Impact Weighting - automatic lower bounds for Total impact

[timwintle]

(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)

[patt0]

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.

[timwintle]

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.

[patt0]

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
#160 (comment).