Login

Grapehead · 09-16-2018, 01:10 AM

09-16-2018, 01:05 AMMike Izzy Wrote: Let me throw out some numbers in this current point task

82 members participated
28-82 used the welfare links = 35%
3 of 28 are members that typicaly wouldnt do our point tasks now gaining credit through welfarew links

At least in this PT 90% of the welfare links added are from active members that typically do point tasks every week. is that what we were trying to accomplish with this implamentation?

So what you're saying is the vast majority of people participated in the SHL's PT, and we had 3 members increase in activity?? Sounds like a win-win!

DeletedAtUserRequest · 09-16-2018, 01:16 AM

09-16-2018, 01:10 AMGrapehead Wrote:
09-16-2018, 01:05 AMMike Izzy Wrote: Let me throw out some numbers in this current point task

82 members participated
28-82 used the welfare links = 35%
3 of 28 are members that typicaly wouldnt do our point tasks now gaining credit through welfarew links

At least in this PT 90% of the welfare links added are from active members that typically do point tasks every week. is that what we were trying to accomplish with this implamentation?

So what you're saying is the vast majority of people participated in the SHL's PT, and we had 3 members increase in activity?? Sounds like a win-win!

Hi Grape,

Is that a win win? .... the loss of 35% of all content for a 3.5% increase of the semi active members?.. Maybe it is i guess...i dont know Confused

.. sounds like a loss loss to me.

|

|

|

|

Grapehead · 09-16-2018, 01:27 AM

09-16-2018, 01:16 AMMike Izzy Wrote:
09-16-2018, 01:10 AMGrapehead Wrote:
09-16-2018, 01:05 AMMike Izzy Wrote: Let me throw out some numbers in this current point task

82 members participated
28-82 used the welfare links = 35%
3 of 28 are members that typicaly wouldnt do our point tasks now gaining credit through welfarew links

At least in this PT 90% of the welfare links added are from active members that typically do point tasks every week. is that what we were trying to accomplish with this implamentation?

So what you're saying is the vast majority of people participated in the SHL's PT, and we had 3 members increase in activity?? Sounds like a win-win!

Hi Grape,

Is that a win win? .... the loss of 35% of all content for a 3.5% increase of the semi active members?.. Maybe it is i guess...i dont know .. sounds like a loss loss to me.

Most users just don't have the time to read other people's PTs, so I'll take some more active members to strengthen our league depth any day. There are still 54 other PTs to read for those who want, and that's plenty in my opinion. Perhaps we should poll people to see how many actually read other PTs, cause I expect it would be a small % of people who take that time.

DeletedAtUserRequest · 09-16-2018, 01:35 AM

09-16-2018, 01:27 AMGrapehead Wrote:
09-16-2018, 01:16 AMMike Izzy Wrote:
09-16-2018, 01:10 AMGrapehead Wrote:
09-16-2018, 01:05 AMMike Izzy Wrote: Let me throw out some numbers in this current point task

82 members participated
28-82 used the welfare links = 35%
3 of 28 are members that typicaly wouldnt do our point tasks now gaining credit through welfarew links

At least in this PT 90% of the welfare links added are from active members that typically do point tasks every week. is that what we were trying to accomplish with this implamentation?

So what you're saying is the vast majority of people participated in the SHL's PT, and we had 3 members increase in activity?? Sounds like a win-win!

Hi Grape,

Is that a win win? .... the loss of 35% of all content for a 3.5% increase of the semi active members?.. Maybe it is i guess...i dont know .. sounds like a loss loss to me.

Most users just don't have the time to read other people's PTs, so I'll take some more active members to strengthen our league depth any day. There are still 54 other PTs to read for those who want, and that's plenty in my opinion. Perhaps we should poll people to see how many actually read other PTs, cause I expect it would be a small % of people who take that time.

I dont read them either when they are the retread tasks which weve seen a number of times over the years. But the new point task director has thrown out some fresh new topics this season.. if were going to see an uptic in new engaging PT's then we should consider whether the % of loss content from our active members is worth the current % of semi actives now participating weekly.

Its worth monitoring IMO.

Ill leave it at that, good luck to all!

|

timeconsumer · 09-16-2018, 01:44 AM

09-16-2018, 01:35 AMMike Izzy Wrote: I dont read them either when they are the retread tasks which weve seen a number of times over the years. But the new point task director has thrown out some fresh new topics this season.. if were going to see an uptic in new engaging PT's then we should consider whether the % of loss content from our active members is worth the current % of semi actives now participating weekly.

Its worth monitoring IMO.

Ill leave it at that, good luck to all!

I saw at least 3 posts in discord LRs from people who didn't like the PT this week (and these aren't primary NSFL/PBErs), so they opted for the NSFL's PT instead. Maybe not everyone shared your opinion that you enjoyed this one and found it "fresh" and a "oppertunity [sic] for the league to teach, honor and celebrate its rich history" so they instead opted for the alternative this week. Different strokes. Different folks, etc.

Grapehead · 09-16-2018, 09:50 AM

09-16-2018, 01:44 AMtimeconsumer Wrote:
09-16-2018, 01:35 AMMike Izzy Wrote: I dont read them either when they are the retread tasks which weve seen a number of times over the years. But the new point task director has thrown out some fresh new topics this season.. if were going to see an uptic in new engaging PT's then we should consider whether the % of loss content from our active members is worth the current % of semi actives now participating weekly.

Its worth monitoring IMO.

Ill leave it at that, good luck to all!

I saw at least 3 posts in discord LRs from people who didn't like the PT this week (and these aren't primary NSFL/PBErs), so they opted for the NSFL's PT instead. Maybe not everyone shared your opinion that you enjoyed this one and found it "fresh" and a "oppertunity [sic] for the league to teach, honor and celebrate its rich history" so they instead opted for the alternative this week. Different strokes. Different folks, etc.

Ya for me it just came down to feeling like I had a better idea of what I wanted to write for the NSFL's PT this week, and opted to save myself the time of doing a bunch of research on the SHL site for 3 TPE. I'm sure a ton of people didn't need to look much up to get the juices flowing for the SHL PT, but I didn't feel inspired by the topic this week. I still wrote a PT, and the NSFL would've accept my SHL PT anyway, so why does it matter which PT I chose to write to some people? I still wrote the 200 words same as the rest, I just posted it on a different site.

Grapehead · 09-16-2018, 09:54 AM

09-16-2018, 01:35 AMMike Izzy Wrote:
09-16-2018, 01:27 AMGrapehead Wrote:
09-16-2018, 01:16 AMMike Izzy Wrote:
09-16-2018, 01:10 AMGrapehead Wrote:
09-16-2018, 01:05 AMMike Izzy Wrote: Let me throw out some numbers in this current point task

82 members participated
28-82 used the welfare links = 35%
3 of 28 are members that typicaly wouldnt do our point tasks now gaining credit through welfarew links

At least in this PT 90% of the welfare links added are from active members that typically do point tasks every week. is that what we were trying to accomplish with this implamentation?

So what you're saying is the vast majority of people participated in the SHL's PT, and we had 3 members increase in activity?? Sounds like a win-win!

Hi Grape,

Is that a win win? .... the loss of 35% of all content for a 3.5% increase of the semi active members?.. Maybe it is i guess...i dont know .. sounds like a loss loss to me.

Most users just don't have the time to read other people's PTs, so I'll take some more active members to strengthen our league depth any day. There are still 54 other PTs to read for those who want, and that's plenty in my opinion. Perhaps we should poll people to see how many actually read other PTs, cause I expect it would be a small % of people who take that time.

I dont read them either when they are the retread tasks which weve seen a number of times over the years. But the new point task director has thrown out some fresh new topics this season.. if were going to see an uptic in new engaging PT's then we should consider whether the % of loss content from our active members is worth the current % of semi actives now participating weekly.

Its worth monitoring IMO.

Ill leave it at that, good luck to all!

I totally see where you're coming from izzy, I just don't think it's content that provides much value to the league overall, and active members are far more valuable in my mind. I might be concerned if that percentage of people using the "welfare" goes north of 50%, but even still I'm not too worried about the health of the PTs in general.

Dangles13 · 09-16-2018, 09:58 AM

Yeah, I'm not doing research for 3 tpe.

Samsung virtual assistant · 09-16-2018, 09:59 AM

09-16-2018, 09:58 AMDangles13 Wrote: Yeah, I'm not doing research for 3 tpe.

^

Eggy216 · 09-16-2018, 10:10 AM

09-16-2018, 01:44 AMtimeconsumer Wrote:
09-16-2018, 01:35 AMMike Izzy Wrote: I dont read them either when they are the retread tasks which weve seen a number of times over the years. But the new point task director has thrown out some fresh new topics this season.. if were going to see an uptic in new engaging PT's then we should consider whether the % of loss content from our active members is worth the current % of semi actives now participating weekly.

Its worth monitoring IMO.

Ill leave it at that, good luck to all!

I saw at least 3 posts in discord LRs from people who didn't like the PT this week (and these aren't primary NSFL/PBErs), so they opted for the NSFL's PT instead. Maybe not everyone shared your opinion that you enjoyed this one and found it "fresh" and a "oppertunity [sic] for the league to teach, honor and celebrate its rich history" so they instead opted for the alternative this week. Different strokes. Different folks, etc.

I also saw a few people complaining that they would've preferred to do our PT, but they hated the topic so they did another league's PT. So this week's might be skewed because of that.

iamslm22 · 09-16-2018, 10:20 AM

I had teammates in the discord who aren't NSFLers who wanted to do NSFLs PT this week because of how bad this PT was. This isn't school, no one wants to do a giant research project.

JSS · 09-16-2018, 10:25 AM

do pbe mock drafts count for affiliation? @Eggy216 @majesiu

iamslm22 · 09-16-2018, 10:28 AM

09-16-2018, 10:25 AMJSS Wrote: do pbe mock drafts count for affiliation? @Eggy216 @majesiu

No they don't. Just the regular 3 TPE PTs

Justice · 09-16-2018, 10:33 AM

pte's were always something you just had to meander a conflated 200 words for ya agree with them mfs above

Avakael · 09-16-2018, 10:38 AM

I'm just not doing PT's if I don't feel like it, because I've figured out I can miss 3 out of 5 and still cap out. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us