so it still showed rating bars for the submissions.
Awesemo was using the iPhone app, rating all the ideas, and getting all the rating influence that used to be spread around the whole community.
The issue that remains, though, is if this discovery by Nathan explains why so many feel their % is cut...ie., did that extra ratings influence come out of everybody else's voting %.
Also, did Awesemo and the other few who were benefiting from iPhone app rating know that?...that they were doing something no one else knew to do, and getting more because the system was taking it away from everybody else?
Also, Nathan:
You mention that Awesemo "didn't do anything wrong".
I'm not sure.
(A) If Awesemo was rating though he knew Quirky wasn't using ratings (or even if he could tell he was the only one rating), then IMO that IS wrong...he knew he gave Q no benefit for the % Q gave him.
(B) What is the range of Awesemo's ratings? Did he rate everything the same? Did he rate the ones he voted for higher than the others? If so and if not, then IMO that IS wrong...he knew he gave Q no benefit for the % Q gave him.
IMO that's the key to "wrong" - did any of these people rate knowing they gave Q no benefit for the % they were going to get. -
Nathan, I think many would like verification on the latest influence distribution. Seven products with the same person getting 2.5%+ influence on each individual idea seems highly unusual.
If it is correct, then it simply needs to be explained how it was achieved. -
I’m
Sad for the future
5but we are a very small team working around the clock ... why after all this time is the team STILL undermanned? This is a very poor excuse IMO which is being used by you guys way too often. What is the point of new offices and more staff in all the other departments when you cannot get your main business, you interface with the community, working the way we all want becasue you never have enough people in the programming dept?
-
CHAMP
4Hey Guys,
The current voting system works as follows: Each round, there is a chunk of influence for users who vote for winning ideas, and another chunk for users who pick ideas that go under consideration, but were ultimately passed on during said round. The influence from each pool is divided based on the ideas the user has voted for in each group, and how many votes the user has cast in the period leading up to when each vote was cast.
As has been mentioned in this thread, I think the biggest issue here is transparency. The current voting system is too complex, it doesn't give you enough feedback on how you you are using your votes, and it encourages behavior that is not necessarily aligned with picking the best ideas. When I read this initial Get Satisfaction post, I kicked off a project to refine the voting algorithm. We are now 24 hours in, and I am confident that we will be able to launch the new system by next week. We have some other vital projects going right now, but we are fast-tracking this one.
The new system will involve a daily limit to prevent over-voting (with a clear display of where you are), and a much more simple, even method of dividing up influence among users who voted for winning ideas, and users who voted for ideas that went under consideration.
Thanks for the feedback,
Nathan -
I’m
pained
3If you actually look at every idea, of course you will vote for more. If you're looking at one idea, voting, leaving and likely never coming back - you shouldn't get an influence windfall. -
I’m
concerned
5This voting scheme goes back to a clear problem: Transparency.
If over-voting is an issue, then this should be pointed out to everyone and it should be rather easy to see how many votes you have, and if you are reaching the 'overvote limit' so you can correct your behavior.
At the very least you should have small text legalese that points it out, and a vote count to refer to. I was not aware of this until now (not that it modifies my behavior, but it would have been good to know). -
I’m
Frustrated and confused
3I recently had an influence award for a selected idea ("Dissolvable Highlighter") reduced by almost 90% (from .52% to .06%) because of dilution resulting from other votes I had made. Had I had full information about the impact of my other votes I would have acted differently. We're all grown-ups and we know we can't have our cake and eat it too - but PLEASE give us full information about how the voting/influence algorithm works so we can make rational choices. Lack of consistency and irrational/unpredictable results from voting strikes at the very heart of the motivation to participate in Quirky.
-
2Hey all, please see our Head of Tech's (nsmith) response below in the thread. Also to make it more accessible I'm copying his response here:
Hey Guys,
The current voting system works as follows: Each round, there is a chunk of influence for users who vote for winning ideas, and another chunk for users who pick ideas that go under consideration, but were ultimately passed on during said round. The influence from each pool is divided based on the ideas the user has voted for in each group, and how many votes the user has cast in the period leading up to when each vote was cast.
As has been mentioned in this thread, I think the biggest issue here is transparency. The current voting system is too complex, it doesn't give you enough feedback on how you you are using your votes, and it encourages behavior that is not necessarily aligned with picking the best ideas. When I read this initial Get Satisfaction post, I kicked off a project to refine the voting algorithm. We are now 24 hours in, and I am confident that we will be able to launch the new system by next week. We have some other vital projects going right now, but we are fast-tracking this one.
The new system will involve a daily limit to prevent over-voting (with a clear display of where you are), and a much more simple, even method of dividing up influence among users who voted for winning ideas, and users who voted for ideas that went under consideration.
Thanks for the feedback,
Nathan
-
I’m
concerned
2Explaining what affects your influence for voting, commenting, etc. might be helpful. As a closed system only leads to speculations and conspiracy theories. Although your algorithm is 'proprietary' it would not hurt you to publicize what aspects of a phase determine the influence you got. Otherwise randomness will take over, as people try to find out how to game the system.Comment
-
-
2I would like you to explain (again) why I got .004 influence for the speaker bracelet and others are getting .11. I have been very careful and judicious with my voting ,and I don't thing I could have voted for more than a dozen last week. I did not "unvote" for anything. I voted for this item very early in the week, I think it was my first pick. I would like a detailed answer,as I have already received the generic one for the same issue last week.
.
It would be more than helpful to have a rolling submission count for each calendar week, and time stamps on voting. I would love to be able to rank stuff in my "Saved Tab", as I am considering my top 10-12%. -
-
I’m
thankful
Thanks for the added perspective from both of you. That should help clarify things even more.
-
-
1So let me ask you all this. Is the algorithm based on completely clearing your "vote tank" every week, or is it based on weekly voting , as I have been led to believe. The ideas are active for 30 days, so I just leave mine in the tank after I vote and mentally "start over" each week with 10-14 votes, usually. But i still have 30days worth of votes in the tank. Is this hurting me? If the formulas is based on picking 10 ideas out of 30 days worth on the site each week, I am f@cked, and that does not seem fair if they are talking about weekly stuff. It should move forward, but allow past picks to credit properly if picked at a later time in the 30 day period while it still carries previous votes.
- view 1 more comment
-
-
This is the discussion we are popping in from, if you would like to read it first.
http://www.quirky.com/forums/topic/83... -
-
I wonder what happens if you unvote an item and revote for it in a new week.
Does that count as two votes?
I also wonder what happens if you unvote an item. Does that count as a vote? -
-
-
-
I’m
Frustrated and confused
3I recently had an influence award for a selected idea ("Dissolvable Highlighter") reduced by almost 90% (from .52% to .06%) because of dilution resulting from other votes I had made. Had I had full information about the impact of my other votes I would have acted differently. We're all grown-ups and we know we can't have our cake and eat it too - but PLEASE give us full information about how the voting/influence algorithm works so we can make rational choices. Lack of consistency and irrational/unpredictable results from voting strikes at the very heart of the motivation to participate in Quirky.
- view 1 more comment
-
-
I know for a fact because I had an email exchange with Quirky about it. My frustration is compounded because I was the earliest and most vocal supporter of that submission (highlighter) and would have made this my sole vote had I known the RADICAL, MASSIVE reduction in influence that would result from my other votes (I thought it would shave just a bit off and keep me in the game for other good but not great ideas).
-
-
That's a drag Robert. I've had three similar things happen during the last 2-3 months of this new system. This of course doesn't include the product concept I voted for and it disappeared or the one I caught just today that was there 3-4 days ago and then was gone so I AGAIN revoted today. Maybe I should get a screen capture of everything in case it all disappears.
I still find the potential and actual earning a bit of a laughing matter since they don't ever mesh up correctly with what is paid out. Of course, have they ever....
I guess things like skewing the system in your favor is cool with QHQ as long as their ends justify their means. -
-
-
-
I’m
very frustrated
2This has been an on-going frustrating issue. Q has yet to explain why others 10x more influence. There has been another thread started about this and I was told they would look into a few accounts (which people gave permission) to see what was up. No real answer.
I was also under the assumption I would get influence for an idea based on other ideas I voted for that went UC. I had 23 UC votes and got rewarded for only one today. What's up with that?-
I think I figured out the problem. The enormous UC idea count is being added to our total votes so only those that vote once get any real influence when you pick a winner. Yes kidding but you never know.
-
-
-
-
-
i don't think they award THAT influence until the idea are dismissed, and they are all still in there. I think they are picking more.
-
-
2A related issue.
According to Ben, the Quirky voting system is based on Digg - where, instead of comparing and sorting, people simply digg what they like. (ha - Ever heard of anybody "saving" articles and videos, etc., then choosing their top 10 to digg? Me either.)
This is why Quirky corrected the system a year ago by allowing unlimited votes and selecting an unlimited number of submissions per week.
I understand the need to discourage "overvoting", but doing so with an overvote penalty seems to have an unwanted side effect: fear of that penalty is causing non-digg behavior from voters - comparing and choosing from among the submissions they like instead of voting for all.
Unfortunately, when Quirky voters aren't voting for ideas they like, Quirky's Digg-style system is no longer reliably bubbling up the community-as-a-whole's favorites.
So, Quirky might consider adjusting the overvote penalty system.
Currently, the threshold for overvote seems to be about 10% of the number of submissions.
Since it is important to Quirky for voters to vote for all the ideas they like, I propose that Quirky set the overvote threshold by estimating the ratio of submissions most voters are likely to like, then adding a little bit more to correct for error.
For, example, I think it's reasonable to estimate that most voters could like 50% of submissions. I would then add 10% for error, and set the overvote threshold at 60%.
I guess my opinion is that the goal is for voters to be voting based on what they like. Period. Which means the overvote penalty should be at a level where voters who are honestly voting for what they like never have to think about it.
Thanks.- view 1 more comment
-
-
I think the over vote is much lower than that or based on z but we were told it was based on x and y.
-
-
I agree Uno - it has to be less than 10%. They need to tell use how many ideas are submitted a week and how many votes we casted.
-
-
-
-
I’m
concerned
5This voting scheme goes back to a clear problem: Transparency.
If over-voting is an issue, then this should be pointed out to everyone and it should be rather easy to see how many votes you have, and if you are reaching the 'overvote limit' so you can correct your behavior.
At the very least you should have small text legalese that points it out, and a vote count to refer to. I was not aware of this until now (not that it modifies my behavior, but it would have been good to know). -
-
I’m
pained
3If you actually look at every idea, of course you will vote for more. If you're looking at one idea, voting, leaving and likely never coming back - you shouldn't get an influence windfall.
-
-
CHAMP
4Hey Guys,
The current voting system works as follows: Each round, there is a chunk of influence for users who vote for winning ideas, and another chunk for users who pick ideas that go under consideration, but were ultimately passed on during said round. The influence from each pool is divided based on the ideas the user has voted for in each group, and how many votes the user has cast in the period leading up to when each vote was cast.
As has been mentioned in this thread, I think the biggest issue here is transparency. The current voting system is too complex, it doesn't give you enough feedback on how you you are using your votes, and it encourages behavior that is not necessarily aligned with picking the best ideas. When I read this initial Get Satisfaction post, I kicked off a project to refine the voting algorithm. We are now 24 hours in, and I am confident that we will be able to launch the new system by next week. We have some other vital projects going right now, but we are fast-tracking this one.
The new system will involve a daily limit to prevent over-voting (with a clear display of where you are), and a much more simple, even method of dividing up influence among users who voted for winning ideas, and users who voted for ideas that went under consideration.
Thanks for the feedback,
Nathan -
-
2Hey all, please see our Head of Tech's (nsmith) response below in the thread. Also to make it more accessible I'm copying his response here:
Hey Guys,
The current voting system works as follows: Each round, there is a chunk of influence for users who vote for winning ideas, and another chunk for users who pick ideas that go under consideration, but were ultimately passed on during said round. The influence from each pool is divided based on the ideas the user has voted for in each group, and how many votes the user has cast in the period leading up to when each vote was cast.
As has been mentioned in this thread, I think the biggest issue here is transparency. The current voting system is too complex, it doesn't give you enough feedback on how you you are using your votes, and it encourages behavior that is not necessarily aligned with picking the best ideas. When I read this initial Get Satisfaction post, I kicked off a project to refine the voting algorithm. We are now 24 hours in, and I am confident that we will be able to launch the new system by next week. We have some other vital projects going right now, but we are fast-tracking this one.
The new system will involve a daily limit to prevent over-voting (with a clear display of where you are), and a much more simple, even method of dividing up influence among users who voted for winning ideas, and users who voted for ideas that went under consideration.
Thanks for the feedback,
Nathan -
-
I’m
thankful
Nice, thanks much for fast tracking this one! I'll be sure to yell again if I see another irregularity with it. :)
-
-
Great news! I'm looking forward to the new voting format.
-
-
I wonder if it is doing what it does in the tag line rounds? if I click vote for this in the tag line round without opening it first it votes 3 times and says could not cast vote because its full. All my votes are then for the same tag line and I must unvote for 2.
-
-
I know if I click before the page fully loads it does this for me as well. I think it has more to do with the script not fully loading. I tell everyone I know just open up the pages you want to view then complete the tasks and close as you finish each one. This way the one you opened first is usually fully loaded when you come back to it after opening the others. Hope it helps. :)
-
-
Chris / Nathan - I posted Nathan's response about the voting system changes on the forum. People are happy to hear this, but could you please post it in the Blog?
-
We'll definitely consider making a formal blog post when the algorithm is refined and implemented.
-
-
-
-
-
Thanks Nathan. I appreciate the response very much.
One thought about "...a much more simple, even method of dividing up influence...".
In the past, it's been beneficial to Quirky for it to motivate community members to see and vote for great ideas the crowd seems to be ignoring.
Quirky has done that by splitting a set amount of influence among voters, regardless of how many there are - with the effect that voters who put in the effort to see and vote for all the great ideas may get more %, while voters who only see and vote for the popular ideas will get less.
I guess I hope, that, since it benefits Quirky, that motivation for voters to do what Quirky wants will not be lost.
My worry is that, without that motivation, many more voters will simply save their vote for the ideas that look popular.
(Which can cause problems, since the system works if ideas become popular because people vote for them, but not if people vote for them because they are popular.) -
-
Nathan, here's another thought about the voting system.
Ben has described the voting system as being like Digg...where voters simply vote for an idea if they like it, and the top ideas bubble up to the top.
(As compared to a contest between ideas, where voters compare ideas and choose to vote for one over another.)
In order for a Digg model to work well, the voters need to feel free to vote for all of the ideas they like.
While I agree that an over-vote limit is probably necessary, I encourage you to also consider the effect that limit may have on whether voters feel free to vote for all of the ideas they like; and set it accordingly. (I suggest it be set to at least as high as the number of ideas voters could be reasonably expected to like...perhaps as high as 50% of the submissions.)
I know this suggestion is for the benefit of Quirky (since the Digg-style system may work better, and Q probably doesn't care how many voters split the %) and not the community (since more votes for an idea means less % for each of us), but, since the amount of % is very small either way, I don't think most of the community will mind if it helps the system work better. -
-
1Ok, I fully admit to having a "blonde moment" here. Clinton just kindly pointed out to me that I have been voting for about 1% of items every week, not 10% , which makes me EVEN MORE PISSED that I have been getting reamed on influence for the successful items. I have been a very JUDIIOUS voter, and should be rewarded for that. I seriously hope you are planning an audit of this system since the "new way" went into effect, because something is NOT RIGHT, and needs to be corrected retroactively if you have any intergrity at all.
-
-
1EW - the current system does not reward "judicious" voting - it rewards all-or-nothing gambling - "falling in love" and voting for just 1-3 ideas.
Truly - the system encourages you to put all your chips on just 1-3 submissions. My experience with "judicious" voting for a range of 10-20 ideas I think have merit is that it can dilute the influence you are rewarded for a "winner" by over 90%. -
-
1 - 3 votes?
Is the Quirky vote no longer a "Digg"-style system? -
-
1Yes Clinton - 1-3 votes. I have direct evidence that voting for 1-3 ideas including the winner can result at least 9x the influence vs. voting for 10-20 ideas including the winner.
The system rewards guessing the winner, not voting for what you like. -
-
Well, Ben has always been pretty firm about two things. That the Q vote is based on systems like Digg, YouTube, etc. And that Q is NOT "crowd sourcing" since it rewards all who participate in a meaningful way.
So the current 1-3 vote level must simply be an oversight.
I'm sure Nathan will correct that as he revamps the system.
Since...
...splitting % between 100 voters or 1000 is a wash for Q...
...getting smaller bits of % in more products rather than bigger bits in fewer products is a wash for voters,
...the amount of work voters have to do is much less (no more saving, counting, revising votes, etc.),
...the information Q gets is much more precise,
...many more honest voters are rewarded for their meaningful participation (making Q less of a "crowd sourcing" site),
...and a Digg-style system of collecting data seems to be what Ben wants...,
I expect Nathan will correct the over-vote limit by raising it until it's at a level that doesn't discourage voters from casting meaningful votes for every idea they like.
(I estimate that to be at least 60% of submissions...which should also still discourage most of the meaningless "% grab" votes.) -
-
I am conducting an experiment this week, and voting for the full 10% (about 90), feels very reckless, and may bite me in the ass, but what is going to happen here if I see the same or more influence for a chosen idea that I did when I was voting 1%???I will keep you posted on the results. I have a list of all the ones I voted for during this period, and if one from my previous voting periods gets picked, should not be effected by the 90, since all the previous have been in the 10-14 range.
- view 3 more comments
-
-
-
-
I think she was going for 10% of the c. 900 new submissions in the past week.
-
-
That's true Elizabeth, how can it get worse at this point with the recent changes being so quirky in a negative way so far. Glad to see when the next roll out happens if it actually helps that is. If not I guess I'll continue to submit ideas elsewhere (so far they've missed out on hundreds) and spend even less time on Q. I didn't get much influence that week when 10 or so were picked either. Good luck with the test and hopefully it will still get you something as far as influence goes.
-
-
-
-
I’m
frustrated
1@EW, I think the (obscure and flawed) algorithm is simpler than that. If too many of your voted ideas make it into UC, you get less influence. If just enough make it, you get more.
That is, if you do an excellent job of guessing what ideas will Quirky pick into UC, then your are penalized. The more "Quirky experince" you have, the worse you would be. To be rewarded, you would have to think "out of the Quirky box", but just enough.
I would also venture that the algorithm is an 'all or nothing' type, not continuously graded. That is, you fall into one category or the other with vast difference in rewards... -
-
When Q went from 3 votes to unlimited votes (Nov. 2010), I think there was some real concern that a lot of people would react to that by simply voting for all the ideas.
So, I think there was a need for an over-vote penalty.
However, I think that concern about over-votes was so great, it caused the staff to set a limit that was too low for the data collection needs of the Q community curation system.
I also think the gap between the current limit and the optimum limit has increased as the community has changed, and the "newness" of unlimited voting has worn off.
As Nathan revamps the over-vote system, I hope he'll take this opportunity to correct and adjust the limit.
I'm sure he will do so since It's extremely important to the community curation system for Q to motivate voters to vote for all of the ideas they like. -
-
I think it needs to be a weekly limit (not daily as Nathan stated unless they roll-over for the week). Some people can't vote daily and there might be XX great ideas on Tuesday, and only X amount on Monday.
The flaw is knowing what Q is looking for. Do they want us to vote for what we like or predict what we think they will pick?
-
I agree, weekly is the way to go since people don't come here everyday.
Also hopefully the system knows when a vote is pulled off from the same week to place it on something else because that would be a waste to lose a vote if you find you like something else better. -
-
-
-
-
I am guessing they don't want people to go on Sunday night and pick 80, like I dd last night. But all my picks were not from just this week. Like I said, we will see next week. I just want to know what % I can pick, I am pretty good at picking, I just have not been voting for as many as I could have.
-
-
Thinking about it...
If Q does adjust the over-vote limit to more than 60%... (which benefits its community curation system, and kinda benefits us because we can cast our meaningful votes without the effort of keeping track of how many)...
...then only the dishonest voters will care how many more they can vote for.
IMO honest voters are only concerned about transparency because the over-vote limit has always been too low.
Set the limit so it doesn't interfere with honest voters, and the most of those left to use the over-vote display will be the cheaters.
So, Nathan, you probably don't need to switch to a daily limit or add a display of each voter's "votes left" if you increase the limit to an optimum level...which is good, since increasing the limit is much more important. -
-
CHAMP
1We are still working hard on the change mentioned above. We are very close, but we want to make sure it works perfectly. Our ETA is now early next week.
-Nathan-
Thanks for the update Nathan!
You all have a good weekend! Chris -
-
-
-
-
Are we going to be able to timestamp our votes, or separate "voting weeks" any time soon with this? this is really starting to be a critical issue with the influence payouts shrinking on what seems to be a weekly basis.
While we are on topic, it would be cool to be able to rank things in your "saved" area. -
-
I’m
tired of waiting for an answer.
2There is now a forum dedicated to this and it is blowing up! Please let us know what is going on, this is NOT good.
http://www.quirky.com/forums/topic/8760 -
-
I’m
wondering when someone will create a better site.
1Ummm, yeah. A week ok. Maybe not, it was more complex than expected. Early next week. Ok, not a problem. Now we've heard that 10 days ago we wonder....WTF is going on? Are you trying to redo the whole site now? Now it looks like early next year? Now it looks like after the 15th when Ben talks to everyone. Now it looks like on Feb 29 of 2013? Oh wait that doesn't exist, we'll have to go for Feb 29th 2016 then.
At this point this site is closer to empty promises that takes advantage of most people versus something that is fair and reasonable. I would like to see a response from Ben or someone high up that knows what's going on by 5pm EST or I'll begin phase 2. -
-
Guys, this is complicated software, and when we rush it, things don't work right. I appreciate how eager you are to see these changes happen, but we are a very small team working around the clock, and sometimes making big changes like this can take a little longer than expected. Now that we have closed out influence from our previous round, we are ready to roll out the new voting influence algorithm. Please see the below blog post for details:
http://aquirkyblog.com/2012/02/eval-v...
Thanks for all your feedback,
Nathan -
-
I’m
Sad for the future
5but we are a very small team working around the clock ... why after all this time is the team STILL undermanned? This is a very poor excuse IMO which is being used by you guys way too often. What is the point of new offices and more staff in all the other departments when you cannot get your main business, you interface with the community, working the way we all want becasue you never have enough people in the programming dept?
-
-
Nathan, I think many would like verification on the latest influence distribution. Seven products with the same person getting 2.5%+ influence on each individual idea seems highly unusual.
If it is correct, then it simply needs to be explained how it was achieved. -
-
Quirky is a bubble up, Digg style system.
Such systems do not work well unless users are voting for the ideas they like...
...which is very different from voting for the ideas they like the most.
So, it's puzzling to see Nathan use the phrase, "we are trying to encourage people to vote for the ideas they like the most." -
-
-
1Nathan, can you explain why Awesemo got 2.5% for all of the products selected last week? Has to be a glitch, right, like the Sally Rumble thing? -
-
Ouch. Maybe the problem of diminishing influence % is not solved at all.
This topic was started because people felt their % was being cut.
The community conjectured that it was because of the overvote penalty.
Nathan agreed.
So, today Quirky introduces an eval system that has a set limit of 15 votes per day. Now that we know that, we can keep from overvoting.
Problem solved. No more cut %.
But, what if that was never the problem?
What if the problem is a glitch in the system?
What if many people are having their voting % arbitrarily cut just as much as some are having it arbitrarily raised? (If several get 2.5% extra, a lot of somebodys together lose 2.5% too.)
Right now it doesn't appear to me that this 15 vote limit fixes anything. -
-
CHAMP
2Looks like Awesemo went and rated all of the ideas that were under consideration using the iPhone app.
If there are ratings, the influence for the ideator goes from 37.5% (.75 x .5) to 35% (.70 x .5), and the raters get that extra 2.5% (.05 x .5).
Since Awesemo didn't do anything wrong, instead of revoking the influence, what I am going to do in this situation is increase the overall worth of the ideation rounds for the products in question to 55%. What this means is that the ideators will get their influence back and more (.70 x .55 = 38.5%), and everyone else will get a bump in influence on their votes, considering that not everyone has access to the iPhone app.
In the future, raters using the iPhone will not be awarded influence. That functionality will be removed in the next release.
Nathan-
Thanks for solving this! My question is what do you mean by "next release" and "the future" - is it the next week or maybe months ahead?
-
-
Referring to...
~Looks like Awesemo went and rated all of the ideas that were under consideration using the iPhone app. ~
What is meant by "RATING" ? When did rating return? and where is it? I only remember the star rating system from long ago. -
-
-
-
-
Bingo. Thanks Nathan. That sound's like it's the cause.
-
-
1How does one 'rate' on the iphone app? I don't have access to rating any ideas, just voting on my PC. Please help me understand this (I'm thinking the app always for voting for ideas UC instead of blocking that option out and that Nathan is using the word rate for vote, but I could be very wrong).
How long has this been going on for the people with the app? Do all rounds need to be looked at? -
-
Just to be clear, the rating influence does not in any way cut into the voting influence, and is only awarded if ratings are present.
We left in the rating influence because the rating functionality was still in the iPhone app; we did not foresee a single person being the benefactor in the way that Awesemo was in this round, but since it worked out that way, we have changed our policy moving forward.-
Quirky chose to give out influence without COMMUNICATING that it was possible for everyone to achieve influence this way? Gee, do you really think that's fair?
The amount of influence in question is not small potatoes. How many members have ever gotten 2.5% on a product? -
-
Excellent point David. If the influence was not advertised it should not have been expected so there should be no problem simply taking the 2.5% and awarding it to the ideators.
-
-
-
-
-
3@stazy, I think he means the old iPhone app wasn't updated when the website was in August...so it still showed rating bars for the submissions.
Awesemo was using the iPhone app, rating all the ideas, and getting all the rating influence that used to be spread around the whole community.
The issue that remains, though, is if this discovery by Nathan explains why so many feel their % is cut...ie., did that extra ratings influence come out of everybody else's voting %.
Also, did Awesemo and the other few who were benefiting from iPhone app rating know that?...that they were doing something no one else knew to do, and getting more because the system was taking it away from everybody else?
Also, Nathan:
You mention that Awesemo "didn't do anything wrong".
I'm not sure.
(A) If Awesemo was rating though he knew Quirky wasn't using ratings (or even if he could tell he was the only one rating), then IMO that IS wrong...he knew he gave Q no benefit for the % Q gave him.
(B) What is the range of Awesemo's ratings? Did he rate everything the same? Did he rate the ones he voted for higher than the others? If so and if not, then IMO that IS wrong...he knew he gave Q no benefit for the % Q gave him.
IMO that's the key to "wrong" - did any of these people rate knowing they gave Q no benefit for the % they were going to get.-
??? WHAT ??? Rewards for rating on the iphone app? This is sooo wrong!
-
-
-
-
-
1Well, I guess that means Q discovered why a few were getting more influence; but perhaps not all, nor why many are feeling like they get much less.
Also, as stazy brought to mind, it's been going on since August...whatever it is that is making it seem some are getting more while others get less. -
-
1Thanks for responding Clinton. He was able to game the system.
So what happens to the 2.5% rating influence that is now defunct? And how does this not effect voting of the past if it did this time around? -
-
IF, I repeat IF there are changes to past influence I feel strongly that anyone that 'gamed' the system, I say 'good for you', you get to keep your 'gamed' reward; however, anyone that received less influence because of these loopholes should be increased to the influence that they really should have received had the system not been 'gamed'...
This will result in Quirky's peice of the pie being reduced rather than the influencers' piece - hey they did nothing wrong - they played the system honestly the way it was meant; and the true detriment belongs to Quirky for missing the loopholes. (Please note that I use the words 'honest' and 'fair' NOT to reprimand those that 'played' the system unfairly or to imply that they were dishonest!!)
The only true correction on past influence is that Quirky gets hurt not the influencers. The adjustment of pie is immaterial to Quirky as a whole compared to the adjustment to each individual honest influencer. -
-
I’m
wishing I was Awesemo
2Nathan can just wave a magic wand and declare how much influence will be allocated?
So why have we been waiting for weeks to find out if Quirky will honor Presales influence according to the terms in place when those Presales commitments were made?
Nathan, Make It So!-
Thank you Nathan!
-
-
-
-
-
@stazy - If there are no ratings on the project, that influence is given to the ideator.
I have gone back and audited the previous ideaton projects, and this is the only occurrence of any rating influence being given since we eliminated ratings on the website. The last time rating influence was attributed was for the project where we picked the whiteboard ruler (http://www.quirky.com/projects/1109), which was the first product picked with the new system, and had some ratings grandfathered in from before the interface was changed.
Nathan-
Thank you for clarifying this Nathan!
-
-
-
-
-
1Can I ask you all a rhetorical question...to try to make a point?
We all Digg, Like, thumbs up, retweet, etc., blog posts, articles, videos and other stuff we like.
So, when was the last time you went to retweet or Digg a blog post...then stopped to think "I better wait to see if this is one of the ones I like the best"?
?
Nobody does that....nobody only Diggs the posts they like the most.
So, why is Quirky trying to use the same type of system...but assuming we do that? In fact, forcing us to do that?
...Especially when you consider how poorly that makes the Quirky system work? -
-
I’m
Still concerned
2Nathan - kudos for the swift attention to this issue.
I have one quibble - why not restore the 2.5% influence to the ideators - where it should have gone in the first place?
It appears this last round's award of 2.5% for each idea to Awesemo was directly taken from the ideators, NOT from community voters.
Comments above make it sound like Quirky was honor-bound to give the 2.5% for every idea to Awesemo. However, I beg to differ - this can't have been Awesemo's expectation (if it was then he was intentionally cheating/gaming) so there should be no problem reversing the influence awards and giving them to the respective ideators. Awesemo shouldn't have and probably did not have any expectation of influence in return for his ratings so it's not like Quirky would be punishing him for their mistake. -
-
I’m
smiling you get to see what phase 2 means
3Frankly I'm very disappointed in Quirky and it's entire handling of nearly everything the last 18+ months. I guess it's time for phase 2....
-
-
I’m
Expectant
Looking forward to it UNO (though I believe Nathan for one is doing the best he can within the constraints he is doubtless under to keep this whole occult process as opaque as possible).
Did you notice that your thread here is labeled "answered"?- view 1 more comment
-
-
UNO - Please don't waste your time rating everything on the iPhone app. I promise you that no influence will be distributed for ratings on the next round. Why not submit an idea instead?
-
-
The assumption here is phase 2 must include waste my time and rate everything to make a point? This sounds like the old algorithm not my thought process.
As far as submit an idea. Rewarding Quirky with an idea submission is not part of phase 2 either. -
-
-
-
Robert,
I actually increased the overall value of the ideation round on this product. The ideators (and voters) on these products will actually end up with more influence than they would have otherwise. Please seem my earlier comment for details.
I don't feel honor bound to give the influence to Awesemo, but I do feel like it is a reasonable thing to do. It doesn't hurt anyone else, and I can't blame him for trying a feature on an application that is available to the public.
Nathan-
Nathan, this decision is also brings up a "Quirky paradigm" concern.
Theoretically, Quirky gives % because it's anti-crowdsourcing...Ben refuses to accept helpful input without rewarding the contributor.
So, Quirky gives % for voting for the winner since that was helpful input.
(To Q, voting for a non-winner isn't helpful, so no %)
In this instance, though rating ideas used to be helpful to Q, Awesemo's app ratings were not.
When you decide to go ahead and give Awesemo the % "for doing nothing wrong"...my question is, "Why give it if he did nothing helpful?"
Which leads to the next questions:
Why didn't you apply that Quirky paradigm when making your decision?
Or, is this an indication of a change in Quirky's attitude about %...that the paradigm has shifted...that % is a raffle prize instead of a reward for helpful input?
How do we fit this together along with the new % reward for less helpful UC votes, and this focus on using the voting system as a way to distribute %? -
-
-
-
-
Robert - I didn't do that; I don't even think I have admin on this thing.
-
-
1I know you didn't close the topic Nathan - but there's a precedent for these things being closed prematurely (by whomever).
-
-
1So just to be clear Nathan - the influence to be restored to the ideators and voters (from what was lost to Awesemo) will come out of QUIRKY'S share in the idea?
It won't decrease the value of other rounds: concept, CMF, etc?
For what it's worth, my guess is that Awesemo himself would be willing to return the influence gained by the iPhone rating - from what I know of him I think he's a man of honor. -
-
2Ok, I admit I'm getting distracted (Quirky not doing Digg but thinking they are), and we're all getting distracted (the unfairness of the rating 2.5% on many levels)...
...but there remains the real issue of this topic.
Why are some getting tons of influence why others are getting very little?
We thought it might be an over-vote issue - but I don't think it is (that doesn't explain the 1000x difference on at least a dozen occasions).
We thought it might be some people using the iPhone app to rate - but now we know that only happened once.
So, now we're back to a system glitch.-
I'm right with you Clinton. I'm thinking there is a glitch or some reason certain people get way more than others. I hope they are acknowledging this.
-
-
Since all the other theories seen to have been proven from what is coming out, I'll try and guess one of the last pieces of the puzzle. I think Q's idea of rewarding people is by screwing them over. If this is part of the old algorithm, yes that's what it is. If a person happens to be on here often, are good at picking out good ideas and then the Q staff see them as good ideas as well and puts in the UC then you get penalized because you have too many ideas out of the total ideas in their pool of ideas.
I still do believe there may be a time and / or quantity factor having to do with rewarding the first few that vote as well because the staff thinks it bubbles things up when it doesn't for anyone but maybe the staff. It's not logical unless the algorithm used previously suggested ideas like a much larger number of people voting and the reward for bubbling up pool is greatly enlarged. -
-
-
-
-
1You are absolutely correct Clinton. When the rules seem arbitrary (even if they are not) it is very difficult to muster up the will to play the game. Would anyone play baseball if (for reasons unknown) some runs counted for 1 point while others count for 1,000 points? If we just knew (for example) that a run scored when the wind was in the East counted for 500 points while one scored during a full moon was 2 points then at least we could make intelligent decisions based on those crazy rules. Likewise, if Quirky would just communicate the rules of the game we wouldn't feel as ripped off and dis-incentivized.
-
-
I’m
pretty sure this is close...
Actually, I think the voting made perfect sense, it's just there were unforseen glitches.
Nathan can correct me, if I'm wrong, but I think this is how it worked:
Lets say the voting for a winner bucket is worth 10% and 10 people vote for the idea.
5 of those people were friends, so they only voted for that one idea.
2 people were stingy with their vote and had 10 outstanding votes.
3 people voted for a 100 ideas to try to hit on the one that got picked.
Now, to make it fair, let's say everyone had 100 chips (the amount of the person with the most outstanding votes).
The 5 friends put all 100 chips on the idea, the 2 people put 10 chips on each of their 10 voted on ideas, and the other 3 people had 1 chip on every one of the 100 ideas they voted on.
Add that up and there's 523 chips on the idea. divide the 10% by 523 and you get .01912 per chip.
So the 3 people who voted for 100 ideas each got .01912, the 2 people who voted for 10 got .1912, and the other 5 got 1.912.
Makes perfect sense because they didn't add noise by voting for non winners, but the problem is, they didn't vote because they liked the ideas and not the others. Also, the fact that there is now 30 days, and SO many ideas to vote on, kind of encouraged more votes. If there was a minimum multiplier, like people who vote for 1-10 get influence as if they voted for at least 10, the problem would be greatly mitigated.
Instead there's a new system that encourages mindless voting, but at least it rewards active members over inactive members. -
-
Justin,
That is a very good example. That is fairly close to how the old algorithm worked.
To belabor the point a bit, I want to stress that the old system was designed to give outsized rewards to people who bet big on a small number of ideas. To use real numbers, the winning voters share was 15% in the former system (7.5% of the overall product if the ideation project is worth 50%). If there were only a few votes for the winning ideation, as there sometimes are, a person that only voted for a few things could easily take the lion's share of that influence and end up with 4-6% of the overall influence in the product.
It is not a glitch, it is how we designed that system. Although it seems unfair, we wanted to try and reward people that made bold choices. The line concerning voting in the previous faq read as follows:
"You have unlimited votes per week, but use them wisely! The amount of influence you can earn for voting on a winning idea decreases the more votes you put out there."
I got the feeling from this thread, however, that many people who used quirky regularly were not clear on the system, and I decided that if our regular users weren't clear on it, then it was fair to reason that new users would have a hard time picking it up. We believe in simplicity as a guiding principle, so we decided to attempt to design a simple system that rewards voters for voting on ideas they like.
Justin, to your point, I don't think it encourages mindless voting as much as the former system, in which people often cast over 100 votes a day. We will learn a lot in the first couple weeks about how people use it, and if we need to make adjustments, we will.
Nathan- view 2 more comments
-
-
-
Glad to give feedback. I understand that attitude, but glad you changed it. If the formula makes sense (only found through experimentation), once people understand how it works it shouldn't matter whether or not they are focused on getting more influence, the formula would take care of itself.
Unfortunately, everyone is not voting in good faith and the new system is extremely easy to game by voting for 15 ideas per day no matter what. So people will game it, and it will heavily penalize those who do vote in good faith (because the 15/day voters will surely take some of their influence with "spare" votes).
In the previous system, there could be no gaming (besides reducing votes once ideas are in UC bit if that mattered). Everyone simply had the same chance at influence. The problem was that the outliers who voted for 1 idea only or very few ideas, kinda screwed everything up. Run the numbers with 1-10 votes equaling 10 and you will see it's much more reasonable. Of course, votes 1-9 could be considered spare votes, but you'd have to come up with the optimal # of votes someone would cast. Surely 9 spare votes is more reasonable than 14+ per day
And while I agree all votes are valuable. If I give you 100 ideas to vote on, and you vote on all 100, that doesn't really tell me that much. The less you vote on, the stronger your vote is. Unless you vote on so few that I know you didn't even look at the others.
Still, I hope this works out and as always look forward to the "(more on that soon)" stuff. I know this is an experiment, and that's why I find it so interesting. -
-
Nathan,
Whenever money is involved, some people will try to "game the system". It's human nature, and comes from basic survival instincts as well as greed. For decades, people have been trying to "game" the stock market with proprietary systems and algorithms. The only way to eliminate that probability is to eliminate the possibility. Quirky should not encourage some people to "bet big" (risk/reward) on an ideation, because you would be including the probability for people to try to game the system. And so we eliminate the possibility.
Quirky states on the main website page that it is looking for people to "pick the world's next great product". Aren't "we" supposed to be, in theory, a focus group for the general public? We should be able to Vote a product up, as well as Vote a product down. You can't tell us to Vote and then tell us Voting doesn't count. If Voting does count, does it count in a percentage of money to us, or as a way to bubble-up that ideation?
Why, as you stated above, should anyone need to "spend hours studying the rules"? Why would rules be that difficult to understand? Quirky should make the Rules and Payouts clear-cut. Just as children like and need structure and clear, consistent rules in their lives, so do adults.
Thank you. -
-
-
-
Michelle,
We are adding people to the tech team as we find good candidates. We hired 4 great people last year (2 coders, a web designer, and a product manager), and had people in here interviewing all 5 days last week. There is fierce competition for development talent out here ( http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/tec... ), and we have an extremely rigorous hiring process, so progress is hard won.
We started out behind when it comes to the size of the development team relative to the size of the platform, but we are slowly clawing our way to a better ratio. With my point earlier, I just wanted to communicate that when we spend an extra week on a project like this, you can be sure that we are spending it trying to make a better experience for you guys, not sitting on our hands.
Nathan -
-
I’m
still waiting for Q to do the right thing for the previous debacle. This issue just adds frustration & removes confidence.
3@Nathan you said, "Awesemo didn't do anything wrong..."
.
I agree Awesemo was not "wrong" but Quirky was not "right" in that the option to rate wasn't available to members on all platforms.
.
Also when are we going to get the final word on the influence from products bought in presale before the change to the Pricing Game? There were many in the community that were doing "right" and in this case the option to buy in presale was available to all.
.
Why is Quirky so quick to leave Awesemo's influence in place for actions that occurred within a broken operating platform, and yet renege on awarding presale influence that was promised on the previous working platform? Where's the consistency Quirky?- view 1 more comment
-
-
As Nancy Grace would say: "Unleash the lawyers!"
Awesemo would win in court. The fault rests on Quirky for not updating the iPhone App. Quirky would not be able to prove Intent by Awesemo. And Awesemo should not have to feel "pressured" by anyone to voluntarily give up his Influence %.
*smack of the gavel*
Case closed. -
-
Kat - the bar should be higher than what we can legally "get away with". Awesemo should only feel "pressured" by his own conscience.
-
-
-
-
@Nathan,
Is the voting system still based on the "top ideas bubble up" systems like Digg?
Or is it now a contest, where voters are asked to compare ideas and pick?
I ask because Ben has always said it's a bubble up Digg-style system. But Nathan, you're setting it up like it's a straight contest. -
-
CHAMP
1Clinton,
While we still rank ideas using an algorithm that has similarities to Digg, the importance of that system relative to the overall eval process has diminished.
Our current process involves looking at the wider pool of ideas that come in much more intensely. While we still look at the most active, and most voted, they are now just one piece of the puzzle.
Nathan -
-
CHAMP
I’m
flummoxed!
Can't this mobile App be temporarily locked out of having access to quirky until it is fixed? I just tested it and you can STILL both submit AND vote for twice of what is permitted on computer browsers.- view 6 more comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Sorry, writing too fast. In the first version of the above post, I had asked for the project you were voting on. After re-reading the thread, however, I realized I could figure it out, so I removed the request, and wrote that extremely oblique edit note.
-
-
I canceled my votes for wrapster concepts and re-voted on my iPad and was still allowed six votes. I will leave them up. For the record, the first three are my choices. It's interesting on my computer, it shows "-3 votes left for this project".
-
-
-
-
Off topic but Following Justin's thought...
What if every member received 15 daily votes to gamble as they please?
If I see ONE idea that rocks my world I can put 15 votes on one. If I find 3 I like I could spread them evenly or any way I rank. Put 15 votes on a longshot and you will probably score huge influence.
People love to gamble it is addictive. If people know they can gain more with one single vote or with a hedge bet strategy maybe they will put more thought into it like a gambler does at a racehorse track.
Could even have fun Trifecta like multipliers when a member has a good day and goes 3 for 3 etc...
A ticker could publicize who were the big daily,weekly, monthly winners.
So when someone scores big (like Awesemo) it is something that keeps others engage and wanting to also hit the jackpot.
Perhaps 2-5% could be dedicated as a bonus for top performers as an extra golden carrot
So basically people return to play their votes. It is free money so totally ethical. Fun to see how playing your vote cards right effects your influence payout
--
*A VOTE CLOCK would have to be designed so that our daily vote window would countdown within 24 hours. -
-
Nathan, If I could, I'd buy you a beer.
-
Thanks Clinton! Although I prefer black coffee :)
-
-
-
-
-
How about everyone gets maximum 15 idea votes that they keep continuously ranking from 1-15. If an item in their top 15 gets picked up UC they get influence based upon the rank they ranked it compared with everyone else that had it in their top 15. You do not have to keep top 15 running. If someone wants to really bet hard they could only vote on say their top 5 leaving 6-15 slots open - then their influence will be weighted higher based upon the less votes.
Influence can be distributed as follows:
Everyone that had 15 ideas voted as their #1 which gets picked UC - they all get the same influence;
everyone that had that idea and voted it #2 gets the same;
...everyone that had it voted it #9 gets the same etc.- but each less than those that voted it as #1,
Further, all those that only had say top 5 voted, get more influence because they made bigger bets on a weighted basis...
PLUS...
Quirky gets better information with this weighted ranking of each item. -
-
I didn't realize midnight GMT was actually only 7pm EST :(
I'm liking the vote limit, but think it should be weekly instead of daily.
@Nathan - thanks for fixing the iphone bugs so it is a level playing field for PC users.- view 11 more comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@stazy - give it a shot now. votes just reset 30 minutes ago at Midnight EST.
-
-
It's finally working. Thanks. I only missed a day of voting.
-
-
-
-
Nathan,
I just used my new "My Votes Today" tab, and I love it.! Thank you for finding a way to make SOMETHING better right now. Do you think we will be able to save further into weeks at some point?- view 1 more comment
-
-
Glad it is helpful!
-
-
While I agree that the "My Votes Today" tab is helpful, I so WISH that Quirky was spending its time on getting the ability to communicate back and forth in the Comments section on Quirky implemented. Getting a follow-up email/notice to a comment is very important if this is to be a "social collaborative" community.
I run around and leave comments, but have no idea if someone replied to them. Oftentimes, a person asks a question, and the response to it may determine whether they vote or not. The lack of back and forth communication is costing votes, as well as truly getting feedback from the community. -
-
-
-
1Nathan... i have no idea what good this does for Quirky.
i just filled up my Quirky shopping cart (votes for new ideas) with a bunch of crap.
this seems like a total waste of Q's time, and my own.
.
i didn't like a majority of the ideas.
but i used my 15 votes, per day, and that's how you seem to want me to do it.-
I agree that voting is a waste of everybody's time if you don't vote for ideas you like.
-
-
-
-
-
1I like the daily votes idea. It would also be cool if there were a Daily Vote Clock that counts down on every page. Click here to participate and Vote now!
-
-
2What about using 15 daily vote points rather than 15 individual votes?
If a member only sees 3 ideas they like, they can vote 3 x 5 points. Members could divide the vote points to show preference and finally make an individual vote weighable.
The vote point selection could also become a multiplier for influence gained. The higher the vote point, the more you gain. This makes it fun for members to develop personal strategies that pay more when risking more points on ideas they believe in.- view 4 more comments
-
-
-
-
-
IMO all of these concerns* go away if Quirky will simply assign us an idea to evaluate**.
• Quirky shows us an idea.
• We evaluate.
• Repeat.
No need to sort, list, save, remember, count votes, or filter.
Just vote. Leave a comment. Then repeat if you want.
*As well as other benefits, like:
• statistically reliable results,
• no buried submissions,
• no unfair %,
• no overwhelmed voters,
• ideas get the same number of evals all 30 days,
• no pumping or spamming,
• 3D renderings give little advantage
• clique voting has no effect
...just a pure, fair, easy system, giving Quirky and the inventors great information.
**.However, two other tweaks...
(1) rewarding % for effort rather than which idea we happened to see and vote for (for fairness, and so we don't mind not seeing the best ideas), and
(2) a separate "collaboration system" pumping up interaction to the max - where we can go find and filter favorites, people, submissions, everything as we comment and collaborate, etc.,
...are required for this to work. -
-
@Elizabeth - Sorry, as I mentioned above, that was a miscommunication. The reset time is 12 EST.
We are putting in a vote counter/countdown once we have perfected the interface. -
-
-
-
1Wow, this seemed to be handled very swiftly, with consideration and communication. Thanks much.
.
I am still not sure what is going to happen with Awesemo's booty, if he is aware of this all, and if has had a say of what happens to his booty, but regardless, this was handled very well on a reactive basis. Of course, retroactive, and perhaps proactive actions can still be considered, but I am still willing to pay for the next round of black coffees for the Quirky staff involved in this one.-
Hey Matt,
We talked to Awesemo yesterday. He is aware of going on, but it is my view that it is the responsibility of Quirky to make the decision here. The plan that I outlined in my post is how we are going to move forward with this, unless any new information comes to light.
Thanks,
Nathan -
-
Ironically if Awesemo's influence were modified it would have to be done for anyone during the new system that received an inordinate amount of influence for reasons beyond what was considered normal. There were several others from what we all have seen. I say let everything lie the way it is and when changes happen for influence run a real data check first on a separate system before going live with it.
Since you guys do not have ample staff to handle the tech yet this is especially important because creating problematic changes will just cause problems that compound the problems for you if bad software is released prematurely. -
-
-
-
-
CHAMP
1Hey Jason,
Love the ideas. We are definitely going to continue thinking about the issue, and making improvements as we learn how people are using the current system.
-Nathan-
Thanks Nathan. As you've said earlier we are trailblazing here. Let's have fun doing it. Cheers
-
-
-
-
-
As we consider ways to improve the voting system, let's not lose sight of the fact that
"distributing %"
is WAY behind the primary purposes of
"giving inventors information about what the world thinks of their idea"
and
"giving Quirky information they can use to help them choose" -
-
I’m
Bored and frustraited
Oh thank 'Clinton' finally something in this discussion that I can understand and agree with although I am sure we could argue all day about a better path.
While part of me can understand this indignation and outrage at the highly speculative potential future payouts we are in effect talking about miniscule percentages on products that will probably not make it in the real world IMO.
This discussion and the reaction of Nathan has lead me to conclude that we are still very much on the wrong path, picking products for arbitrary reasons and without the insight that most companies would want before they moved forward with product development.
I do not understand how any of it would help get my product ideas to market and help them sell. The whole 'bubbling things to the top' and choose ideas you 'like' has proven time and time again to be an ineffective barometer of success.
Let me make it simple. I could care less about someone voting for my idea who is taking a punt, or has no actual intention of buying my product and is in it for a % of the action. I need real data and feedback. What you provide for my $10 is nonsensical and does not assist me to get my product to market.- view 27 more comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Originally voting was
a/ a factor in determining an ideas popularity and
b/ a way to create a report for the ideator.
(We could say badly designed market research)
So if you want to work with what you already have, why not do this. Why not turn the badly designed market research into better designed market research so that the ideator gets a report that is meaningful and the voter gets influence for doing something meaningful.
I propose that the only way to get influence is to have previously completed a demographic profile. This will be questions about who you are, where you shop, what your hobbies are ect... fill in as much or as little as you want.
When an ideator posts their pitch they are required to choose from a list of categories as to who they think are the target market for their idea. For example DOG OWNERS
The ideator is also required to create 3 survey questions for dog owners.
Those people who have previously identified themselves in the demographic profile as DOG OWNERS can earn influence by answering the questions and voting.
This means that we can flag ideas that might interest people in the weekly email and point them towards these ideas.
This is not the ideal scenario but much better than rewarding people for 'influence' and as you say 'their work' when their work is has no effect.
_______________________
@Clinton there are a number of reasons why a button for "I will buy this" will not work. Quirky believe as to do I, that ideas are not fully formed products, they are just ideas. To ask people if they would buy something that is still being developed may result in false results.
Most people cannot imagine the finished article so asking them such a black and white question will not be effective. Most people will say YES, why wouldn't they? They get influence if they say yes.
I think it is a better idea to ask things like - Do you have this problem? How important do you think this problem is in your life? Do you think this concept would solve your problem? -
-
Michelle, You raise two points...
...that people will just say yes since that's how they get influence,
...and that people are guessing about the product idea since most submissions are incomplete.
I agree those are bothproblems, and that fixing them would benefit Quirky.
But I also think those are both Quirky issues...common to any of the ways the vote is done at Quirky.
...all forms of voting are going to have problems with people voting because that's how they get influence %
...and they are all based on people guessing what the product idea really is.
So, I don't accept them as problems with a "I would buy this" vote box specifically.
Problems for Quirky to solve? Yes.
Problems with, and reasons not to use, the specific "I would buy this" vote box? Nope. -
-
-
-
Yep. As the great Matthew F himself pointed out at the "Summit", as long as the rewards are connected to the results, helpful information ain't going to happen.
Voting for "what I think Quirky will like" is very different from voting for "what I like".
And though Quirky wants us to vote for "what I like", Quirky gets what Quirky rewards.
And, even if a better system had 100000 people voting for "what I like", that's still too broad to be useful.
(engineers evaluating the engineering + innovators evaluating the innovation + mothers evaluating the usefulness to child rearing...added all together in one number = results that are useless gray mush.)
The key:
(1) Rewards that are not tied to the results, and
(2) 100000 people answering the same question...a question they all have a valid answer for...a question that's specific enough to be useful. ("I would buy this").
(Uh-oh...sounds like the "three tweaks" system.)
(And, as Michelle points out, if Quirky wants some demographic info, extract it out from the 100000.)
(We don't have 100000? Well, 5000 will be involved ideators who also vote. 95000 will be semi-involved voters who only vote....because the HOC did what needs to be done to KEEP people coming back to Q.) -
-
2There is a lot of passion here tonight. It paints a clearer picture for me of all the blood that has been left on the field in previous years. I lot of love for Q here, clearly, or no one would care.
.
I hope that innovation can also be applied to our "living model" that we have going here at Q. I see the changes as an open hand, and hopefully open minds. We all want it to be fairer, more fun, more meaningful for inventors, profitable for everyone. There are positive things that have happened here this week (and today) and that encourages me that things can be different,and better. I have seen more inspired conversation here and and on the forums than I have in weeks. Good ideas are afoot on how to make all of this fun, engaging, successful and different. There is something REALLY interesting (IMO) happening here:
http://www.quirky.com/forums/topic/8777, and I hope Q will continue to consider innovation in this aspect of the business, also. Very impressed Nathan, with the attention and weight you have given this topic this week, and the speed that some of the improvements/changes are happening. Let's keep it going. I am sure most people here would rather be part of the solution than the cause of problems. It is all new, and hard on different levels as change is not easy. Make it fair, make it FUN . -
-
all this talk of votes....
"votes" is the wrong term for Quirky...
re-brand votes to something like "Idea value", "hat tips", "trending", or "acknowledgements".
.
if people vote... they feel there is a winner and loser....and that a game must be played. they also don't understand how a low vote count can be a winner.
.
.
the term "votes" could be a part of the problem.-
I would agree with this.
-
-
-
-
-
-
yes Kat....
and that's why i'm saying that they are using the wrong term. (something they should change.....) -
-
-
-
-
I’m
Nothing
1My summation for what has happened here is that when Q was conceived they thought that using the community to help or even drive decision making was a great idea.
The way the information was gathered, purely by popular voting with no qualification was not working so they eventually dumped as a concept and decided to take only a passing notice of the community's input while still allowing the community to 'get influence' even though they were not really influencing anything much.
I think it would benefit Quirky to understand that the original idea was actually great but poorly executed market research and market research could actually work if they executed it better.
Part of the promise to ideators is that they will receive data as feedback for their $10. Part of the promise to voters is that they are influencing decision making neither is happening but could with little required from Q.- view 1 more comment
-
-
Quirky used to have a $99 invention submittal fee? http://www.quirky.com/about
-
-
-
