Member Statistics

There are some statistics tracked for "Notable Members" in which I don't understand what the significance of the number is. A good example of this is the number of media albums created. What is the value of this? What does it bring to the estimation of value to the Hub that the creator brings to the community?

However, there are other metrics not being tracked on the Hub that seem like it would be of more value, such as the number of commented reviews for a creator, and the total number of downloads for a creator's assets.

I really value the Hub and all the friends and encouragement that I have received, just wanted to present some ideas for consideration.

Best to ask this in the Hub feedback category and tag AshAuryn

By the power of Gray Skull, I harken @AshAuryn, can I ask this question here, or would you like me to resubmit my application?

I don't mean to diminish the albums tracking; my point is that there is already a media number of statistic, so the number of albums seem somewhat irrelevant.

I think some cool metrics would be top downloads, and top positive reviews (which is not really the same as Likes with the current changes.)

This is something we can certainly consider after we get through the V2 rollout

Have you heard of Goodhart’s Law? It states: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure”.

Once you use a count of anything as a measure of someone's status or or value, people will try to artificially boost that number by whatever means possible. So it stops being a useful measure of status or value.

For example, using the number of downloads as a metric would lead to some people trying to artificially pump the number up. The Hub bandwidth expenses are high enough without some joker trying to boost their status by setting up bots to download their scene 100,000 times!

Likewise, posted scene count, look count, or review count as a measure of stature would lead to a flood of low effort, useless looks, scenes, and reviews. Not only does this render the measurement useless, but it would also seriously degrade the quality of Hub content.

It's a dilemma. You want to recognize valuable members and encourage user contributions, but it's harder to do than it seems.

I watched lots of Star Trek, but I don't recall that law. It seems like we are considering whether any numerical implementation of value is meaningful, and ultimately, it likely is not. What I value the most on the Hub is the friends that I have made and the people who have been kind to me and others. Still, recognition is nice in some respects to me and to many others. I don't think it is just ego; it is the positive feedback. I feel grateful for each time someone gives me good feedback.

The Hub already has bot detection mechanisms in place, and that seems like incredible lengths to go through to cheat the system. What meaning does cheating like that give to one if it is not due to the work and creativity placed into it? In that scenario, one would win the title of number one cheater. Are congratulations in order?

My point is that the number of albums of media posted on the Hub (which some how I am in the Top 20) does not seem to have as much value as the number of downloads for the resources. To be clear, I am not proposing this for my gain. I am a niche creator and likely would not be in the top rankings for downloads. There are exceptional creators with multiple resources in the millions of downloads, as seen in a few images below. I think that creators with exceptional work like MacGruber, Hazmhox, AcidBubbles, VamTastic and others, would rightfully be at the top of the list, and that list would have more meaning than the number of media albums posted.