Remove rank for inactive users

[djondinium]

Hello!

My apologizes if this was asked before. I tried searching and found this post, but it's not exactly what we require. It can work, but hoping for something simpler.

We are in the process of changing how user rankings work and I was wondering if it's possible to remove ranks for inactive user? For example, if they didn't login for a year, remove their current rank and change it to another one?

Thank you 🙂 

[LisaB]

@djondinium  community ranks recognise a members all time contribution to the community and so are by design intended to give rather than take away. 

With the exception of moderated content, it would be best practice to recognise all user contributions (to the relevant value), can you share some more insight on why you want to do this?

[valeria_k]

Hi Lisa, 

A specific case would be: a member was very active in the Community several years ago, and reached a certain rank. However, they stopped participating and haven't posted at all in, say, 2 years. Due to the number of posts they published back when they were active, they still have the rank. But it no longer matters to them and may be confusing to anybody who comes across their old posts but then sees that they haven't contributed to any recent topics. 

So what we're thinking is a possibility of making ranking work similar to Top Solution/Kudoed Members which is based on recent activity. 

Let us know what you think?

[mdfw]

I've spent some time researching how to "fade" user ranks based on recommendations in "Building Web Reputation Systems". As far as I can tell, there's no out of the box way to do this. The ranking system doesn't have a call to 'last login date'. You could potentially script this (I haven't done this, but I think the API calls are there):

1. Find all members of rank X
2. Find last login date
3. Set rank or badge or similar that indicates this person has been away awhile
4. Based your ranking algorithm on #3. 

Agreed that is would be nice to have though.

[LisaB]

Thank you @valeria_k for the context and @mdfw for sharing this is something you've also been curious about. 

Ranks are designed to recognise a users contributions to the community, and in doing so just one of the ways they build their reputation among their community peers. If the rank is forcibly decreased after a period of inactivity, that would say their contributions aren't valuable anymore. Its probably true to say that in all communities at some point - by virtue of the business products and services evolving - content becomes outdated and less relevant to the viewer, but does this mean the initial contrition is any less valuable? I would argue no, more so, I would say there is a significant risk of motivating less valuable behaviours among your members if they feel they need to force activity to maintain their ranks. 

I would love to better understand the problem you're both aiming to solve, I confess I'm not sure I do at the moment. 

[mdfw]

@LisaB - There's an interesting debate on this. I think there's a 'historical/all' rank and a 'current' rank. If we use analogs to real/meatspace communities, if I am the vice-president of my Chipmunk Fan Club because of my contributions to that club, but leave for two years, when I come back I'm not necessarily vice-president material. I can talk up, and some people will remember, that I was vice-president, but when I initially come back, maybe the club is now focused on Albino Chipmunks and I have less to offer.

So, why should we not have a similar 'fade' in our online communities? For instance, our top user in the community I manage has been dead for over two years. However, the leaderboard says he's still the top. Should he be? 

The real issue, IMO, is that the author's rank is not 'frozen' with the content given. Meaning, my first post in this community where I knew so little about Khoros now shows me as a Titan. Should that content be assumed to be useful because of that?

It's a deep hole to wander down, but I was trying to specifically respond to @djondinium's question.

[LisaB]

@mdfw  I totally agree an inactive user should not be blocking other current and active users from the top of the leaderboard, there are various configurable options for leaderboards so communities can set the timeframe to one relevant and appropriate to their community, a common timeframe is 30 days, although it can vary but I would agree this should not be set to lifetime/ all time. 

[JasonHill]

This is a great topic. I've been thinking about it ever since I saw a prominent community here in Australia that has a very simple ranking system of just three ranks that is based on your recent activity, not all time activity. It ensures people must stay active on the community to keep their rank. I really like it. I think there's a lot of merit in Khoros offering an alternative ranking system like this.

Jason

[JuergenM]

Very interesting. Though it is a very different use case: adidas has a ranking systems in their shopping app where points collected over the past 12 month are taken to calculate the rank. You earn points by shopping, exercising using the adidas training or running app (formerly runtastic), or some other things. There, a rank changes over time depending on the points you earn over time. Very different use case, but an interesting approach, I think.

On Strava (another sport tracking app you may know), e.g. metrics like miles/km ridden by bike in a month count to a mission, that gives special rewards. That is like giving the badge calculations a time frame. Wouldn't that be nice?

[LisaB]

Great example @JuergenM , I was thinking British Airways is another good example that's relevant here, you have both Tier Points and Lifetime Tier Points. The first reflective of activity within a time limited period, the latter for all time. 

[karolinalinda]

We simply assign the Inactive role that changes the rank to Inactive as well.

[mdfw]

Curious @karolinalinda - how do you do this? How does Inactive get set?

[karolinalinda]

@mdfw, we don't have any big philosophy behind the settings. We have a role called "Inactive" and a rank called "Inactive". When we know that an employee is leaving the company, we are manually changing the role to "Inactive" and the rank is then set accordingly:

[mdfw]

Thanks @karolinalinda - I was hoping you had an automated process. We're an external community so was thinking along those lines. Gave me something to think about though. Thanks!