C3 Rating

[Bryan Wollenberg]

Agree to disagree, I'd say that ZSE's turnover is very similar to others. How many active controllers are still around your guys's ARTCCs from the start of VATSIM?

If you really want to know, about 57% of controllers who signed up at the start of VATSIM (2001) are still online doing something, and about 58%  of those who signed up within the first 3 years.  That doesn't necessarily mean they're controlling, but they're still here enjoying VATSIM.  Throughout VATSIM's entire existence, about 60% of all controller-rated members are still active on the network.  VATUSA sits around 58%, and VATNA sits basically with the average, at 60%.

Over a 10 year period, those are actually fairly good numbers for a hobby of our size.

I can assure you that 90% of the members are not leaving.  Perhaps 90% of the members are leaving ZSE for another place on the network, but they certainly aren't leaving VATSIM.

[Bryan Wollenberg]

**EDITED, quote from my post above: "My real feeling, is that the C3 rating itself isn't going to really make people stay on and control more, but something needs to be done to incentify controllers to stay"

Why should we have to provide incentives?  The incentive is that you are participating in a hobby that you enjoy.  That's the "incentive" that comes with most hobbies.  If you're no longer enjoying the hobby, no amount of incentive (outside of cash ) is going to get you to stick around.

[Kevin Kelm]

If you really want to know, about 57% of controllers who signed up at the start of VATSIM (2001) are still online doing something, and about 58%  of those who signed up within the first 3 years.  That doesn't necessarily mean they're controlling, but they're still here enjoying VATSIM.  Throughout VATSIM's entire existence, about 60% of all controller-rated members are still active on the network.  VATUSA sits around 58%, and VATNA sits basically with the average, at 60%.

Over a 10 year period, those are actually fairly good numbers for a hobby of our size.

I can assure you that 90% of the members are not leaving.  Perhaps 90% of the members are leaving ZSE for another place on the network, but they certainly aren't leaving VATSIM.

Bryan, my estimations are from members I knew at 2004 that are still on today. I sure hope ZSE isn't the worst out there for turnover, but I'll have you know we are doing excellent on staffing currently  I was not aware the numbers of returning were that good. Where did you find this information? I'd like to be able to keep track myself (or is that a VATSIM staff-only thing)?

[Bryan Wollenberg]

Kevin, yeah, unfortunately the numbers are staff-only access, on the CERT level.  You have to take into consideration as well that I can't currently differentiate between how many of those members are actually controlling.  Same may just be observing, some may have switched to flying, etc.  So I can't say that 60% of controllers are still controlling.  But 60% of the controllers are online doing something.  What that something is, is anyone's guess.

So in all fairness I can't call your numbers completely incorrect.  Perhaps 90% of the controllers left and are now flying, for all I know.  There is really no way to currently tell, aside from looking every single member up on the stats and seeing what they've been up to.  Not going to happen.  Ha!

[Kevin Kelm]

Kevin, yeah, unfortunately the numbers are staff-only access, on the CERT level.  You have to take into consideration as well that I can't currently differentiate between how many of those members are actually controlling.  Same may just be observing, some may have switched to flying, etc.  So I can't say that 60% of controllers are still controlling.  But 60% of the controllers are online doing something.  What that something is, is anyone's guess.

So in all fairness I can't call your numbers completely incorrect.  Perhaps 90% of the controllers left and are now flying, for all I know.  There is really no way to currently tell, aside from looking every single member up on the stats and seeing what they've been up to.  Not going to happen.  Ha!

Bryan, if those numbers you gave, even due to your uncertainties are even slightly correct,  I really was not aware the numbers of activity were that good. Just from observation it seemed very much a different story; but I will definitely consider that, thank you for letting me know.

[Charles Rizzi]

[!--quoteo--][div class=\\\'quotetop\\\']QUOTE [/div][div class=\\\'quotemain\\\'][!--quotec--]Charlie Rizzi! Yes sir, I did indeed think you had vaporized into the ether somewhere. Glad to 'see' you again, hope it's not a one-time thing.[/quote]

Be careful what you ask for.

If anybody wants to hear more of the history.  I only put this here because I think I'm one of the very few left that lived through the whole thing (expect Bryan).

[blockquote]The ratings (S1, S2, S3, C1, C2, C3) originally came from SATCO.  In the beginning of SATCO there were no controller ratings.  Anybody could do anything.  Guys would fight over positions, try to steal each other's traffic buy calling pilots out of their airspace, CTR controllers would refuse to hand off arrivals to anybody "below" them, etc. etc. it was chaos, often belligerent and almost unimaginable to anybody involved in VATSIM as it works now.  "Service" to pilots was awful.  SATCO implemented controller ratings but did not standardize how those ratings would be used because I think it would have been politically impossible for them to have done so at that time.  This carried forward into VATSIM (which dropped the C2/S2).  Remember that at that time nobody had ever done this and nobody really knew what would work and what would not.  It was the age of great experimentation trying to see what would work the best to retain the most trainees.  So before GRP we had a system where what a rating meant depended mostly on when and where you got it.  You had S3s in sectors with strong training programs that had far more hours and know how than C3s for other areas.  Not much of a rating system network wide.  The EC tried to fix this with GRP1 and that's about where I decided after seven years as an instructor that I was going to get away from it.  GRP1 first introduced the notion of also giving rating "credit" for things other than controlling skill.  That had never been openly done before but I'm sure it probably had been done "under the table".  Bryan's post from above tells the history from there.[/blockquote]

In the end it all comes down to the issue of how many "upgrades" between newbie and full performance CTR controller are necessary to adequately recognize, reward and retain students without becoming too silly or complex.  Personally I always thought the more "attaboys/gold stars" I could hand out as an Instructor the better I could move students up and retain them.  I'm well aware that others would disagree strongly with that point of view and apparently that discussion continues to this day.  When GRP first was conceived I don't think anybody promoting it had any idea how hard it was going to be to get to a system that would both work for everyone and be accepted by everyone globally.

Best all,

CR

[Bruce Clingan]

Page two of this reads like an Intro to Sociological Study course I teach.  We can't look at our personal experiences and expect to get a clear picture of what is happening with a large population.

A vast majority of my closest VATSIM friends are not active on the network.  That doesn't mean that the network is failing.  It simply means that they were involved in a situation under certain leadership that changed their opinion of VATSIM forever.

Even Brian's stats really don't give us a clear statistical picture of overall retention on the network.

[Kevin Kelm]

Page two of this reads like an Intro to Sociological Study course I teach.  We can't look at our personal experiences and expect to get a clear picture of what is happening with a large population.

A vast majority of my closest VATSIM friends are not active on the network.  That doesn't mean that the network is failing.  It simply means that they were involved in a situation under certain leadership that changed their opinion of VATSIM forever.

Even Brian's stats really don't give us a clear statistical picture of overall retention on the network.

Maybe not, but that's all we got.

[Bruce Clingan]

Just because the raw numbers may not now give us an accurate picture doesn't mean that they can't.  More information would be necessary though.

[Bryan Wollenberg]

Just because the raw numbers may not now give us an accurate picture doesn't mean that they can't.  More information would be necessary though.

We're working on it.

[Bruce Clingan]

I know Bryan.  My statement was really pointed at the idea that you can't get a good picture by saying that VATSIM has bad retention because all of the older controllers from one ARTCC have left.

[Andrew Wolcott]

Okay,

Let me clarify. Ratings came from SATCO. Some of you don't know what that is, but it may only be a handful. Now, C3 rating was meant to acknowledge that a Center Rated controller worked 200 hours on a "_CTR" position. The hours did not count for sitting on east bumble delivery. They had to be logged on a "_CTR" position.

Now, here is the question for Kevin and anyone else. How many cookies and golden star stickers and badges must be passed out to people on this network to make them feel appreciated? Should I just arbitrarily honor you for some set number of hours you've logged working a regular position?

Or should I respect and reward you for putting in time and effort to help make this community better, such as assisting an EC, designing an ARTCC Logo, doing website work, performing staff duties as an ARTCC or VATUSA staff member, help author countless numbers of SOPs, LOAs, or learning how to develop sector files and keeping them up-to-date for others to use?

Anybody who wants to be rewarded because of hours should only want to be rewarded for the time and effort they put in GIVING BACK. Jockeying a computer for hours on end with watching youtube videos, twittering about how you just posted a comment or link on someone's facebook wall all the while plugging a position working little to no traffic at odd hours of the day or night is not with recognition on the level of being GIVEN any sort of rating. Period.

Senior controller recognition should come not only because of time plugged in, but rather the showing of dedication, pride, and at times disgust, many of us here have put into or received from this community.

The big difference is the willingness to give back, versus asking someone else to always give to you.

I earned my C3 with pride, and I know what it stands for to me. Hours on position ain't it.

[Rahul Parkar]

↑

Now that was well said.

Cheers!
Rahul

[Harold Rutila]

Exactly. I'm honestly a bit shocked that people thought those banners were the coolest things since voice ATIS. We need commitment from each and every member who wants to become a controller. We highly encourage staff participation if that member is capable of providing it. The 1,000 hour banner isn't resume-type material. Neither is a C3.

[Kevin Kelm]

Okay,

Let me clarify. Ratings came from SATCO. Some of you don't know what that is, but it may only be a handful. Now, C3 rating was meant to acknowledge that a Center Rated controller worked 200 hours on a "_CTR" position. The hours did not count for sitting on east bumble delivery. They had to be logged on a "_CTR" position.

Now, here is the question for Kevin and anyone else. How many cookies and golden star stickers and badges must be passed out to people on this network to make them feel appreciated? Should I just arbitrarily honor you for some set number of hours you've logged working a regular position?

Or should I respect and reward you for putting in time and effort to help make this community better, such as assisting an EC, designing an ARTCC Logo, doing website work, performing staff duties as an ARTCC or VATUSA staff member, help author countless numbers of SOPs, LOAs, or learning how to develop sector files and keeping them up-to-date for others to use?

Anybody who wants to be rewarded because of hours should only want to be rewarded for the time and effort they put in GIVING BACK. Jockeying a computer for hours on end with watching youtube videos, twittering about how you just posted a comment or link on someone's facebook wall all the while plugging a position working little to no traffic at odd hours of the day or night is not with recognition on the level of being GIVEN any sort of rating. Period.

Senior controller recognition should come not only because of time plugged in, but rather the showing of dedication, pride, and at times disgust, many of us here have put into or received from this community.

The big difference is the willingness to give back, versus asking someone else to always give to you.

I earned my C3 with pride, and I know what it stands for to me. Hours on position ain't it.

Andrew,

You bring up a fantastic point, and to be quite honest, its one that I don't have an answer for. That's a very valid question, but let me sit on that before I give you one if I could.