Solved: Basic Designation for Experience Levels

[Drabdr]

(NOTE: I did a search and looked around, but did not see a similar concept. Apologies if this is a repeat.)

As I was trying to spruce my profile and stuff, I became intrigued as to the experience level notion. As it seems like something you are asking of people to rate themselves, is there a guideline thrown together from the community? I mean... I am generally amazed at the technical knowledge here. But your definition of an intermediate may be strikingly different than the person who is, say, good in Word/Access/Excel and uses the Internet a lot, but that's about it. So.. below is something I threw together. It is obvious I am a beginner, so my statements may not be usable at all. Just a thought.

Computer Illiterate:
Rarely if ever, spend time with a computer. Past turning on and using one or two applications, no discernible experience in working with hardware on computers, software applications. If it’s anything technical, always calls a professional.

Beginner:
Fairly comfortable with using computer applications; Comfortable with adding/ removing applications on the computer; have been known to attempt basic technical projects; if it’s anything technical, will usually call a professional.

Intermediate:
Proficient in mainstream applications and operating systems; can program in at least one language; overall have the aptitude to approach technical issues and perform program identification, diagnosis, and implement a solution; If it’s anything technical, sometimes calls a professional.

Advanced:
Generally regarded as an expert in one technical area; typically involves a technical recognition/ certification, or equivalent; highly independent when approaching technical issues; if it’s anything technical, rarely calls a professional.

Einstein:
Generally regarded as an expert in multiple technical areas; author/ designer on prominent technical application/ tool; if it’s anything technical, labels it a personal defeat to call a professional.

 

[buck52]

the experience level that shows in a members profile is up to them...

there are many "Einsteins" that couldn't find their way out of a wet paper bag...

 

[telecom69]

I asked for that experience tag to be installed some years back,it was originally so that the Tech people mainly would have some idea how to post a reply to a posters question,there is nothing more frustrating than posting an answer then have the poster come back to you saying I dont know what you mean at least if they list as iliterate you know you need to put it as simply as possible .....I think it has worked to a degree......

 

[JohnWill]

For the most part, when we see someone that has picked Einstein as their experience level, they're pretty bad! I don't think many people are realistic as to their experience level.

 

[RootbeaR]

(NOTE: I did a search and looked around, but did not see a similar concept. Apologies if this is a repeat.)

As I was trying to spruce my profile and stuff, I became intrigued as to the experience level notion. As it seems like something you are asking of people to rate themselves, is there a guideline thrown together from the community? I mean... I am generally amazed at the technical knowledge here. But your definition of an intermediate may be strikingly different than the person who is, say, good in Word/Access/Excel and uses the Internet a lot, but that's about it. So.. below is something I threw together. It is obvious I am a beginner, so my statements may not be usable at all. Just a thought.

Computer Illiterate:
Rarely if ever, spend time with a computer. Past turning on and using one or two applications, no discernible experience in working with hardware on computers, software applications. If it’s anything technical, always calls a professional.

Beginner:
Fairly comfortable with using computer applications; Comfortable with adding/ removing applications on the computer; have been known to attempt basic technical projects; if it’s anything technical, will usually call a professional.

Intermediate:
Proficient in mainstream applications and operating systems; can program in at least one language; overall have the aptitude to approach technical issues and perform program identification, diagnosis, and implement a solution; If it’s anything technical, sometimes calls a professional.

Advanced:
Generally regarded as an expert in one technical area; typically involves a technical recognition/ certification, or equivalent; highly independent when approaching technical issues; if it’s anything technical, rarely calls a professional.

Einstein:
Generally regarded as an expert in multiple technical areas; author/ designer on prominent technical application/ tool; if it’s anything technical, labels it a personal defeat to call a professional.

It is still about perspective. I know some people who think I am a genius on computers because I can partition and add a different OS. That means squat as far as I am concerned and I am the first to admit I don't know much about computers. Until/unless you know someone who is a genius on computers, you still have no true scale with which to judge.
eg. My Mother and Sister both considered themselves much better with MS Excel than myself mostly because they had been using computers so much longer than me. As far as I am concerned, they can input data and use it like a calculator. Not much more.

Related to this, I think anyway, is people who are seeking help and assume someone with the higher post count is providing the best answer. I think post count should be broken into category. Software & Hardware XX, Community XXXXXX. This will add some relevance to the person seeking the answer.

Deciding which advice to follow is more important and harder to determine than a users skill level to determine how to answer. IMO.

I just bowed out of a thread recently as I determined from the posters response that I wasn't skilled enough to answer them properly. If they had more experience I could have helped them.

 

[telecom69]

Related to this, I think anyway, is people who are seeking help and assume someone with the higher post count is providing the best answer. I think post count should be broken into category. Software & Hardware XX, Community XXXXXX. This will add some relevance to the person seeking the answer.

It was like this at one time,I dont know why that dissapeared,it used to show the percentage of answers given as technical or otherwise,maybe if Mike reads this he might put it back again ......

 

[oscar51]

RootbeaR: "Related to this, I think anyway, is people who are seeking help and assume someone with the higher post count is providing the best answer. I think post count should be broken into category. Software & Hardware XX, Community XXXXXX. This will add some relevance to the person seeking the answer."

That's the very reason I created my TSG Report 7. I have not been able to keep it updated because of other demands on my time and because the TSG search facility no longer permits the amount of downloading necessary to acquire the data. Even though the data in that report are not current, you can look at it here:

http://mysite.verizon.net/pcredin/tsg/tsgrpt7.html

The calculations that generate the tables in this report are very simple and could easily be added to the vB software. In fact, I think the vB site has several 'subroutines' (or whatever they are called now) already coded that generate this type of data.

 

[RootbeaR]

The calculations that generate the tables in this report are very simple and could easily be added to the vB software. In fact, I think the vB site has several 'subroutines' (or whatever they are called now) already coded that generate this type of data.

This is what you get when you look at profile of member at another site I visit(This is my profile).

Edit: Nice work on yours too by the way. Looks like you put some effort and time into that.

 

[TechGuy]

It was like this at one time,I dont know why that dissapeared,it used to show the percentage of answers given as technical or otherwise,maybe if Mike reads this he might put it back again ......

You're right -- that was some special code I had written, and it stopped working after a major vBulletin upgrade. We had decided then that it wasn't useful enough to bother re-writing. (I suspect you could find an old thread in this forum about that.) I think that the deciding factor (for me, anyway) was that someone wasn't necessarily more experienced to answer a question just because they didn't spend any time in the Community forums. It also might not be far to trust someone with only 50% of their posts in tech over someone with 90% in tech, especially if the first person has posted 50,000 times and the other only 100. Perhaps a straight count of each post type would be more fair? I'm certainly open to suggestions.

 

[JohnWill]

I think it's pretty difficult to truly indicate the experience level of a person, since many people have a somewhat distorted view of their competence. The fact that someone posts a ton of posts in the technical forums isn't necessarily an indicator of their experience.

 

[Davec]

And experience isn't necessarily an indicator of their competence.

 

[Blackmirror]

I know nothing


but i can Google with the speed of a Puma

 

[Drabdr]

...but i can Google with the speed of a Puma

We can certainly add "Speed at which you Google" to the criteria list!

 

[oscar51]

We're talking about two different types or uses of "experience level" here.

1. The experience level of the person who ASKS the question, and
2. the experience level of the person who RESPONDS to the question.

#1 is intended to help the person who RESPONDS to the question give a relevant and useful answer, and
#2 is intended to help the person who ASKS the question assess the relevance and usefulness of the answer offered.

Inherent in the nature of technical help forums like TSG is the assumption that the person who asks the question knows LESS about the specific topic to be discussed than the person who responds to the question. Otherwise no one would ask questions -- except stupid ones and those are covered in the TSG slogan. Therefore, experience level #1 is potentially more useful than experience level #2. So, after reflecting a bit on this issue, I find myself in the position of questioning the usefulness of the tables in my TSG report 7, tables that are primarily intended to establish experience level #2.

Bottom line: While the tables in TSG report 7 are perhaps interesting, I no longer think they are very useful. The experience level tag (if accurate) in a member’s profile is probably more useful than my tables. The only meaningful criterion here is whether or not the response answered the question and that can only be determined on a question-by-question basis by the person who asked the question. Based on the generally low number of questioners who explicitly state their question was answered, we will probably never have a quantitative evaluation of that criterion.

 

[JohnWill]

You're right about the two different experience levels. However, if every member accurately indicated their experience level, it would solve both issues.