Better collaboration
Show what a member has shaped
44 supporters1,320 influence
10 comments · 10 people in the discussion
- Idea→
- Discussing→
- Gaining support→
- Proposal→
- Voting→
- Approved→
- Building→
- In experiment→
- Shipped→
- Measured
Problem
Reputation is a number with no story. People can't see which features a member actually helped bring into the product.
Why it matters
Ownership is emotional. If your influence disappears into a counter, the hive feels like an audience again.
Potential solutions
A profile that names the shipped features you touched and the people they reached.
Proposal #17
Show what a member has shaped
- Problem
- Reputation is a number with no story. People can't see which features a member actually helped bring into the product.
- Evidence
- Interviews with new members: they understood voting and not what their vote had already changed.
- Proposed change
- Profiles lead with impact — features shaped and people reached — and keep reputation as credibility, not power.
- Expected impact
- Members feel the product is partly theirs, which is the point of the hive.
- Alternatives
- A public leaderboard. It would turn reputation into a contest. We are not doing that.
- Risks
- Reach numbers can be misread as personal glory. Phrase them as shared outcomes.
- Open questions
- Do we count a feature if you only commented, or only if you committed influence?
- Complexity
- small
- Success metrics
- Members who view their impact return to vote at a higher rate the following month.
The draft is open for discussion before a vote begins.
A product specification exists for what comes after the decision. It is a brief, not code.
Hive Intelligence · community synthesis
Synthesis
Drawn from the discussion. Not a decision.
Reputation is a number with no story. People can't see which features a member actually helped bring into the product.
Evidence
- People who could name a shipped feature they supported commented more the next week. I tracked it in a spreadsheet like a goblin.
- The part I would spend influence on is specific: members could not point to a feature and say they had a hand in it.
- I don't want another feature. I want fewer people stuck with members could not point to a feature and say they had a hand in it.
Community sentiment
- Demand is specific. Supporters keep returning to the same broken moment, not a vague wish list.
- The objection is about scope. Concerns are less “never do this” and more “don’t do it in a way that drowns the problem.”
- People brought proof. Evidence comments describe real sessions, not hypothetical users.
Arguments for
- Tell me what changed because I was here. The number can sit quietly beside that.
- Before we build “Show what a member has shaped”, write the success metric in the proposal itself.
- A smaller version of “Show what a member has shaped” could tell us if we even framed the problem correctly.
Arguments against
- Please don't rank us. The sentence should be about the product, not a ladder.
Alternatives
- A single line on the home page — 'you helped shape N features' — might matter more than a full profile.
Open questions
- What would we measure in the first two weeks to know this was worth building?
Treat “Show what a member has shaped” as a problem statement: Reputation is a number with no story. The leading suggestion is: A profile that names the shipped features you touched and the people they reached. Why it matters here: Ownership is emotional.
Community discussion
Tell me what changed because I was here. The number can sit quietly beside that.
Please don't rank us. The sentence should be about the product, not a ladder.
A single line on the home page — 'you helped shape N features' — might matter more than a full profile.
People who could name a shipped feature they supported commented more the next week. I tracked it in a spreadsheet like a goblin.
Before we build “Show what a member has shaped”, write the success metric in the proposal itself.
The part I would spend influence on is specific: members could not point to a feature and say they had a hand in it.
A smaller version of “Show what a member has shaped” could tell us if we even framed the problem correctly.
I don't want another feature. I want fewer people stuck with members could not point to a feature and say they had a hand in it.
Whatever we do with “Show what a member has shaped”, the decision has to stay attached to this thread.
I keep running into this around members could not point to a feature and say they had a hand in it. “Show what a member has shaped” is the name I would have used.
Join the hive to add to this thread.