Reliability Factor
by Robert Brim · in Site Feedback · 04/03/2001 (10:17 am) · 7 replies
I would like to see a reliability factor added to everyone's profiles.
I have accepted and tried to put to work, at least 6 different people, only to never hear from them again.
To keep people like this communicating and maybe a little bit honest, my recommendation is to allow a "employer" to be allowed to submit a rating on everyone the "employer" accepts applications from.
It is very frustrating to fill a position and have to wait a period until you figure out the person has absolutely no plans on doing any work, they just wanted to see where you were in your plans.
I have accepted and tried to put to work, at least 6 different people, only to never hear from them again.
To keep people like this communicating and maybe a little bit honest, my recommendation is to allow a "employer" to be allowed to submit a rating on everyone the "employer" accepts applications from.
It is very frustrating to fill a position and have to wait a period until you figure out the person has absolutely no plans on doing any work, they just wanted to see where you were in your plans.
About the author
#2
Sometimes it seems like a crapshoot just joining a group that actually serious about releasing something.
I think this whole site will tend to weed out the ... "less committed" individuals, or at least make their commitment level obvious. I personally will probably gravitate to working with people who regular the forums and are active on the site as a whole. I'll probably look for those who have at least some small piece of work to show, although I can't be too picky and expect more than I can show myself. Again digressing, but I think I'll probably finish up a few more work samples before I venture to join a team so I can raise my standards.
I don't think adding a rating is really necessary because of the way the site will tend to work as a whole. I almost worry this will be up for abuse and vagueness. Some people will expect people to put in a few hours of work a week to a project. Others will expect more. Some people may not understand how much time it takes to code a given feature, etc. I dunno. I'm not against the idea--it just makes me weary. I'm not sure I would always feel comfortable being judged by some people who may turn out to be very immature or vengeful. Then again, I'll probably be more of the type to have a phone conversation with individuals before joining or accepting them, which should be a bit more revealing.
Ok, this post is too long. Just a quick suggestion--if you do implement a feature, a somewhat thorough set of rules and guidelines would be nice. I.e. you shouldn't be able to rate someone as "not committed" if they only were in a project with you for a week, and decided it was not a project he/she wanted to be a part of. You get the idea. Again, I'm not against the idea, but thought I would present another side of the coin.
Hmmm. Megadeth - Duke Nukem theme just came up on Winamp. :)
05/04/2001 (8:19 pm)
This has actually kept me from touching much of the mod community. For every mod that is out there, only a small percentage even release a beta. I only once 'joined' a mod group. Upon 'joining' I asked the founder/programmer to send me anything he had compiled (which I think was only a small slightly modified client DLL--which was fine by me at that point). I also offered to submit an already 90% complete map that would fit the mod halfway decent. He disappeared for 3 months only to come back 3 months later and posting "hey, where did everyone go? my net connection was gone for a few weeks." *sigh* From then on I decided not to bother with anything that did not have a playable beta, however lame or barely modified that beta may be. I think getting the first beta out should be the #1 priority for any mod group, no matter how simple or buggy it is. Ok I'm digressing, but some mods like DoD and FLF released excellent mods without going through a beta period. But how can you spot those opportunities? Sometimes it seems like a crapshoot just joining a group that actually serious about releasing something.
I think this whole site will tend to weed out the ... "less committed" individuals, or at least make their commitment level obvious. I personally will probably gravitate to working with people who regular the forums and are active on the site as a whole. I'll probably look for those who have at least some small piece of work to show, although I can't be too picky and expect more than I can show myself. Again digressing, but I think I'll probably finish up a few more work samples before I venture to join a team so I can raise my standards.
I don't think adding a rating is really necessary because of the way the site will tend to work as a whole. I almost worry this will be up for abuse and vagueness. Some people will expect people to put in a few hours of work a week to a project. Others will expect more. Some people may not understand how much time it takes to code a given feature, etc. I dunno. I'm not against the idea--it just makes me weary. I'm not sure I would always feel comfortable being judged by some people who may turn out to be very immature or vengeful. Then again, I'll probably be more of the type to have a phone conversation with individuals before joining or accepting them, which should be a bit more revealing.
Ok, this post is too long. Just a quick suggestion--if you do implement a feature, a somewhat thorough set of rules and guidelines would be nice. I.e. you shouldn't be able to rate someone as "not committed" if they only were in a project with you for a week, and decided it was not a project he/she wanted to be a part of. You get the idea. Again, I'm not against the idea, but thought I would present another side of the coin.
Hmmm. Megadeth - Duke Nukem theme just came up on Winamp. :)
#3
Crazy thought :)
05/04/2001 (8:45 pm)
How about just asking for references? Looking at a resume, etc?Crazy thought :)
#4
05/05/2001 (7:07 am)
This would be a list of references, Ed :) As for the resumes...we all know about that 'additional' material that tends to get added. I think a rating system would be a great idea.
#5
But, depends. What IS the demographic that GG is catering to? How much experience does the average GG member have with these things? Maybe education in addition to peer rating is in order? Especially if the majority of folks are on the younger/less experienced side? Sorta "how to interview" workshops, etc?
If you implement something like eBay, that could work. I just like doing my own follow up on new "hires."
Another nickel :)
05/05/2001 (7:17 am)
Yeah, I guess I could see that. Just from past experiences as employer and employee, I might prefer the actual references to be "available on request."But, depends. What IS the demographic that GG is catering to? How much experience does the average GG member have with these things? Maybe education in addition to peer rating is in order? Especially if the majority of folks are on the younger/less experienced side? Sorta "how to interview" workshops, etc?
If you implement something like eBay, that could work. I just like doing my own follow up on new "hires."
Another nickel :)
#6
05/05/2001 (10:08 am)
I had the same problem on two seperate occasions. Everyone says they're committed and it starts out great, but after a week or two they just stop responding to emails, blow off group meetings, etc. It makes it very hard to get anything done. Some kind of rating system would be great. I think it might be hard to have refrences though because many people are just starting out.
#7
I think you will have to be very careful not to open a whole can of worms. There may be legal issues like slander (I'm not a lawyer just guessing). Tempers can run hot on forums and believe it or not, not everyone can be trusted to be honest. Every reference/review needs to be more than just a rating - it should have an explaination, the explaination should be moderated, and it should be signed. It would also be nice if the recipient of the good or bad comments could be contacted before they are published.
Unfortunately it will be a fine line between scaring people off from making a review and leaving the system open to abuse. All in all it sounds like too much work for GG :(
05/05/2001 (6:50 pm)
First of all I totally agree that something needs to be done. I recently had a wasteful experience with a "prospective employer" who I suspect was probably around 12 years old and yet their profile said they were a skilled game director. But...I think you will have to be very careful not to open a whole can of worms. There may be legal issues like slander (I'm not a lawyer just guessing). Tempers can run hot on forums and believe it or not, not everyone can be trusted to be honest. Every reference/review needs to be more than just a rating - it should have an explaination, the explaination should be moderated, and it should be signed. It would also be nice if the recipient of the good or bad comments could be contacted before they are published.
Unfortunately it will be a fine line between scaring people off from making a review and leaving the system open to abuse. All in all it sounds like too much work for GG :(
Torque Owner Jeff Tunnell
There are a bunch of Marketplace features we would like to add, but don't have time to implement them right now though.
Jeff Tunnell GG