Comments on: Top Ten Feature Requests for LinkedIn Answers http://www.linkedintelligence.com/top-ten-feature-requests-for-linkedin-answers/ The unofficial source for all things LinkedIn™. Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:52:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Dawn Mular http://www.linkedintelligence.com/top-ten-feature-requests-for-linkedin-answers/#comment-99 Dawn Mular Sun, 21 Jan 2007 22:19:19 +0000 http://linkedintelligence.com/?p=92#comment-99 I agree with all 10 of these, Scott. And if you look at some of the similar community utilities, I think most featured in 1, 5, 9, 8, and 10 are fundamental to the utilities on going success. I agree with all 10 of these, Scott. And if you look at some of the similar community utilities, I think most featured in 1, 5, 9, 8, and 10 are fundamental to the utilities on going success.

]]> By: fudge.org » Blog Archive » LinkedIn Answers http://www.linkedintelligence.com/top-ten-feature-requests-for-linkedin-answers/#comment-98 fudge.org » Blog Archive » LinkedIn Answers Mon, 15 Jan 2007 07:36:50 +0000 http://linkedintelligence.com/?p=92#comment-98 [...] This is a closed ecosystem of trust though. Perhaps that is what I am missing. There should be a way to put this back into a blog consumable format but without splintering a core blog real estate. Much better ideas have been collected here and elsewhere. [...] [...] This is a closed ecosystem of trust though. Perhaps that is what I am missing. There should be a way to put this back into a blog consumable format but without splintering a core blog real estate. Much better ideas have been collected here and elsewhere. [...]

]]> By: Allen Blue http://www.linkedintelligence.com/top-ten-feature-requests-for-linkedin-answers/#comment-97 Allen Blue Thu, 11 Jan 2007 21:04:53 +0000 http://linkedintelligence.com/?p=92#comment-97 I'm happy to say we added the ability to flag questions as inappropriate last evening. A similiar capability for answers will be coming in the next couple weeks, along with several other intermediate improvements. Thank you for compiling the great list; many items are on our list as well. We sincerly appreciate the feedback. I’m happy to say we added the ability to flag questions as inappropriate last evening. A similiar capability for answers will be coming in the next couple weeks, along with several other intermediate improvements.

Thank you for compiling the great list; many items are on our list as well. We sincerly appreciate the feedback.

]]> By: Simon Taylor http://www.linkedintelligence.com/top-ten-feature-requests-for-linkedin-answers/#comment-96 Simon Taylor Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:47:19 +0000 http://linkedintelligence.com/?p=92#comment-96 Scott, great points. Have you pitched the idea of a complex rating system algorithm to LinkedIn or are you hoping they will recognise the need anyway? Scott,

great points. Have you pitched the idea of a complex rating system algorithm to LinkedIn or are you hoping they will recognise the need anyway?

]]> By: Scott Allen http://www.linkedintelligence.com/top-ten-feature-requests-for-linkedin-answers/#comment-94 Scott Allen Thu, 11 Jan 2007 14:48:08 +0000 http://linkedintelligence.com/?p=92#comment-94 I did a lot of work on reputation systems with Cynthia Typaldos when I was at Mongoose Technology. A key aspect of a rating system in an environment such as this is actually a complete LACK of transparency. Good example? Google's ranking scheme. It's not only NOT public, it's so complex and obscure that no one could possible figure it out exactly -- it's the source of much speculation. But the end result is that while a few people try to game it, most gaming strategies get shot down pretty quickly, and in general, the top rankings go to sites that are "deserving". That algorithm is much of why Google is the #1 search engine. The best ranking scheme would be based on some combination of total responses, total "good" and "best" rated responses, and the ratio of the two. Even better... allow all members to rate the responses, not just the person who asked the question, but as I suggested, give more weight to the opinion of the person who asked the question. People can know what all the factors are, but shouldn't be able to easily determine the exact algorithm. I did a lot of work on reputation systems with Cynthia Typaldos when I was at Mongoose Technology. A key aspect of a rating system in an environment such as this is actually a complete LACK of transparency. Good example? Google’s ranking scheme. It’s not only NOT public, it’s so complex and obscure that no one could possible figure it out exactly — it’s the source of much speculation. But the end result is that while a few people try to game it, most gaming strategies get shot down pretty quickly, and in general, the top rankings go to sites that are “deserving”. That algorithm is much of why Google is the #1 search engine.

The best ranking scheme would be based on some combination of total responses, total “good” and “best” rated responses, and the ratio of the two. Even better… allow all members to rate the responses, not just the person who asked the question, but as I suggested, give more weight to the opinion of the person who asked the question.

People can know what all the factors are, but shouldn’t be able to easily determine the exact algorithm.

]]> By: Simon Taylor http://www.linkedintelligence.com/top-ten-feature-requests-for-linkedin-answers/#comment-95 Simon Taylor Wed, 10 Jan 2007 11:17:00 +0000 http://linkedintelligence.com/?p=92#comment-95 Hi Scott, I would definitely go along with number 8. It's really frustrating to see the effort that I've put into LinkedIn Answers almost go to waste because of the people that are starting to just slam answers in in volume with no sense of quality. You and I are both usually on the first page of "Top Experts" based on volume but I for one am going to find it increasingly difficult to keep up the volume. What I am proud of though is having 6 of my 35 Answers rated as Best Answers. I'm sure you're equally proud of your similarly high ratio. This is what the ratings should be about - a combination of volume and quality. I also strongly concur with Number 5 and, of course, everyone's favourite - number 3. Point number 9 is interesting but could be really open to abuse, surely? Hi Scott,

I would definitely go along with number 8. It’s really frustrating to see the effort that I’ve put into LinkedIn Answers almost go to waste because of the people that are starting to just slam answers in in volume with no sense of quality. You and I are both usually on the first page of “Top Experts” based on volume but I for one am going to find it increasingly difficult to keep up the volume. What I am proud of though is having 6 of my 35 Answers rated as Best Answers. I’m sure you’re equally proud of your similarly high ratio. This is what the ratings should be about - a combination of volume and quality.

I also strongly concur with Number 5 and, of course, everyone’s favourite - number 3.

Point number 9 is interesting but could be really open to abuse, surely?

]]>