Well, I don’t know if effort is what should be rewarded.
I mean, I could write an enormous poem right now and record it. It could take a lot of effort, but chances are, it would be horrible and not help anyone much.
I think what should matter is how many people use it and like it. I think beginner content is most important anyway, since soon after that one can go out and import native content to use.
But as for the other things, yeah, I will never like expiration of points. And I do think tutors are maybe under-rewarded and therefore less likely to offer times, but I don’t know how to fix it.
Throwing more points at them will probably help the English and other popular language tutors, but most will probably end up with more points than they can use but less than they can turn in for cash. I think tutoring will never make business sense to most people: It’s somewhat an act of charity for most tutors.
@SolYViento - If it were helpful and popular, you would get as much credit for each time someone uses it as someone else would for a lesson that took one minute to create and upload.
@mark - Fair point(s). I don’t think I was around when you had a different policy regarding points, good to learn a bit of LingQ history.
With regard to short texts, I see no problem. These are part of the many creative ways that our members create lessons for beginners. They may very well appeal to beginners. The quality of the one you listed here is excellent.
If this inspires others to do the same in Spanish, or other languages, that would be good for our beginners.
Poor content is, to me, content with poor sound, or incorrect language, or difficult content which is graded beginner just to attract users etc. If you see such content please let us know and we can remove it or change the difficulty setting.
Right now the points are earned once the lesson is selected. We have on our todo list to change that so that points will only be awarded once the “LingQed” button ( I now all) is clicked.
The Collection rating is the average of the individual lesson ratings.
“… points will only be awarded once the “LingQed” button ( I now all) is clicked.”
This will cause other problems. You’ll not earn points if Free Members choose your content because they’ll not LingQ any words and don’t press “I know all” because there number of LingQs is limited by 100 LingQs for them.
That is true Vera. Should we leave things the way they are? In a way, if a person does not like a lesson, they will not go back for more from that collection.
Every time we finish a lesson why not comment on it. I am going to start doing so. I will rate the lesson and then comment, and if it is a language where I am basically a beginner, like Korean, I will comment in English.
@ Vera: I didn’t know that Vera. Sometimes I don’t click the “LingQed” button.
@Whomever: This “points system” is way too complicated. I grow tired of the complications (and incomprehensibility) of this matter. It seems to me that LingQ is rather disorganized where the distribution of points is concerned and makes the contents/points structure more complicated than it has to be. Even new members have problems navigating the site, have trouble understanding the points system, etc., I don’t agree with LingQ’s points philosophy; I don’t like it one bit. I am, however, indebted to the invaluable services LingQ tutors (teachers) provide. Without them, membership hardly seems worth the cost of losing points.
With all due respect, you finding something hard to understand doesn’t mean it is disorganised. To me it is all pretty clearly explained in the FAQ and a lot less complicated than, for example, the rules of poker.
“Without them, membership hardly seems worth the cost of losing points.”
Try LingQing.
People are upset because they subscribe to some theory of labour equating effort with value, or they mistakenly think points = money. That is all.
With all these issues concerning the reward scheme, Mark’s suggestion of taking the content providers out of the scheme could be a good solution in the long run.
We have to understand that, under the economy of the Internet, content is supposed to be free. It does not matter how much time you spend to create the content, charging for the content is defying the gravity of the Internet economy. LingQ is taking a financial hit by rewarding content providers.
I wouldn’t worry if this would discourage people to share content. Learners will find good content from the web, and generous native speakers will still create great content.
On the other hand, we should pay (either by points or cash) the tutors well.
The LingQ policy is to compensate per lesson, it doesn’t matter if it’s a 10 seconds lesson or a 15 minutes lesson.
It’s a LingQ decision and I fully respect it.
However, to me it’s clear that this disencourages making long lessons.
Being a major provider (just see how many lessons I have made for LingQ’s Italian library) I feel my opinion can stand on solid grounds.
First of all, I’m not totally in favour of making points redeemable into cash. Although I have redeemed a good part of the points I have earned so far through tutoring and provider awards, I have come to the conclusion that it defeats the whole purpose of LingQ, which is learning languages enjoyably, not making money*. Moreover, redeeming points instead of using them for tutored services reduces LingQ’s capital, which means less room for system updates and improvements (how are they going to pay programmers?). Fortunately, I’m not short of money, therefore, I can buy books, audio equipment or anything else without resorting to my Paypal account, which is where cash from points is deposited. I’m going to use all the cash I have earned so far in tutored services, especially conversations.
Second, I don’t understand people who say providers should be rewarded differently with respect to some criteria (e.g. how long their lessons are). I have recently collected data through a survey made with Google Documents to know exactly what are the preferences of Italian learners here at LingQ, and these data have helped me create a new collection, which has proven itself to be my most popular collection. The way in which LingQ rewards providers today is totally reasonable to me, and it makes business sense. Point expiration makes sense. Successful companies like Skype do something similar (consume your Skype credit within 180 days of purchase or we’ll take it away from you).
Third, may I be so bold as to say those who are complaining here are not LingQ’s greatest content providers? MissTake and Vera seem to be comfortable with how LingQ operates at present.
Fourth and last, let’s not fall into the facile assumption that content providers are going to make lessons for as long as they are rewarded in cash. I have excellent students of Italian, and they give me all the motivation I need to keep making new and enhanced lessons. Making lessons also soothes my mind, in the same way as to a musician, composing musing is a relaxing and intellectually valuable activity in itself.
Hope my stance is clear enough !
At present, the most productive content provider here on LingQ is Vera from Germany, whose incredible effort in making German lessons I appreciate very much. She earns an average of 10000 points a month (100$). There are ways to earn 2000$ or (much) more on the Internet, through marketing campaigns, affiliate programs, advertisements and what not. Again, LingQ is not the best place to make money, because essentially it isn’t supposed to be so.
adalbertolito, I am not going to put myself in the position of stablish what should be the “philosophy” or “ultimate purpose” of LingQ. However, it’s up to the users to use their points as they wish. If they want to spend them on tutoring conversations, it’s ok. If they want to use them on getting writings corrected, it’s ok. And if they want to cash the points to money, it’s also up to them and we have to respect it. There are not “bad users” and “good users” on LingQ.
A credit balance for Skype Credit in your user account expires 180 days after the last chargeable use of that Skype Credit.
But you only have to make one single, short call, and you will not lose money (only the few cents for this one call every 180 days).
Plus: You can request a refund for unused and unexpired Skype products or unused Skype Credit at any time, by submitting a support request to Customer Support.
It is not about whether LingQ is a good place to make money, or whether an individual is doing it for money or not. If we want this system to last, each individual must be compensated fairly on the value he created.
I begin to think that rewarding content providers could be unnecessary. Why would LingQ want to pay for content which should be free on the Internet? If we remove this from the compensation equation, there is no need to expire the points.
On the other hand, LingQ tutors are providing services. They are the ones who should be compensated, whether they are doing it for money or not. I believe that the lack of tutors is partly caused by the fact that many tutors (or potential tutors) don’t see that they are fairly compensated.
!