As of Monday, April 21, 2008 at 6:22 p.m. (also known as, “right now”) the word “tier” appears 16 times in the comments following last week’s rewards post. It’d be hard to pick a more popular topic to discuss. So let me consolidate those various references to tiers into a single, cohesive, and eloquently articulated question: What the &$#@! is going on with the tiering system?
The short answer: a lot. For the longer answer, please read on.
We created a tiering system for one simple reason: to provide a fun incentive to keep you all active and engaged. And for many of you, the system works. But for most of you, it doesn’t.
What’s wrong with exactly?
- There are too few levels.
- It’s not clear what you need to do to climb to the next level.
- It’s (way) too easy to slide back down a level.
- And it’s just sorta drab – there’s nothing really “BzzAgent” about it?
So those are the shortcomings we’ve set out to fix. There will be new tiers and it will be much more clear what you need to do to climb up the ladder (or – more accurately – what you need to do to “fill your honeycomb”). It’s going to be remarkably difficult to drop down a level. And the spirit of the whole thing will be more lighthearted, more “BzzAgent.”
And please remember, when the system goes live, you will carry your existing level over to the new program. So if you have already earned Agent status, fear not!
ReTweet
Karen,
Please do not think I am ignoring you, Laraelo and I are old BeeLog friends and with my limited time old friends beat out new ones most times!
I will try to respond to your original proposal later today or worse case over the weekend or Monday. I do want to make one thing clear, I do not think (from what I have seen) that the people over at unofficial bzz are malicious like I think many of the people at most of the freebie sites are. Misguided probably, intent to just scam BzzAgent no.
Talk to you soon,
Gary
Karen,
Have a few moments, have decided to break my response up in parts so it doesn’t turn into a novel.
First let me start with a hypothetical for you to think about since I believe that it will demonstrate part of the divergence of our views. You seem the think that the current system is working mostly as it should with a few tweaks, while I know it is completely broken. I think this hypothetical will help you understand my point.
Suppose we split you into 2 people, Karen A and Karen B. Both Karen’s have identical experiences Bzzing the product or service. Karen A is a busy person and tends to write one Bzz report after she has totally bzzed a person and gotten feedback, while Karen B has plenty of time on her hands so she follows IA2CA advice (or worse yet scampers!) and writes separate reports on each part of her Bzz. Suppose each actually Bzzed 7 people about this product. Under the current system Karen A (assuming both Karen’s do an average job on the reports) will receive a total of 21 quality points for her 7 reports, while Karen B will receive a whopping 84 points for her 28 reports.
Both Karens provided the same amount of useful information to BzzAgent and also created exactly the same level of Bzz in the general population. Karen B, because of the way she reports, quadrupled the amount of work for ComDev. Yet in this scenario Karen A is firmly a Tier 2 Agent, while Karen B is a top 15 Agent and tier 4.
Same impact of the Bzz, same level of important information fed back to the Hive, but the one who causes four times the work for ComDev is anointed a top Agent and the other is tier 2? How does that make sense? Which Agent would you consider to be the most valuable to BzzAgent?
Gary
Hmm… an interesting question. I noticed that you said I thought the current system is working mostly as it should be. What I said was it’s defective. As in broken. As in exactly what you said. As to the answer for your question, personally, I would like the hive to give better guidelines.
Would the hive prefer high numbers that they can use to lure in potential client? If so, Karen A is doing exactly what BzzAgent wants. They may want agents to put in lots of reports because it sounds better to say “Our agents bzz and average of 23 times per campaign” than to say “our agents bzz an average of 6 times per campaign.”
Or would the hive prefer more in depth reports? If so, Karen B is doing exactly what BzzAgent wants. They may want agents to turn in a lower volume of high quality reports because it sounds better to say, “Our agents submit detailed reports which follow through with what the people they talk to think of the product before the Bzz and after” than to say “our agent sometimes even go back and ask the person if they tried the product.”
That is why I would like BzzAgent to provide a better definition of Bzz. Currently, they seem to reward high volume. They give identical rewards for one sentence Bzz that they do for essays (look at the BzzMap for proof). And their list of agents includes all agents, not just agents who are currently active. It doesn’t make sense to me, but if that’s what they are asking for, that is what I’ll do. If they change and say they want something different, I’ll do that. I will not argue that submitting “follow-up” bzz has more impact in the community. Clearly it doesn’t. But perhaps it has impact on BzzAgent.
I will tell you that legitimate bzzing of family members does have impact on the community. When I bzzed my teens, I sat down at the computer with them and we went through the online Bzz Guide. I didn’t just say “We’re getting a cool remote!” Would they have eventually learned all those details? Maybe, but I doubt it. Since they don’t do the programming, they wouldn’t have noticed or cared how many different brands or models it worked with. But they know now and are busy telling people who they think will be interested in buying one. Personally, I think it’s like BzzAgent getting 4 agents for little more than the price of one. Some families have multiple agents. Both husband and wife are agents. Older kids are agents. I don’t do that. But I have no idea if BzzAgent wants that or not. I spend about an hour yesterday on the BzzAgent site looking for a list of who it was OK to Bzz, what constituted Bzz, etc. There is none. So I’m simply going by the feedback I get. My feedback comments and my Quality score all indicate that I’m doing what I’m supposed to.
I agree Karen..with many things that you have said. Including bzzing family. Because I bzzed my husband, he bzzed at work when there were some of they guys complaining about being stuffy and having allergies. He told his friends about Afrin, one went out and bought it the same day, without even having a coupon. He told me the next time he called the house how glad he was to hear about it. He also told me that now his brother uses it too.
That is the very nature of WOM, for heavens sake! Tell one person, and they tell more and more and so on..
So did I get this right? I am misguided because I am not lazy and give bzzagent what they want? They ask for follow ups and I give them to them? The good and the bad.
I agree with everything Karen said. Heck my kids wanted me to BUY them OUST for their classrooms. I DID. they told their teachers about it. TOld them that I had gotten it from Bzzagent . AND THEN when one had a sub and she USED The OUST in the classroom he TOLD HER I had gotten it from Bzzagent and gave her my home phone and cell phone numbers to CALL me so she could sign up!
My 9 year old kid bzzed 2 people, in one instance.
They LOVE it when I get a bzzagent package. I have to FIGHT to open it myself!! They read the bzzguide. THEY bzzed a lady in the grocery store to buy glade wisp flameless candles.
HECK, today my 3 year old today told the school nurse that she should use OUST instead of lysol. when she saw a can sitting there. (she couldnt read it, she just knew it wasnt oust and asked. I told her no, it wasnt and she asked the nurse why she wasnt using OUST. it smelled good. and we used it at home. this opened up a line of communication for me) SO I didnt report bzzing to my 8, 9 and 3 year olds, but they are still bzzing it. I dont think saying “I told my hubby we got a free computer and he said “cool beans” is point worthy.
But where do you draw the line?
I didnt bzz about calling my husband at work when I got the SBSC campaign, I was just so excited to get it I had to call and tell someone! but he imediatly got on the company radio and told the other drivers that he had found the product they needed for the shower in the trailer on site. He said its grimey and nasty as any oil company bathroom would be and since its a running joke on them never cleaning it that he had a product they should use! They bought one by the way. But since no less than 15 people heard him picking on a few of the guys I dont know how well that bzz turned out. As far as I know all of them got one for home!
well I’m going to say that I agree whole heartedly with GPrindle.
if that’s the way people are bzzing and that’s what gets you in tier 4 then I’ll gladly stay at tier 2 and happily send in reports that I can hold my head up about.
and I also wanted to say that twice in one week I feel like I’ve wandered into some weird junior high fight. I have a feeling there is a LOT of background info we’re all missing here.
Not interested in it truthfully.
No background info, LOL. He just thinks I’m a pest.
Ok bzzagent I have three pending reports and I’m at tier 2 almost AGAIN want to get to tier 2 and stay there so I can focus on tier 3. With as many members your site has I know you have the personnell to handle our reports. I visit this site atleast 10 times a day. I love your site and just hope you love us as much. And I check out frogpond several times a day. And I am up to date, but it always tells me I have more – NOT TRUE. Don’t really have a need for most of the frogpond, but I always check each one out. And I have several I’ve joined. So lets get on on with the new bzzagent. You got to also understand the age group for the fronpond. And give us 50+ better frogs. We are smarter and wiser and need more subjects for our age group. Ok I’m done.
Hey Chelle – well said. I bzz all the time, but sometimes you don’t report every thing you discuss or I’d be on this site 24/7. I do have a life which comes first. I love the site. But can’t let it control me. When you make a report it takes forever to get it approved. I just hope with all the changes coming up things will get easier. I’m very devoted to bzz agent, but I have other sites where I take surveys and earn cash and I’m doing very well money wise. It would be nice if bzzagent would let us turn in our points for cash. But I bet this would be on the bottom of their list. But no matter what they do I love the site and appreciate all they do for us. Just hope one of these days I make it to tier 4. HAGD
After (WOW) reading thru this thread, I had to scroll up to remember what the thread was about! LOL! I forgot, you know I find alot of what has been mentioned funny and would just like to add, that gprindle I think you yourself must be a lurker or something of slickdeals, here or the unoffical bzzagent site. You trying to get in on scam as well? LOL!
Anyways back to the subject of Tiers that is what this thread was for. Well I don’t really got much, I do my best and like most I hope to get the keys someday! I think that maybe in the new system they could be able to set up something to where we could turn in a 2 or 3 part report for each bzz, first part being the bzz, 2nd part being the follow up, then if you turn it all in at once, Bzz can reward more points. Also that would free up the beehive more hopefully resulting in faster approved reports!
anyways just sayin
Great I can not wait for the changes, I just recently became serious about the Frogpond and really like checking out new sites.
justsayin that is a GREAT idea. I so hope they do that. Another option could be a form that lets you add a box for each additional conversation that you have with the same person. I know that sometimes someone’s initial reaction is very different from how they feel after they’ve had more time to try it out. I mostly want a better grasp of how they want us to do this, and a setup like you’ve thought of would let everyone know exactly what they’re supposed to be doing.
Gary,
You honor me, friend.
And, LOL, yes, I know a good sarcasm when I see it. 
I’m reading these stories and in all honesty, some of them sound like daytime soap operas. “As the Scrubbing Bubble Turns”.
So people are telling their children. The children are turning around and supposedly buzzing other people. The Agent is then taking the responses the children received and writing up reports about the children’s experience in buzzing. Third party reporting style? We can do that too?
I never realized how out of the loop I apparently am. I don’t do Frogpond. It doesn’t interest me to be active in that arena of BzzAgent. And while I’m not overly enthusiastic about writing reports, I can say that I wouldn’t fudge a bzz just for the sake of garnering points. If I hand out a coupon on the initial buzz, which happens more often than not if I have coupons in a kit, it goes into the first report. If the person buys the product with the coupon and I haven’t written the report about buzzing them at all yet, it goes into the first report. I can’t see hounding the hell out of people as it appears that some Agents do. If they’ve got a person they’re buzzing, and write a report for each time they mention the product to that person, be it initially, coupon added, coupon used, who they talked to while using said coupon, what color their hair was the first time they tried it, blah blah blah, I’d call that harassment. Nobody is that generous with their time.
This will probably raise hairs, but maybe BzzAgent should do random reality checks on the realism of some of these reports. I would think the ComDev’s have an ‘out’ to be able to let an Agent know that their reports are lacking, seem made up, aren’t worth points at all and fully use the tools available to them as seems necessary.
Hopefully none of this will be here nor there when the new system kicks in. I hope all of these issues are addressed along with the new rewards system.
I have to, with all the respect I can muster, say that some folks would bitch if they were hung with a new rope.
You gripe cause we bzz our kids. BUT when we point out that our kids are bzzing the product with absolute integrety and truthfullness you say thats not legitimate.
You gripe because we write up reports when we bzz and then have to do a follow up when someone comes back 2 weeks later and says “thank YOU SO MUCH for turning me onto the microwave oven! I love using it!!”
When I was asked for follow up by the comdevs I did it. I thought I was supposed to. I dont chase people down. They approach me and tell me. Its called small talk. And conversation. Sometimes we dont want to talk about the weather or politics. Or kids.
I’d love to be able to amend my original report with an add on that has their follow up. Some folks dont like the product I have told them to buy. Plus it would keep me from having to rewrite the entire backstory on something.
Sounds very interesting and I can only assume that the hive will do a great job in revamping the reward system and it’s tiers.
It is a waste of time trying to discus this with people like chelle who thinks agents who do not break their reports into small pieces are “lazy” and Karen who thinks that BzzAgent may want agents to game the system so they can inflate numbers for potential clients. I don’t believe either of their views are accurate at all.
I thought if there was one thing that everyone should be able to agree on was that two hypothetical agents with identical bzzing experiences and both reporting back the same information to the hive should have similar tier rankings even if one did not break their reports into small pieces. Any performance evaluation system I have ever been involved with recognizes that rewards should be based on actual performance, not on how many reports are made.
Guess it really doesn’t matter to me since I seem to have “aged out” of the good campaigns anyway.
Any performance evaluation system I have ever been involved with recognizes that rewards should be based on actual performance, not on how many reports are made.
yes yes YES, a thousand times yes. That’s what I was getting at back in post #10 – that right now the system rewards quantity in a disproportionate amount rather than quality.
fnz2thrght,
Not sure if you saw the original post I was referring to, so I will copy it at the end of this post. I couldn’t believe the responses I got from those two moderators of “unofficial Bzz”. I called them misguided awhile back but now am changing my view and not for the better.
The basic problem with having an open (public) “objective” performance evaluation system is also well known in industry. It has to be very carefully put together otherwise certain people will “game” it. That is also a basic problem with some of Karen’s initial proposals such as rejecting reports of less than 100 words. I’ve criticized short reports that say nothing in the past and stand by that but the key is what they say, not how many words are used. I can guarantee if there was such a rule there would be reports of a lesser length that would be rejected that were much more informative than those of 100 words or more.
Especially for the top tier a human has to spend some time reviewing an Agent’s total contribution to BzzAgent before being admitted. Way back when most ComDev was contained within the hive’s offices they really got to know Agents and compared notes. Now most (if not all) of that work is being done by remote workers with a strong emphasis on speed of reviewing the reports. Understandable, especially with so many who feel that the best way to get ahead as an Agent is to flood the hive with marginal, fragmented Bzz reports.
Anyway, here was the original question I asked Karen. :
Karen,
Have a few moments, have decided to break my response up in parts so it doesn’t turn into a novel.
First let me start with a hypothetical for you to think about since I believe that it will demonstrate part of the divergence of our views. You seem the think that the current system is working mostly as it should with a few tweaks, while I know it is completely broken. I think this hypothetical will help you understand my point.
Suppose we split you into 2 people, Karen A and Karen B. Both Karen’s have identical experiences Bzzing the product or service. Karen A is a busy person and tends to write one Bzz report after she has totally bzzed a person and gotten feedback, while Karen B has plenty of time on her hands so she follows IA2CA advice (or worse yet scampers!) and writes separate reports on each part of her Bzz. Suppose each actually Bzzed 7 people about this product. Under the current system Karen A (assuming both Karen’s do an average job on the reports) will receive a total of 21 quality points for her 7 reports, while Karen B will receive a whopping 84 points for her 28 reports.
Both Karens provided the same amount of useful information to BzzAgent and also created exactly the same level of Bzz in the general population. Karen B, because of the way she reports, quadrupled the amount of work for ComDev. Yet in this scenario Karen A is firmly a Tier 2 Agent, while Karen B is a top 15 Agent and tier 4.
Same impact of the Bzz, same level of important information fed back to the Hive, but the one who causes four times the work for ComDev is anointed a top Agent and the other is tier 2? How does that make sense? Which Agent would you consider to be the most valuable to BzzAgent?
Gary
Gprindle, I have to tell you that your reading comprehension skills certainly seem selective as far as chelle and especially Karen are concerned.
You are already a member at Unoffial Bzz, why don’t you go browse the forum to see their input into similar discussions over there. I am sure that if you can set your prejudices aside you would have a clearer picture of what their positions are about “marginal, fragmented Bzz reports” and that they by no means endorse garbage reporting.
fnz2thrght and Gary, I agree with you. The system does reward quantity rather than quality. Which is why I wonder if that’s what they want. I’d like to change that system. I’ve said it several times. But they have it set up to give rewards based on quantity, the com devs ask repeatedly for more quantity, and the rankings are based on quantity. That led me to believe that perhaps quantity was the goal.
Don’t get me wrong, I will NEVER turn in a one line report. I write detailed reports of who, where, etc., use direct quotes, and probably spend 15 minutes writing and proof reading each report. I don’t get 1′s and I do get a fair number of 5′s. But Gary, why would they give me 5′s on follow up reports (in which I specifically state that I reported the initial Bzz) if they didn’t want me reporting it? Why would they ask me to provide follow up reports at all if they didn’t want them?
You said, “I thought if there was one thing that everyone should be able to agree on was that two hypothetical agents with identical bzzing experiences and both reporting back the same information to the hive should have similar tier rankings even if one did not break their reports into small pieces.”
I would say that it was not me who set up the system this way. If it had been me, I would have done it your way. But BzzAgent chooses not to. So perhaps they have a reason.
I do not mind if they change this. I will be happy to provide whatever service they want. But I do not see any evidence that they don’t want a high volume of reports. I’m not “gaming the system. If I was I would just make up Bzz. I would have multiple addresses. I would NOT be proposing that we make the requirements harder.
And as to my thinking BzzAgent want to impress cients… that’s how they make money. Are you so naive that you think BzzAgent is above trying to impress clients when there are hundreds of thousands of dollars at stake?
Now, on an entirely unrelated note, has anyone heard anything further about the causes of colony collapse disorder, which attacks real bees. We have a hive on our farm and I was going to try to move them while the mornings were still cold enough to make them somewhat torpid. But I’m worried about harming them and I don’t know if moving them would increase the risk of colony collapse. Anyone know anything?
You are changing your view of me for what reason? because I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing and am not falling for your crap? Or because I make sense and you cant accept that?
I have said ON many occasions that BzzAgent needs hard and fast rules as to what constitutes Bzz and what doesnt. In addition to the 100 words we asked for guidelines. Tell me what makes a 5. Because I want to know. I get my fair share of them but nothing is consistant. I feel I write good informative, reports.
And yes, I know that even you can fiqure out that in the buisiness world, quanity MEANS quality. The more they have coming in, the better they have going out. Its simple and so easy a child can fiqure it out.
Unfortunatly there are GAMERS. But I can assure you, I am NOT one of them. I dont write one liners, If anything I overwrite. I have been told that my reports must be cut shorter. Have you ever? Are you so against 100 word limits because you know you wont make that? You say its better to have short informative reports than long uninformative ones. BUT wont those too lazy to do a real report peter out after a while if there is a minimum? I belive they will.
You will NEVER get rid of all the dishonest people. The word ‘free’ brings them out like bee’s to Honey. BUT by giving them standards to aspire to or adhere to you are makeing those that dont or wont work hard give up.
And what is the awnser that you wanted to the question taht you keep bringing up. We all agree that the best report is the most detailed one. That goes from start to finish. BUT bzz agent doesnt want that. IF they did, they would have made it a requirement. So instead of asking US what we think is more ethical. ASK bzzagent what THEY want to show their clients. That is the bottom line.
I also invite you to the Ubee, You are more than welcome to debate us on any subject. But I do have to ask that you dont try to paint us and the UBee in a bad light because you happen to not agree with us. If you will notice we ALWAYS are asking Bzzagent for more clarity on their expectations of us. We want to help mold and teach new agents and old agents alike.
Instead of attempting to belittle them into our way of thinking.
Karen, I have heard of it. But I really dont know. I would think if you moved them carefully and didnt disturb them or stress them it would be okay. Have they decided if it was a deseise or a dormant gene? or an outside influence/sickness?
Gary, could you write and post an example of a 99 word or less report that meets your qualifications of high quality reporting of an initial Bzz, giving of coupon, and a follow up Bzz with the same person? One that includes who, what, where, when, and direct quotes for all the conversations you had with that person, plus the person’s input on what they liked and didn’t like about the product? And can you make sure it includes lots of details because that’s what the hive always asks for? Because now that I know that it’s possible, I’m only going to do that.
Just kidding. There’s no way I could make mine that short, even when I report each conversation as it happens. But I would like to see one, just to see how it’s done. After all, the first paragraph in this post is over one hundred words. I just can’t imagine doing a high quality report of a conversation in less words than that.
By the way, Gary, when my son walked through the room he asked who I was typing to and I said it was a man named Gary. He started singing, “Gary, Indiana, Gary, Indiana, Gary, Indianaaaa!” Now I’ve got it running through my head. But kids say the funniest things don’t you think?
LOL Karen, mine have a cute (used loosely) thing they are doing. the whole truck will be quiet, then ONE will say “applebees” and someone else will say “get it together baby” and they think its the funniest thing EVER!
I swear, I hear wanda spikes in my sleep. Matt has it DOWN pat! LOL
It’s so funny how they pick these things up! They’ve never even seen The Music Man, but that’s what Scott and I hum every time we drive through Gary, Indiana on our way to Chicago. Well we don’t do it that often but they must have picked it up. And tonight the baby was singing Silent Night. Only he was saying Holy Nigh-Night, because when we put him to bed we all say night-night time. He must think it’s a song about going to bed. He’s so sweet. Not even two yet and sings all the time. And he grows like a weed. I’m going to have to get him all new clothes soon because he’s grown right out of everything. I’m trying to hold off until summer is here for sure because there’s no point buying all new pants and long sleeve shirts that it will be too hot to wear in three weeks. But I’m not sure we’ll make it. We need a kid’s clothes campaign. Or a toy campaign. That would be so much fun and all the moms at story time could see the products. They just re-did our library and now it’s a child’s paradise. Toys and books everywhere and the kids are so happy. Mine keep asking to go and I think that’s so good because I want them to have a great association between reading and being happy.
Just got my mid-campaign e-mail from the Hive for Glade Wisp Flameless Candle.
“Remember to submit a report every time you talk about the Glade® Wisp® Flameless Candle…we can’t wait to hear all the Bzz!”
LOL karen, I was just coming to paste that here!
And I know. I cant keep my kids in clothes. I am lucky in my two oldest boys wear the same size, even though they have a 15 month differnce in their age.
And Rayley is tall but SOO little. She is almost 4. wears 4T’s and they literly FALL off her at the waist. She has to have a 2T to fit her waist. LOL I dont know what to do. Luckily she likes skirts, so we do alot of skirts and tights. She LOVES that.
and Bow is already in 6-9 months clothes. and at the ‘tey fit perfect’ stage. he is 5 months! LOL
The two olderboys were never this big. They actually have always been sorta like Rayley. their pants were corresponding with their age. But they didnt quite have them fall off at the waist. LOL
And I have one boy that insists on wearing nothing but boots and jeans all summer. even when its 105 outside! So I have to keep jeans here ALL the time! LOL
Of course this is the same kid that refuses to own a pair of tennis shoes. He wanted to wear his cowboy boots on the baseball feild!
Chelle says:
“And yes, I know that even you can fiqure out that in the buisiness world, quanity MEANS quality. The more they have coming in, the better they have going out. Its simple and so easy a child can fiqure it out. ”
Abraham Lincoln said:
“It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt.”
Gprindle says:
“Thank you Chelle for removing all doubt”
I haven’t been around here long so I’ve been trying to keep my mouth shut, however after reading these last few comments I felt I just had to open my mouth.
I think we all need to keep in mind (myself included) that the BeeLog is a PUBLIC forum/blog that anyone (agents/non-agents) can read. It does not reflect very highly on BzzAgent if their own agents are carrying on in this manner. It is natural that we are not all going to agree with one another or even like each other for that matter. However, we can choose to react in a more mature manner or learn to let things go. Life is WAY too short to get riled up over petty comments on a internet blog.
It seems like there is a lot of confusion on what BzzAgent wants in there reports, so I wanted to post some excerpts from my Ziploc BzzGuide that seem to address some of the more contentious issues (multiple reports on one person, and buzzing a spouse):
“After you’ve Bzzed your friends once, talk to them again to compare and share different ways to use them.”
“Who To Tell………Your significant other and friends, for use in a hobby, shop project or around the office”
Hope this clears up some questions for people.
Gprindle. yes and when we resort to personal insults versus actual debates we do show our true colors. Again, I belive I was and still am right above. I make sense and you cant accept that. But its okay. I’m a big girl. I can handle it.
itsirC,
you are right. that is why I dont get all upset over this. I just take it with a grain of salt. 
Chelle,
My post (78) was in direct response to your post 72 where you described my views as “crap” and then made the “in the buisiness world, quanity MEANS quality” contention I cited in which you also said I don’t understand what any simple child would understand about business because I didn’t agree with that patently absurd statement.
You might be used to others letting themselves be bullied by you, but I wont let you bully me. Don’t play like you were the injured party because you got stood up to.
Karen,
I don’t believe I ever said that a report of less than 100 words would really be a quality report. I believe I said that one under 100 words could be better than one that had more than 100 words. Length is only one indication of quality and completeness. Let me pose another hypothetical:
We have two reports that are identical in every way except one says it was “at a party” and the other says “at a fun party”. The first report has 99 words and is rejected, the second has 100 and is accepted. Does saying it was at a fun party make the second report any better or more useful?
I can also easily envision reports of 99 words or less being better than those that are 2 or 3 times as long. While the number of words in a report is correlated to its quality, it is not completely indicative of a good report.
Gary, you’ve misunderstood when I said that a report under 100 words would not be accepted. I don’t mean that the report would submit, the com dev would review and reject, and the agent would not be rewarded points. I mean that the form would not submit and a message would pop up saying that the report was only 99 words or 57 words or 6 word and that this was an unacceptable length, please edit the report and resubmit.
Nor did I mean that a report would automatically be a good one if it were at least 100 words long. I only meant that this would reduce the number of “I told my mom. She liked it” reports that are being submitted. Even if BzzAgent began to reject those reports (which they should), as the system stands a com dev must be paid to look at them before they are rejected.
A system like this would be an easy cost effective way to discourage people who submit false reports so as to get rewards. If there were some small minimmum amount of work associated with submitting reports, those who do so fraudulently would have slightly less incentive.
Karen,
I have not been ignoring you, I have been giving this whole issue way to much thought in fact. Keep in mind that I have not reviewed the system from the inside and that led my to make some what I think are reasonable assumptions based on my experience with the system and what I have gleaned from reading other peoples comments.
Currently the grading of reports is on a 5 point scale, but from what I have surmised it really is only a three point scale, since I have only heard of reports that receive 1, 3 and 5 points. It also sounds like it is not behaviorally anchored (specific examples of criteria to award each level of points) so that the number of points awarded tends to be capricious and too dependent on the specific reviewer and even their mood on a specific day. Using such a limited scale does not allow the most accurate reflection of the quality of a report, all 5 points on the the scale should be used and behavioral anchors should be developed for each point which would give the reviewers a more solid basis on which to award points. The 5 scale points could be thought of as 1:poor, lacking details, 2:below average, 3: average, 4:above average, and 5: the ideal report. Again, these should be anchored which should be fairly easily to do
This naturally brings up the issue of consistency between reviewers. While they might be doing this already, BzzAgent must monitor individual biases (and this is not bias in its bad meaning, certain reviewers may be naturally harder, their tendencies may change over time as a reviewer gains experience, etc.) of the ComDev reviewers continually in an attempt to normalize the scoring system. It would be fairly easy to offer feed back information like “for this campaign the average grading was 3.2 and your average scoring so far is 2.5″ which would help them self normalize. If a trend of significant divergence from the norm continued, management would be able to counsel the employee on how to more closely match the standard being used.
The other critical issue with the grading system is that it treats all Bzz reports equally, whether it contains a beginning to end report of a Bzz or if it is fragmented into its component pieces. Therefore I think it is critical to develop a weight factor into the awarding of quality points. Without talking with Bzz management I can only outline a suggested system of 0 to whatever the total number of components of a total Bzz management deems appropriate (please note it is important in this scale to use 0, it would be awarded for non Bzz (telling a person that you are going to Bzz them), inappropriate bzz, repeat bzz, etc). Points could then be awarded by how many components of bzz it represents. For example if it tells about providing some one with information that report would get one point, a point for the initial feedback etc. This would curtail (but not totally eliminate) the advantages of breaking Bzz reports into small segments in order to game the system.
Once you combine both factors together (by a formula which must include a multiplication component so those 0 reports (no bzz, unethical bzz, etc) get a 0 total award) I think you would have a much fairer determination of the true value of the Bzz reports and minimize the gaming of the system with little extra work on the part of BzzAgent. Please note I don’t think it is perfect (believe me lying in bed I thought for hours about how to design the perfect system before saying to my self it would be too much effort for diminishing returns) but this would be vastly superior to the existing system. An example of how this could work is if some one just supplied information to a person it would be one point, times the previous quality score divided by the number of components to a total Bzz.
One final thought on the actual grading part of the Bzz is that the ComDev folks need to be very stringent (they may well be, but it does not appear so) on the awarding anything for reports that seem to break BzzAgent ethical standards. I saw a member in this thread brag about how her 9 year old Bzzed two people for a campaign and then later how she even had her 3 year old bzzing. This type of behaviour is the antithesis of what BzzAgent stands for. Reports such as these should be rejected and the agent warned that another such instance of using children in such a way will have him or her removed from BzzAgent immediately. Zero tolerance is the only way to insure that the high ethical standards of BzzAgent and its sterling image are maintained.
Before I end this treatise or ramble, depending on your view, I want to make one final comment. I have no problem with having a tier 4 or a super Agent category per se, but I think it has to be based on more just a quantitative analysis of an agent’s recent activity. This group should be limited in number and it should be made clear that report activity is only one component needed to achieve this status. These “super Agents” should also embody the principles of BzzAgent, be knowledgeable of what BzzAgent is really about, have proven themselves over a substantial period of time and be great role models for other Agents.
Gary, that’s a great response. I’m glad you took the time to think it out.
First, I’d like to ask you to re-read this, just to clarify what Chelle said:
“HECK, today my 3 year old today told the school nurse that she should use OUST instead of lysol. when she saw a can sitting there. (she couldnt read it, she just knew it wasnt oust and asked. I told her no, it wasnt and she asked the nurse why she wasnt using OUST. it smelled good. and we used it at home. this opened up a line of communication for me) SO I didnt report bzzing to my 8, 9 and 3 year olds, but they are still bzzing it.”
Please note that she did not submit Bzz to her children, nor solicit them to Bzz, just that it is occuring spontaneously.
Second, the only reason I can think of that your plan would not work is that I’m pretty sure Com Devs have a high turn over rate. I think I even heard that they only last a matter of weeks. Of course, I can’t say for sure that this is the case. But if it is, a complex system may be out of reach.
Hi Karen,
Don’t want to argue over Chelle, I did misread it, but she did talk about her 9 year old bzzing. You may not be aware of this, but this was a big issue a number of years ago and is why BzzAgent has a minimum age (I think 13, but I could be wrong) and requires parental consent of those younger than 18. The critics of BzzAgent can have a field day with this, and to be honest I would fall more on their side on this issue.
Actually while the this is more complex, from the the view of the people in ComDev it would actually be easier for them. They would produce two scores instead of one (putting aside the Bzz rewards points, which might be gone anyway under the new program) but since the points on the scale would be anchored it takes much of the guess work out of determining what a report should be scored. Anchored evaluation systems always receive raves over one which are not from those who are doing the reviewing.
Having a continuous feedback loop would allow them to know easily if they are being too easy or hard in interpreting the anchors. What usually happens when you add a feedback loop of this type is a person tends to learn and self normalize fairly quickly. New employees would learn quicker because of the instant feedback and would have an easier time initially by having anchors that are understandable. In essence, such a system means that new employees are self training after a shorter formal training period.
Whatever algorithm (mathematical calculations) used to produce the final value of the report would be invisible to the folks in ComDev. If after a period of time management decides it needs to be tweaked there is no retraining required and the change can be made almost instantly. The anchors also could be changed fairly easily and quickly if needed and would allow for quicker and uniform adaptation of the revised criteria by all the folks in ComDev.
Gary, I think your misunderstanding with what Chelle said is based on the loose term “Bzzing”. We all talk about products we like, and certainly every child I know does that. Just walk through Wal-mart and you will hear children Bzzing everything from snacks and cereal to toys and movies. I happen to know Chelle, and she certainly doesn’t have her child signed up as a BzzAgent, ask them to submit reports, or use them to take advantage of BzzAgent.
As to your suggestions, you’re preaching to the choir. I suggested the same thing earlier in the form of a teaching rubric. (Not in this thread, but on unofficial bzz and in e-mails to the hive.) Essentially it’s the same idea. But as far as I can tell, they aren’t interested or aren’t able to do it at this time.
Anxious to get started Bzzing! Thanks for the update.