Upcoming Help Changes + Feedback

[Brooke_C]

Hey Community,

We have some insider info we’d like to share with you! In the upcoming weeks, we will be launching a new and improved Get Help page. This is a result of the feedback we received during the workshop we held with some of you last year and, before the new web pages go live, we’d love to get your support once more.

Here are the ways you can get involved:

1. Sign up by Feb 7th to Test our New Get Help Pages. We are looking for 10 Public Mobile customers to check out the new web pages and let us know what you don’t like and what you love.

• Testing will be done online meaning anyone across Canada can get involved.
• Testers must be able to speak English.
• We’ll be holding testing between February 12-15 and the time commitment is only 20 minutes. That’s only a coffee break, right?
• Feedback will be collected during the session.
• Customers who participate will receive a $10 account credit within 30 days of completion. Cha- ching.

Depending on the number of volunteers we get, we may not be able to collect feedback from everyone. If that’s the case, we’d still like to hear from you after the pages have launched. Our goal with these changes is to make it clearer, simpler and faster for you to get and give help. We look forward to your involvement before the big reveal!

Sign up no later than February 7th, 2019 by completing this link.

1. Vote by Feb 11 on New Leaderboard Timeframe. When we started exploring how we would create a new Get Help page we also looked at the Community, a key place where you get and give help. In particular, we looked closer at our Top Bravoed Authors board, and noticed that it’s typically the same members showing up. (You know who you are, you rockstars!)

We’d also like to see more members get involved, so you can get more $$ off your plans. To our newer or less active Community members we have some questions:

1. Does the current timeframe and corresponding bravos required to get on the leaderboard seem daunting?
2. If the time period was shorter and you saw that you were among the top members for the day or the week, do you think that would encourage you to get more involved?
3. Do you use the leaderboard to help determine who you might want to tag in your post to help answer your question?

Now it’s voting time! With all of this in mind, we want your opinion on the most useful Leaderboard (Top Bravoed Authors) timeframe. Vote on your preferred option below, and if you have other suggestions or ideas, please post on this thread. The last day to vote will be February 11, 2019.

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Public Mobile Community Team

[Anonymous]

Apparently, I'm either stingy with my bravos or I'm not fast enough to have seen any of those giant red notices that RobertQc so helpfully posted. I've somehow managed to be somewhere near the top for a while now. That doesn't come from ME bravo-ing...it comes from my spending WAY too much time spent posting way too many times that I can hardly avoid getting bravo's from all the newer, appreciative customers that I might help. And the regulars here who might happen to agree with something I said.

So it turns out that there are limits. There we go. I'm done with my part of this discussion.

[mimmo]

@Anonymous  the question put out there was if a new user sees a very  high count bravo count, does that discourage participation?  would a different leaderboard timeframe make a difference?  

• Would limiting bravos lower the totals seen on the leaderboard.  - yes
• Would I with 25- 30-50 bravos be more carful which posts I bravo or why? -yes
• Would spread my bravos out more sparingly   -yes
• Would the names/order on the leaderboard change?  probably not
• Would a limit on bravos limit who you can give a bravo to?  No

[Anonymous]

---

@RobertQc wrote:

@Anonymous@ShawnC13@computergeek541@NDesai

There are some known limitations for giving bravos. (see below) This wouldn't stop anyone with multiple accounts or who did 100 per hour. But I think if someone we never saw was in the top 1% there is a paper trail, so its not hard to figure out who is cheating.

BRAVO  FLOOD

Sorry @will13am hopefully you don't have e-mails notifications on when someone bravo's you, I had a screen shot of the 100, but not the 20 in 1 minute.

---

Well there we go then. Nice job as always there RobertQc. Thanks.

Or as Emily Litella would say...oh... well that's different then...never mind. (or something like that)

[RobertQc]

@Anonymous@ShawnC13@computergeek541@NDesai

There are some known limitations for giving bravos. (see below) This wouldn't stop anyone with multiple accounts or who did 100 per hour. But I think if someone we never saw was in the top 1% there is a paper trail, so its not hard to figure out who is cheating.

BRAVO  FLOOD

Sorry @will13am hopefully you don't have e-mails notifications on when someone bravo's you, I had a screen shot of the 100, but not the 20 in 1 minute.

[Anonymous]

---

@ShawnC13 wrote:

---

What you are referring to is people creating multiple accounts and all their bravos going to their main account, so even with a limit on bravos people that did that would still give all their bravos to the main account.  Not sure how a limit is undemocratic.

Edited to add:  How many votes do you have during a democratic election?  Do you want unlimited votes?

---

Oh dear. In either case: marking a ballot or giving a bravo...I can only do it once.

There have been successes ferreting out gamers. No need for limits.

Do we really think Public Mobile is going to implement some costly, complicated system of making sure that no one is gaming the system? It's being handled. I'm sure by you guys. And well.

What's the real problem here then that it's being floated to put in limits to bravo-ing?

[ShawnC13]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@ShawnC13 wrote:

---

Huh?  This is the first time there has been a discussion on limits of bravos that I have partcipated in so not sure what you searched up?  Gaming of the system?  Yes we have caught a few people gaming the system with multiple accounts but if that isn't what you are referring to I don't what your search was about

---

Yes. That. They ARE related after all. Isn't that *really* the intent of this limiting idea?

Gamers have been called out. Methods are in place and working. All good. No need to limit. Undemocratic. 

---

What you are referring to is people creating multiple accounts and all their bravos going to their main account, so even with a limit on bravos people that did that would still give all their bravos to the main account.  Not sure how a limit is undemocratic.

Edited to add:  How many votes do you have during a democratic election?  Do you want unlimited votes?

[Anonymous]

---

@ShawnC13 wrote:

---

Huh?  This is the first time there has been a discussion on limits of bravos that I have partcipated in so not sure what you searched up?  Gaming of the system?  Yes we have caught a few people gaming the system with multiple accounts but if that isn't what you are referring to I don't what your search was about

---

Yes. That. They ARE related after all. Isn't that *really* the intent of this limiting idea?

Gamers have been called out. Methods are in place and working. All good. No need to limit. Undemocratic. 

[ShawnC13]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@ShawnC13 wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@ShawnC13 wrote:

---

There already is a limit of bravos.  It used to be around 50 but was raised.  I don't think it is undemocratic.  I think of it as a budget and you only have so many in a day to give out you are going to choose wisely.  Aother forum I am on has the same thing with "Reputation" points where they are liited to the number you can give out each day.

---

Before sinking time into it maybe you know...where is that written here?

---

I have had to go to the wise longtime Oracles who have been around for a long time for that history lesson

---

I did a quick search and I see this has been a bugbear of yours since 2016. I didn't see a mention of limits though in that quick search.

---

Huh?  This is the first time there has been a discussion on limits of bravos that I have partcipated in so not sure what you searched up?  Gaming of the system?  Yes we have caught a few people gaming the system with multiple accounts but if that isn't what you are referring to I don't what your search was about

[computergeek541]

I would say that there has to be a bravo limit.  Otherwise, someone could sign up to the Community with 5 brand new accounts and on the last day of the rewards cycle, give out 100 bravos each to a certain member.  Rewards might then get paid out before anyone notices.  I realize this is an extreme example, and highly unlikely.

[Anonymous]

---

@ShawnC13 wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@ShawnC13 wrote:

---

There already is a limit of bravos.  It used to be around 50 but was raised.  I don't think it is undemocratic.  I think of it as a budget and you only have so many in a day to give out you are going to choose wisely.  Aother forum I am on has the same thing with "Reputation" points where they are liited to the number you can give out each day.

---

Before sinking time into it maybe you know...where is that written here?

---

I have had to go to the wise longtime Oracles who have been around for a long time for that history lesson

---

I did a quick search and I see this has been a bugbear of yours since 2016. I didn't see a mention of limits though in that quick search.

[ShawnC13]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@ShawnC13 wrote:

---

There already is a limit of bravos.  It used to be around 50 but was raised.  I don't think it is undemocratic.  I think of it as a budget and you only have so many in a day to give out you are going to choose wisely.  Aother forum I am on has the same thing with "Reputation" points where they are liited to the number you can give out each day.

---

Before sinking time into it maybe you know...where is that written here?

---

I have had to go to the wise longtime Oracles who have been around for a long time for that history lesson

[NDesai]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I don't know. When I arrived here last May I saw a group of names with incredible numbers. It didn't deter me. I saw it as something to aspire to. Putting in WAY more time than it's worth it seems I managed to get there. It doesn't take a lot of time to get the rewards. But what's wrong with recognizing those high acheivers?

I could agree not to show the Bravo count on the leaderboard. I think the leaderboard of some sort is good to keep around though.

---

Of course the time users have on hands to spend on the community matters 🙂

---

@Anonymous wrote: 

I will wholeheartedly disagree with limiting Bravos. Seems awfully undemocratic.

---

Again, i have my own reasons that some of you may know and would agree to, but until they think about this implementation, i will not say. 

[Anonymous]

---

@ShawnC13 wrote:

---

There already is a limit of bravos.  It used to be around 50 but was raised.  I don't think it is undemocratic.  I think of it as a budget and you only have so many in a day to give out you are going to choose wisely.  Aother forum I am on has the same thing with "Reputation" points where they are liited to the number you can give out each day.

---

Before sinking time into it maybe you know...where is that written here?

[ShawnC13]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@NDesai wrote:

The whole idea here is to find a way to allow new users to get involved in the community. When they see how the bravo system works and take a look at the current leaderboards, they would freak out when they see someone crossing 1000 bravos within the past 30 days. Heck i would run away from it if i were to start over again. For this reason, i would have to agree that either disable leaderboards or show a list of top contributors (usernames) only and not the bravo count.

At the same time, add a limit to how many bravos you can give based on the status (i.e. Mayors can give out 50 per day). I have my own reasons for this which i would not like to elaborate at this time 

---

I don't know. When I arrived here last May I saw a group of names with incredible numbers. It didn't deter me. I saw it as something to aspire to. Putting in WAY more time than it's worth it seems I managed to get there. It doesn't take a lot of time to get the rewards. But what's wrong with recognizing those high acheivers?

I could agree not to show the Bravo count on the leaderboard. I think the leaderboard of some sort is good to keep around though.

I will wholeheartedly disagree with limiting Bravos. Seems awfully undemocratic.

---

There already is a limit of bravos.  It used to be around 50 but was raised.  I don't think it is undemocratic.  I think of it as a budget and you only have so many in a day to give out you are going to choose wisely.  Aother forum I am on has the same thing with "Reputation" points where they are liited to the number you can give out each day.

[Anonymous]

---

@NDesai wrote:

The whole idea here is to find a way to allow new users to get involved in the community. When they see how the bravo system works and take a look at the current leaderboards, they would freak out when they see someone crossing 1000 bravos within the past 30 days. Heck i would run away from it if i were to start over again. For this reason, i would have to agree that either disable leaderboards or show a list of top contributors (usernames) only and not the bravo count.

At the same time, add a limit to how many bravos you can give based on the status (i.e. Mayors can give out 50 per day). I have my own reasons for this which i would not like to elaborate at this time 

---

I don't know. When I arrived here last May I saw a group of names with incredible numbers. It didn't deter me. I saw it as something to aspire to. Putting in WAY more time than it's worth it seems I managed to get there. It doesn't take a lot of time to get the rewards. But what's wrong with recognizing those high acheivers?

I could agree not to show the Bravo count on the leaderboard. I think the leaderboard of some sort is good to keep around though.

I will wholeheartedly disagree with limiting Bravos. Seems awfully undemocratic.

[NDesai]

The whole idea here is to find a way to allow new users to get involved in the community. When they see how the bravo system works and take a look at the current leaderboards, they would freak out when they see someone crossing 1000 bravos within the past 30 days. Heck i would run away from it if i were to start over again. For this reason, i would have to agree that either disable leaderboards or show a list of top contributors (usernames) only and not the bravo count.

At the same time, add a limit to how many bravos you can give based on the status (i.e. Mayors can give out 50 per day). I have my own reasons for this which i would not like to elaborate at this time 

[ShawnC13]

I don't even think there needs to be a visible leaderboard.  Post a link on the main page and if people want to visit the leaderboard let them.  If it is going to be visible I think a reset for each reward period is required that way someone knew coming in doesn't see 800 Bravos and think they will never get a reward but instead see 0's or 10 something like that it is more realistic to think that you can gain a better reward.

[computergeek541]

---

@RobertQc wrote:

---

@computergeek541 wrote:

I too  beleive that Community members want to see bravos totals for the current caldendar month, and not for past 30 days, although I have selected 30 days because that's the closest, which is already the default when checking the leader board.

---

@computergeek541Calender month, or review period? The calculation (magic forumula) on rewards is done during review period, not at 12:01am on the 1st? After the review period is completed, then the pm staff starts working on the article/mspaint of our names.

"Community Rewards are reviewed between the 1st and 6th of every month, and applied to your account after the review period on your payment due date. If your payment due date is during the review period, your Rewards will be applied on your next payment due date."

https://productioncommunity.publicmobile.ca/t5/Knowledge-Base/General-Reward-Rules/ta-p/164

---

We've talked about this before.  My gut is telling me that it is calendar months, but I suspect that Public is likely never going to tell us.  And, is there really a review, or is it an automated computer script?  If it's automated, there really isn't any reason for there to be the fluctuation in dates betwen the 1st and 6th. 

[RobertQc]

---

@computergeek541 wrote:

I too  beleive that Community members want to see bravos totals for the current caldendar month, and not for past 30 days, although I have selected 30 days because that's the closest, which is already the default when checking the leader board.

---

@computergeek541Calender month, or review period? The calculation (magic forumula) on rewards is done during review period, not at 12:01am on the 1st? After the review period is completed, then the pm staff starts working on the article/mspaint of our names.

"Community Rewards are reviewed between the 1st and 6th of every month, and applied to your account after the review period on your payment due date. If your payment due date is during the review period, your Rewards will be applied on your next payment due date."

https://productioncommunity.publicmobile.ca/t5/Knowledge-Base/General-Reward-Rules/ta-p/164

[computergeek541]

I too  beleive that Community members want to see bravos totals for the current caldendar month, and not for past 30 days, although I have selected 30 days because that's the closest, which is already the default when checking the leader board.

[SD08]

---

@mimmo wrote:

Can a delay be implemented when replying. Ie no replies submitted within 5-10 minutes of a post? (Like when outlook delays sending an email for 5 minutes) 

---

While that might be useful in evening the playing field for those who are not at the keyboard at the time of the post, this can actually be less than optimal for the customer who needs a reply as soon as possible.  There are some answers that can be short, or even yes/no, and wouldn't require much time to type out.

I get why you suggest that though.  As a way to counter those who habitually get a placeholder post in first, maybe there could be a limit to the number of edits that can be made to a post before it becomes ineligible for solution/bravos?  Or a time limit, after which an edit makes it ineligible for solution/bravos.

[mimmo]

I don't think the leader board actually discourages or encourages participation.

Someone with issues comes asks a question hopefully gets an answer then in most of the cases dissapears.

The people that help others on a constant basis will use the 30 day to see roughly where they stand in the reward calculation.

If you believe the number of bravos is daunghting to new customers and makes them not participate, simply don't show the number of bravoes received.

Also it might be better to encourage quality answers vs quantity.

Can a delay be implemented when replying. Ie no replies submitted within 5-10 minutes of a post? (Like when outlook delays sending an email for 5 minutes)

[Luddite]

@Anonymous Yes I was confused and conflated "encouraging participation" with "rewards". Have edited my post to reflect that the question is to somehow have the leaderboard encourage participation by new contributors.

[SD08]

---

@Anonymous wrote:
I just do what I can here with the amount of time my spouse lets me waste. 🙂

---

As @mimmo amusingly described it once: "a year and half of hearing wife say what are you doing, why haven't you taken out the garbage yet."  LOL

[Anonymous]

---

@Luddite wrote:

"we want your opinion on the most useful Leaderboard (Top Bravoed Authors) timeframe."

a) current timeframe for all but top 1%

b) top 1% should be based on last 6 months not 30 days

---

Percent isn't "really" known until distributed/announced. Are you saying that the window of top 1% should be 6 months for the reward? The fact that rewards are monthly and reset monthly doesn't match that thought.

I'm similar to srlawren where I don't exactly watch the leaderboard. I just do what I can here with the amount of time my spouse lets me waste. 🙂

[ShawnC13]

---

@pm-smayer97 wrote: 

I think the metric for rewards needs to be more multi-faceted, for example including the number of accepted answers, or something. Or maybe even forgetting Bravos altogeter (nooooo..... 😉 ) but using Accepted Answers or something else that better measures quality of answers.

Anyway, just some thoughts.

---

This is already part of the calculation I am sure.  The issue here is we have people who start a thread and then select their own post as the solution.

[Luddite]

"we want your opinion on the most useful Leaderboard (Top Bravoed Authors) timeframe."

a) current timeframe for all but top 1%

b) top 1% should be based on last 6 months not 30 days

EDIT: I'm obviously confused as on a more careful reading I think the question is "What should be showing on the Leaderboard that's visible on the landing page to encourage participation by newcomers?". If so I suggest it be bravos in last 7 days to anyone NOT receiving a Community Reward the previous month.

[RobertQc]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Setting the default time range is in My Settings/Preferences/Bravos. fyi

---

@AnonymousRight, so whats the point of this poll then, if not to suggest change / new features? No matter the outcome with the way the poll is set up even if everyone in the poll selects 7 day, you could just go in and change it back to 30 days.

[SD08]

---

@pm-smayer97 wrote:

---

@SD08 wrote:

I like the idea of ... reset[ing] everything to zero once the calendar month passes upon which the rewards are based. 

---

But that is exactly how it works now, though you may not realize it. Since Community Rewards are based on a monthly review, presumaly on or very close the same date every month, the 30 day filter shows only the last 30 days. So whenever PM is reviewing the counts, they are only seeing the last 30 days. 

Another way to understand this is that the oldest Bravos are rolled off (and fall into the other time period buckets).

Bottom line is that this has the exact same effect as reseting everything to zero. You just do not see the final effect until the 30 days have passed. 

---

@pm-smayer97

Actually, the rewards are based on each calendar month from the 1st to the 30th (or 31st), not the last 30 days, so it would be useful to view only qualified bravos from the current reward period.  The way the current leaderboard works is, it shows the last 30 days of bravos even if half of it is from the previous month and the other half is from the current month.  

For example, if the current date is Feb 15, the leader board will be showing bravos from Jan.17-Feb.15.  When I say resetting, I mean the leaderboard should have the capability of showing Feb.1-15 when viewing it on Feb.15, which it is not able to show currently.

And yes, I realize the point of this poll is to find the most useful leaderboard for encouraging people to get involved in the community, as per the OP.  If the broadest choices (including custom) are enabled, then one choice does not have to exclude the other, and everyone can find a setting that achieves the result desired in the OP.

---

@pm-smayer97 wrote:

@Brooke_C can you please confirm the intent of this poll? It seems that responses are conflating 2 different issues; one being on what period should rewards be based vs what period should customer be able to see on the Leaderboard.

Reading answers seem to focus more on the second rather than the first, or are mixing the two together, making the interpretation of responses more confusing.

---

EDIT:  I just saw this other post of yours.  It looks like you're under the impression that this poll is to determine the timeframe upon which the rewards are based.  This poll is merely to determine which leaderboard view is most desirable, in order to encourage participation.  Window dressing, in other words, which is why some here are saying there are more important things to focus on.  Personally, I think the way things are is fine too, but if there are changes going to be made to the leaderboard, then this is how I'd like it to change.

[srlawren]

---

@popping wrote:

I think the current leaderboard system is fine.

I prefer PM spend the money to bullet-prove the self-serve system like the password reset, plan feature provisioning code etc.

---

@popping hear hear!  Agree 100,000%.

EDIT: stated another way:  make it so that people don't need to get help as often, by improving the back-end systems in place.  Also: where is the ticketing system???  Is this part of the new Get Help page?  I sure hope so!  cc: @Brooke_C @Alan_K

Re-EDIT:  ideally, this community would be virtually silent.   This would indicate that the activation, porting, renewal, password reset, etc. processes were all working at near 100%, and that new customers could easily find clear explanations of all the info they need to understand what they are and aren't getting prior to signing up.