I am very glad I was awarded so many points few days a go, but I don’t feel so right about it. Indeed, I realise that the webcasts I imported are very short, and therefore people can study a lot of them in a short period of time. On the opposite, it takes much longer to study a long text, and therefore the frequency of texts choosen from series of long texts is lesser.
Shouldn’t the number of points awarded take into account the length of the texts rather than the number of lessons?
It could prevent from the temptation to split textes before importing them in order to increase the number of shared lessons.
I wouldn’t worry about it if I were you. Short material is just as useful as long material. Sometimes it even takes longer to listen to short texts because they may be beginner texts which have to be repeated quite often, whereas the longer advanced texts are often only listened to once or twice. As long as you are confident the material is of interest (and I really haven’t found anything that was uninteresting in the libraries thus far), that is all that matters.
For the first six months of Russian study I was only managing to study the shortest articles in the library, the longer ones were just too hard! If you are adding short lessons to the library, please keep on doing it!
I think also short lessons are quite useful!
But I also think that the rewarding system is not really fair.
I thought about things, how to make it more fair but I’ve no good idea.
You also have to think about:
- the length of the article
- did the creator of the content a transcription or was there a transcript
- is it a self created article
I think it would be very difficult to make it more fair and people think different about fairness. Who could be the judge?
If someone comes up with a way to make it more fair, we are willing to change. It is not that easy.
I think, this is the difficulties point. What is fair? I cannot say it.
Now I am trying to create beginners content: short, easy, but rather authentic sentences. It is really hard! So, the size of lessons can’t be a measure.
And… I wanted to ask, but forgot. Some Russian content I share from my mother’s account… I hope it is allowed, isn’t?
Of course you can make your mother the provider!
I’m not sure what you mean by “Is it allowed?”. If it’s shared in your mother’s account, your mother’s account will get the points awarded for its use.
How Vera mentioned it is really difficult to measure how much work in an imported content is.
We have article where the whole transcription was to do, we have contents that is created from the providers, we have articles they are only one or two minutes or we have articles (how VOA) they are only copied and pasted and all get the same points.
But how would it be possible to differentiate? I cannot say it in the same way how Vera.
Mark, it is exactly what I want Because I am still not sure that my mother will study by herself at LingQ. Now I am paying for her basic account, and watching if she became an active lingqer. As soon as she become active, I will upgrade her account She do like lingq content, esp. your and Steve conversations, but she is not brave enough to start tutored activities. So I use these free points as the ad for her.
Sounds like a good plan!
I think that all this length/origin/effort et.c. will even out in the long run.
Transcribing (even just proofreading!) a 20-minute podcast takes time, while recording a 30-second dialog takes just… 30 seconds (and probably without too much editing). Who can say which type of content the average user will choose, or which content the average user will learn most from?
You can’t make everyone happy.
I would suggest that in the course of time we need to add a way for students to rate the content in the library. Then the points awarded for an article could be a function of how many people select it, plus how highly they rate it after they have used it.
Rasana would your mother be interested in sitting in one one of your one-on-ones? Or does she want to learn a different language from you?
A ageree with you, Helen, we should have a rating but, you can only rate after reading and listening.
In this way the number of “taken” isn’t convincing. First when we are able to rate after, with stars for example, it will be possible to see what members think about.