Submission "Leaderboard"?

[wbloss]

Is there a listing of the top 100 (for example) submitters based on the number of submissions that they have made?
If not, should there be?
Thanks
W

 

[IcomIcR20]

There isn't one to my knowledge.

There are pluses and minuses to having one. On the plus side it would probably encourage submissions. However, we wouldn't want people submitting unverified or rushed confirmations just to churn out the submissions to climb up the leaderboard. Or, for instance, submitting multiple new TGs, channels, sites, etc as sperate submissions instead of one in order to drive up their submission number.

I'm not saying that most of us would do that, but its something to consider when talking about a submission leaderboard.

 

[GTR8000]

There is not, no. Should there be? My preference would be no, based on the reasoning @IcomIcR20 gave.

From personal experience as a dbadmin for a number of years, I have found that some of the most dependable, meticulous submitters are not necessarily prolific contributors, but instead will put together a well thought out submission that almost never requires any further vetting or followup. On the other hand, some of the most prolific submitters I've dealt with tend to be sloppy and inaccurate, requiring more effort on my part to elicit further details. And yes, some submitters are already in the bad habit of making multiple submissions when a single would be more appropriate. Either they believe that all five talkgroups they're submitting at the same time for the same system require their own submission (they do not), or they are in such a rush to be the first out of the gate that they'll submit things in a stream of consciousness while listening live, rather than exercising some patience and restraint to instead create a higher quality submission.

I don't see much value in having a leaderboard for this sort of thing, and frankly I don't see it resulting in the encouragement of good submissions. Human nature being what it is, it would likely only attract the wrong kind of increased activity.

I've made it a point to periodically thank those who contribute regularly or dependably privately, and to let them know that their contributions are valued and appreciated. I obviously can't speak to whether or not that alone is enough recognition, but they continue to contribute, so I reckon it is.

 

[wbloss]

Thanks for your comments, that does make sense.
I'm at about 560 thru the system, and probably another 100 from ~10 years ago when I was encouraged to submit directly to the DBAdmin.
I make a habit of checking things when I travel and usually have several submissions when out of town.
W

 

[wa8pyr]

There is not, no. Should there be? My preference would be no, based on the reasoning @IcomIcR20 gave.

From personal experience as a dbadmin for a number of years, I have found that some of the most dependable, meticulous submitters are not necessarily prolific contributors, but instead will put together a well thought out submission that almost never requires any further vetting or followup. On the other hand, some of the most prolific submitters I've dealt with tend to be sloppy and inaccurate, requiring more effort on my part to elicit further details. And yes, some submitters are already in the bad habit of making multiple submissions when a single would be more appropriate. Either they believe that all five talkgroups they're submitting at the same time for the same system require their own submission (they do not), or they are in such a rush to be the first out of the gate that they'll submit things in a stream of consciousness while listening live, rather than exercising some patience and restraint to instead create a higher quality submission.

I don't see much value in having a leaderboard for this sort of thing, and frankly I don't see it resulting in the encouragement of good submissions. Human nature being what it is, it would likely only attract the wrong kind of increased activity.

I've made it a point to periodically thank those who contribute regularly or dependably privately, and to let them know that their contributions are valued and appreciated. I obviously can't speak to whether or not that alone is enough recognition, but they continue to contribute, so I reckon it is.

I've had similar personal experiences as an administrator, and I can confirm that this is why we don't have a leaderboard.