Printable View
Here are my power rankings for thus far in the contest. I am using a standard multi-attribute attitudinal model to score people on a ten point likert scale. Five dimensions were used. I can make the spreadsheet available if anyone would like more descriptions of the dimensions or they would like to adapt the model to their scoring.
The way it boils down is it's very hard to give people higher scores than others when they are not here and not contributing while the others are. It's unfortunate this is a reality of the whole thing but it's only fair as long as you break it down properly. The only person who was able to overcome some of that significanlty in my rankings was CP because he missed the first couple contests but they didn't take a lot of time and he was an absolute monster today.
The reason I put this up is to show people the scoring model and suggest a good way to approach the type of contest we are in. Unfortunately this is something that has to be done at the outset. I should have come out with this earlier I have the skills they just are a little rusty.
The idea is at the outset all of the people on the team would brainstorm what dimensions we were going to use to evaluate ourselves throughout the contest. We would narrow it down as a group and define what the dimensions are supposed to measure and how much weight each dimension has in the evaluation score. This would lead to us forming a psychological contract agreeing on what is important to us and how we are going to evaluate our performance. Each team member would agree to abide by the contract throughout the excercise. Obviously, the buy in process is very important in properly forming these types of contracts. The good reason to hash these things out at the outset is everyone knows what is expected of them prior to a contest starting and the team will be more focused and productive.
For each contest we would each rank all players on each dimension with a value between one and ten. That value would be multiplied by the weight and all dimensions are summed to create an overall score for the participant. Those scores are then ranked from highest to lowest rendering our highest and lowest performers.
The final application is to churn the team based on the low scoring members. It's a decent decision support system and provides some consistency to the team.
:dizzy:
You drop down a few spots for spelling 'platelets' wrong. :D
Yeah I forgot to spell check I guess.
I completed all 3 tasks, it says I only completed 2.
and i only get a 5 for contribution when I raised over 6000 ZBs today? I know some people may have been able to get more, but thats still quite a bit.
I know everyone is gonna have gripes with this I guess. Oh well. I just dont know if this is really the best way to do it. Good intentions though, I see what you are trying to do. It's just pretty subjective.
and what exactly is follow through? and a 5 on teamwork? I got a 2500 donation today and then gave it right to jaded. I also gave money to pat. I rated posts, started threads...we've only had 1 competition so far that's had to do with teamwork, and thought I did pretty well...
not trying to be selfish. My point is that these categories are all subjective and up to whoever is doing the rating. I agree the team needs to be productive, but is this the best way to determine productivity?
This is an attitudinal model and is based on people's attitudes so it is inherently subjective. I guess it is a sort of hybrid model because the completion attribute is more of a behavioral based measurement. Each person would do their ranking of each individual within their own framework. The overall scores would reflect that persons framework. It most certainly is subjective but the idea is to break out areas of your subjectivity to more accurately view the criteria the group has decided to evaluate. I would say just going with a feeling is much more subjective and also prone to not flush out important parameters that should influence your final decision. The idea is to harness synergies within the group and drive sound decision making.
I did update your score socal with a 10 for completion and your new score is 560 and in my rankings you are 5th and the rest are bumped down a spot. I do apologize for that but that's why I put it up here and that's why we have a group. It's very important the results be scrutinized by the group to thwart technical errors like this as well as callibrate the group thinking about the dimensions on an ongoing basis.
I see what you are saying about the zonebucks too. I was not able to keep track of how many zonebucks each person raised so I had to again take a more subjective route. This is a good example of why a group should follow this process, because if I made an error there it would be minimzed because my score is only a small piece of the final decision determinant. One area you did get hurt was in follow through because you failed to vote once.
I put the excel file up if anyone wants to use it.
FILE
yeah the failing to vote was my fault, but only because I didnt make sure the PM went through. For some reason it didn't work right, maybe i clicked out if it too early. Guess that'll hurt me in the "power rankings" for the rest of the game...
Exactly. But because I had to go make some real money today, and couldn't be around to make ZB's, you've got me ranked low. Meanwhile, if you go back and look at Challenge #2, I was the first person for the Hotties to complete the challenge. Challenge#2 And with Challenge #1, I don't know where I would come in, but I did donate almost 5,000 ZB's to Log when asked. If I had known he would "give them back" when asked for yesterday's challenge, I would have done that. But no one alerted me to that fact, including Jaded who has my cell #.Quote:
Originally posted by Typ0
This is an attitudinal model and is based on people's attitudes so it is inherently subjective.
It's inevitable that someone falls on the bottom of this type of scoring system. I resent people saying I'm pointing fingers at anyone that is just ludicrous. If that is the case than every single one of us is pointing fingers when we vote for someone. The reality is we have to make a decision. When this is implemented properly it's one of the best ways for a group to make a decision I know of. It synthesizes peoples attitudes in a way there is good feedback on how people feel and results in a raw score that weighs everyones opinions equally. When you put everything back together, it does a good job of accounting for anomolies in how people feel. In my opinion, it's much more supportive of the team to do something like this than it is to get together with a few team members and determine when it comes time to vote someone off your decision set is not going to include the people in your group. That is very counterproductive to the team because the lowest performers may not be being removed which results in a lower performing team.
Jack I'm sorry about the things you said. Maybe I was a little hard on you in the contribution area. I do appreciate you were able to complete the first two challenges and donated your zonebucks right away yesterday. From where I sit, yesterdays contest took a huge amount of effort though to make the team successful. I had to rank some of these categories based on the total effort involved over the course of the first three challenges. The first two challenges took little total effort at all to complete. If you completed them and someone else didn't you got the full points for completion whereas people who did not don't. Yesterday was brutal. So failing to miss yesterday resulted in taking a big hit on your score for an area because up to this time yesterdays contest has eaten up the most effort and resources. That will change today no doubt. Again, sorry Jack, but unfortuanately someone has to come up on the bottom.
Several people have brough up the fact that I got my name in after Thurm did in the challenge. Here's a little "evidence" to show you that if Typ0 had been quicker answering his PM's, I would have gotten in before Thurm did.
----------------
Re: need ZB's
on the way.
quote:
Jack In Syracuse wrote on Today 05:31 PM:
Jaded said you had some extra ZB's. I'm short about 1100 for my name. I'll be on till around 6:30 pm.
Yesterday 05:40 PM
--------------------
I PM'ed Typ0 at 5:31, at 5:40 he replied, while at the same time Thurm was posting in the Challenge thread. Typ0 was online when I sent the PM, why did he wait almost 10 minutes before replying? And it still took about another 2 minutes to get the ZB's after that.
I know it's probably to late to change any votes, but it's something to think about the next time you need to vote.
Hmmmmm..............
I guess going out in a blinding snow storm on back country roads to find a com on monday night does get you any extra points.LOL
Jack I can't be expected to sit here and do nothing but monitor my PMs to respond I have other things to do too. An eleven minute turn around is still pretty good though. It means I was available. But I should have given you the zonebucks before you arrived so it was a non issue. Bad decision by me. I was just concerned if I put them in your account the other team would notice you hadn't checked in yet and start disapproving your posts to eat up your zonebucks and I thint that was a reasonable concern. I also made another bad decision yesterday that didn't effect the outcome but it could have. While I was here in whole for all the contests thus far, you will notice my contribution score reflects some weakness because of these things. I feel that I was fair.