It's a mystery to me! Multiple author work seems to give each author the same value as a single author piece. Some people with few contributions get far higher scores than regular publishers. Some people have hundreds of thousands of reads! How is this possible? And so on....
I'm sure we all like it when our score increases. But do we have any real reason to be proud???
dear Christopher and followers, I understand your asking. I am with RG since a year or some months more, and every RG member has the similar question, they are asked, let us say in a 4-6weekly circle here. My own interest is the coffin-function of RG for my texts, so you may think - why should be scores interesting for such a gravedigger as myself? I said this also to me. But it is an interesting phenomenon.
Monday evening there is a certain level of motivation - not rejectable - to see what the secret monster, that fake snake, is throwing out for the past week. In German they say: He stares like the rabbit at the snake (which of course swallows the rabbit in the next moment). Knowledgeable biologists advise: run away immediately - what a rabbit tries on. Of course you should do that, in case the weekly RG score is revealed - just don't look - and keep working as if nothing happened. But I also know that I can only do this for a short time.
The current number of your score accompanies you on every RG website with your own portrait. I believe that if you understand why the RG rulers do this, you will become a little more independent, will become less angry and accept things as a sporting "game" that holds its secrets and surprises in store. In my opinion it is quite clear that the RG operators want to bring the users into a dependency relationship with which the system is maintained.
Why? If no or too few questions are asked and answers given, the communication system collapses. And this addiction of RG users is made a little exciting so that every week, no matter how disappointed you are, you can play the old game again. Of course you are right that an increase of the score causes friendly feelings in the stomach, and the decrease of the score usually leads to the fact that one sacrifices again somewhat more diligently his time for RG.
In short: RG is primarily a time-eater. It collects and "sells" the time of its users at increased prices that serve its attractiveness.
So we are cheerful fellow sufferers! All the best, Hein
Yea, I took a quick look. I'm sure your work might deserve such attention, but it does seem a high number! I guess there's explainers in some cases, depending on how long you've been on RG, or if you share what goes on here on other social media?
NOCK
I have observed decrease in RG score. I was visiting and participating question/answer session regularly. Now I am visiting RG occasionally.
Thank you Vishnu! I knew I couldn't be the only one wondering!!
I thought I might let this run a while and pass the debate on to RG, and see what they have to say!
So people should raise any issues they have....
NOCK
It is a mystery, let it be, so that many of our colleagues remain busy and keep on thinking about it.
With best regards
Ah, let mystery dogs lie??? I like the sentiment very much. But I'm not sure Sherlock Holmes would agree! Don't mysteries need solving?
NOCK
One thing I do know is that your score is calculated relative to all other RG users. That's one reason it can go up and down when you weren't expecting it. New users in, old users out changes the average.
NOCK
dear Christopher and followers, I understand your asking. I am with RG since a year or some months more, and every RG member has the similar question, they are asked, let us say in a 4-6weekly circle here. My own interest is the coffin-function of RG for my texts, so you may think - why should be scores interesting for such a gravedigger as myself? I said this also to me. But it is an interesting phenomenon.
Monday evening there is a certain level of motivation - not rejectable - to see what the secret monster, that fake snake, is throwing out for the past week. In German they say: He stares like the rabbit at the snake (which of course swallows the rabbit in the next moment). Knowledgeable biologists advise: run away immediately - what a rabbit tries on. Of course you should do that, in case the weekly RG score is revealed - just don't look - and keep working as if nothing happened. But I also know that I can only do this for a short time.
The current number of your score accompanies you on every RG website with your own portrait. I believe that if you understand why the RG rulers do this, you will become a little more independent, will become less angry and accept things as a sporting "game" that holds its secrets and surprises in store. In my opinion it is quite clear that the RG operators want to bring the users into a dependency relationship with which the system is maintained.
Why? If no or too few questions are asked and answers given, the communication system collapses. And this addiction of RG users is made a little exciting so that every week, no matter how disappointed you are, you can play the old game again. Of course you are right that an increase of the score causes friendly feelings in the stomach, and the decrease of the score usually leads to the fact that one sacrifices again somewhat more diligently his time for RG.
In short: RG is primarily a time-eater. It collects and "sells" the time of its users at increased prices that serve its attractiveness.
So we are cheerful fellow sufferers! All the best, Hein
Somebody may know the novel "Momo" from the German writer Michael Ende (1929-1995), a book, translated in many languages. The girl Momo fights the little grey gentlemen who steal people's time by providing them with ever more pleasant things with which people spend their time and forget the most important things in life. The author knew neither computers nor smartphones (only TV), devices that supposedly save time, in reality shortens them valuable lifetime. But that's another matter. However, RG belongs within the scope of the tools that modern "time-eaters" give people to make their lives dependent and ultimately to destroy them.
Why? In the meantime, "time" has become the scarcest of all important resources in human life - through devices that allegedly save time and enable wonderful communication - worldwide!. We enjoy our dependence and ultimately our helplessness, we feel us happy with them and cannot live without them. Factually this is a shortening of valuable life-time.
We RG users know that we all become totally dependent on this fish hook "RG score", with which we are swallowed as small fish by the big shark RG - and we are happy or reflective, however we'll put up with the show....
https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_exactly_is_RG_score_calculated
Perhaps the response
By Mostafa Eidiani
Hi, I think I find it. What is your opinion?
a1= Publication views (Total) a2=Publication views (Last week)
b1=Profile views (Total) b2=Profile views (Last week)
c1=Full-text downloads (Total) c2=Full-text downloads (Last week)
d1=Dataset downloads (Total) d2=Dataset downloads (Last week)
e1=Citations (Total) e2=Citations (Last week)
f1=Profile views (Total) f2=Profile views (Last week)
g1=Endorsements (Total) g2=Endorsements (Last week)
h1=Question views and voted (Total) h2=Question views and voted (Last week)
i1=Answer view and voted (Total) i2=Answer view and voted (Last week)
RG(Total)=RG(Old)+RG(Last week)
RG(Last week)=(a2/a1)+(b2/b1)+(c2/c1)+(d2/d1)+(e2/e1)+(f2/f1)+(g2/g1)+(h2/h1)+(i2/i1)
IF RG(Last week)
Interesting. Dr. Hakim. But it's distressing when the score dwindles. I rather focus on the good aspects of RG not the scores. But as scholarly researchers with great achievements always in focus, we can't turn a blind eye to the algorithm for the calculation of the score.
Nice!!!.
Great - and thank you for the information, dear colleague!! That many values are taken into account (as far as I know, not the comments on publications play a role, but only the questions asked!) was something said other inventors some months before, demonstrating a similar "formula"! But their addition scheme is no longer in my head.
Anyone who belongs to the thoughtful RG members will reflect or object: In the best case, it is the temptation to adapt one's activities to this scheme, which requires a great deal of additional time for RG activities which one is prepared to make available to the time-stealing "grey gentlemen" of RG. Because, if you know"the formula" only approximately and not completely exactly, then you will use, in order to serve all possible sources, very much more activities, than ever before, all the same whether the value changes as wanted - or on the contrary. Also it could change slowly.
In the worst case, the scheme for the "formula" only applies to a certain middle range, but it could tip over at the limit. It is also not clear to what extent and for which variables one's own performance is negatively influenced by the performance of others in the result.
To assume that a pure addition model achieves certain approximations, but is probably not sufficient, is obvious, because far too many RG users complain that they are diligent - without visible success - on the contrary, several have complained about the decline of their score or complained about it.
How the often occurring declines of the RG-score can be calculated exactly is not explained by the presented addition model of the individual variables. But nevertheless, dear colleague, thank you very much and congratulations. We can call a meeting after 6 weeks. It is conceivable we could do a parallel group study beforehand, where one group continues normally, the other group considers all variables of the model presented here, whether they have a boost in their score expectation and how large it is. However, it can then be compared with the actual values achieved. The estimates of the experimental group would then have to be much more precise than before and more accurate than the estimates of the normal group. What is important in both groups, however, is the time required, which must be measured in both groups for each individual case for each RG access. My hypothesis is that this expenditure of time for the experimental group, which seeks to apply the new model conscientiously and optimally, has considerably greater time requirements. Someone can fill out his BA or MA work with the topic.
Best wishes, Hein
It's a circle, this discussion, really, it remember me to Christmas coming all years again
My point is not to question what they do. Rather, I'd like a straightforward explanation of what they do! Is that too much to ask???
NOCK
@Hein Retter
RE: "In short: RG is primarily a time-eater."
You are largely correct there. To be fair, RG does play a valuable role in some areas of knowledge or research. However, it looks like some people are playing an "increase my score by increasing my number of answers" game: I've noticed some people have contributed hundreds of answers that basically say nothing more than "nice question" or "I agree with so-and-so", and often the "I agree" answer gets many recommendations whereas the answer they agreed with gets none. Many good answers get lost in a plethora of such useless answers -- who wants to scroll through them all? -- and there seem to be small networks of people who thank and recommend one another.
I used to be on Quora but left because many people were gaming their upvotes/downvotes scoring system and this was actively encouraged by Quora's competitive incentive system, and also because misinformation in the answers was rampant. I fear RG may be morphing into Quora.
You can report such unfair activity, ie short pointless answer with many recommendations. I've had some remove. There's a little downward arrow top right of answer. Click that and report wrong doings!
NOCK
Dear Karl Pfeifer, thanks for your remarks. I don't know Quora, but I wanted to join academia edu at first, but then I stayed with RG. You are absolutely right, to stay with a online platform only makes sense if - in your own opinion - the personal advantage is greater than the disadvantages. And here I think one should be strict with oneself and check again and again (at least every now and then) if that is the case. I hope to be less dependent on RG next year because I hopefully completed a big project - which I can only handle via RG - next year. But we'll see. Best regards, Hein Retter
As per my view on this platform, scholarly interaction between members is more important rather than the score! Keep it up!!!
Yet, Please visit following link for more details of RG Score:
https://explore.researchgate.net/display/support/RG+Score
The RG Score is a metric that measures scientific reputation based on how all of your work is received by your peers. They believe that fellow researchers are the best judges of each other's work and that all your research, published or not, deserves credit. With this in mind, your RG Score is based on how both your published research and contributions to RG are received by your peers.
A contribution is anything you share on RG or add to your profile, from published papers and questions and answers to negative results and raw data. RG algorithm looks at how your peers receive and evaluate your contributions and who these peers are. This means that the higher the scores of those who interact with your research, the more your own score will increase.
In contrast to more traditional metrics, the RG Score focuses on you, an ever-growing community of specialists, and puts reputation back into the hands of researchers.
Hi Christopher!
Behavioral addiction is a popular theme nowadays. Someone should make a survey about RG addiction. I'm sure many of us will score pretty high.
I like dr. Retter's views about "time stealer" and will certainly find the "Momo" novel.
Best
John-Kåre
Ay. I am an addict according to my wife! Really, I'm just a very ill person lying in bed all day with little else to do! Sleep, RG, eat, RG, sleep, RG...and so on....
It a lot of ways, it's a lifeline for me.
NOCK
NOTICE:
As I said I would, I have now passed this onto RG for their comments.
NOCK
RESPONSE FROM RG:
I have now received a response. Here are the condensed highlights:
1. All scores are relative to all others.
2. It's a relative rating of all scores and interactions of every researcher, every week.
3. To improve your score, connect with others and contribute quality stuff.
That's it!
NOCK
Yeah, I've understood they put heavy weigth on communication within RG. I learned when I noticed someone with fewer articles had much higher scores. My own score increase by 10 when I started to answer questions. Such mechnisms keep us occupied here.
It was not totally in vain, though. Interaction with other researcher (engaging in questions and answers), help me build up my own competence. I also learned a lot by looking at experienced researchers' explanations to "newcomers" in the field.
Best
John-KÅre
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publisher