Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New Feature: Message Rating System
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 46 of 258 (529369)
10-09-2009 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Admin
10-06-2009 10:14 AM


Re: Rating System Will Be Revamped
I'm assuming a 1,2,3 - good, better, best message rating system is in the works. I think the raw "votes" for each message should be listed, such as they do at amazon.com.
Averages are pretty nebulous. Message listed as a "2"? What does that mean? One "2" vote? Ten "1" votes and ten "3" votes? Who knows.
Also, I am thinking that there should be some limits on the number of votes a member gets per some period of time (month?). Perhaps unlimited "1" votes, twenty "2" votes, and only five "3" votes per month. That keeps the "3" vote as being something precious, not to be frivolously plastered all over the place. Then getting a "3" vote on one of your messages would be a high compliment.
Member's wouldn't get ratings...
I think that's a good idea. I can't come up with a good system, especially one that isn't quite complicated. Straight averages could mean anything, and I actually see an overall higher quality poster getting a lower average. For example, I think it would be better to be credited with twenty "1" votes, ten "2" votes, and one "3" vote, rather than just one "3" vote.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Admin, posted 10-06-2009 10:14 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Straggler, posted 10-13-2009 8:41 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 47 of 258 (530511)
10-13-2009 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Minnemooseus
10-09-2009 6:46 AM


Re: Rating System Will Be Revamped
Any news on this? The current "bogus" system seems to still be in place. I wondered if any decision as to an alternative had been made and if so a timescale for introduction?
Just curious................

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-09-2009 6:46 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Admin, posted 10-14-2009 9:02 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 48 of 258 (530614)
10-14-2009 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Straggler
10-13-2009 8:41 PM


Re: Rating System Will Be Revamped
I've only made design progress, no recoding yet. There will be a link to click to nominate a post for consideration as a Post of the Month (or whatever period is selected through the control panel), and then there must be a second. This places a copy of the post in a thread where it may be voted for with other nominated posts, and where comments and discussion may take place.
I'm am doing some preliminary recoding by revamping the way that internal board settings are referenced and updated by the board software. This will probably get released tonight, but there will be no functional changes.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Straggler, posted 10-13-2009 8:41 PM Straggler has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 49 of 258 (574260)
08-15-2010 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Admin
09-28-2009 8:15 PM


apparently I have a secret admirer.. I hope it's Ringo or molbiogirl : )
..actually I am finding the rating distracting, and I think it is extremely counterproductive where the YEC side is concerned..
IMHO

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Admin, posted 09-28-2009 8:15 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 08-16-2010 8:00 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 50 of 258 (574595)
08-16-2010 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by shalamabobbi
08-15-2010 1:15 AM


positive rating only avoids problems
Hi
and I think it is extremely counterproductive where the YEC side is concerned..
I think it is counterproductive period. It is more of a popularity contest than an evaluation of how well an argument is made.
I'll hold out for the upgrade promised, but don't hold much hope that it will significantly alter the misuse.
I think it would be more interesting if it listed WHO rated it WHAT and if they had to post a short explanation of WHY that would appear with hovertext.
I also think it should only apply to ratings above average (ie any mark is a positive mark), or else there needs to be a way for the default to be 3's for every time it is read and no marking is made, which currently is not the case.
As in

Rating    By
    5    Percy (because I wish I had said it, it is concise and adresses the
          issue with clear language)
Enjoy.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Tweak a bit to eliminate overwide page.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by shalamabobbi, posted 08-15-2010 1:15 AM shalamabobbi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Coyote, posted 08-16-2010 8:17 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 54 by Otto Tellick, posted 08-18-2010 6:55 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 55 by nwr, posted 08-18-2010 8:48 AM RAZD has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 51 of 258 (574598)
08-16-2010 8:10 PM


I think it is a great idea BUT that the rating should only be seen by the post author. I think it could be a great tool to tell an author how well he or she is doing.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 52 of 258 (574601)
08-16-2010 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by RAZD
08-16-2010 8:00 PM


Re: positive rating only avoids problems
I suggested long ago:
Post of the Day
Post of the Month
Post of the Year
No negatives, and easy to understand and use. Scoring could be by some symbol followed by a number representing any of the above awards bestowed.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 08-16-2010 8:00 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 53 of 258 (574611)
08-16-2010 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Kitsune
10-09-2009 3:51 AM


Re: Rating System Will Be Revamped
Kitsune writes:
I'm finding that if I'm talking in a thread about theism, the atheists don't rate my posts very highly. But I've picked up lots of 5s in a couple of science threads.
Poor baby! On that account, be happy you're not in the theist camp. LOL, if you're a theist and ratings matter.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Kitsune, posted 10-09-2009 3:51 AM Kitsune has not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 54 of 258 (574856)
08-18-2010 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by RAZD
08-16-2010 8:00 PM


Re: positive rating only avoids problems
RAZD writes:
I think it is counterproductive period. It is more of a popularity contest than an evaluation of how well an argument is made.
I don't share your cynicism, and I certainly haven't been using the current system that way. For me, a post that is nothing but bare assertions, unsupported denials and flawed logic gets a low score, while one that provides sound argument backed (where appropriate) by evidence with links to relevant sources gets a high score (I almost never use anything other than "5" or "1"). I think that's meaningful.
I think it would be more interesting if it listed WHO rated it WHAT and if they had to post a short explanation of WHY that would appear with hovertext.
Apart from being too bulky, too complicated, and way too much information, the worst problem with this idea is that voting should be anonymous. There should be a lot more people who are willing to cast a vote than are willing to commit to going on record with a specific response. (And lots of people will vote a particular way for the same reasons, so why have that repeated by every voter?)
I'm a regular in a programmers forum where posts are voted on by members (perlmonks.org). The system there is rather intricate, but strangely effective. I'm really not proposing anything like this for EvC -- it's too complicated, and is probably way beyond the scope of what is possible to implement -- but I mention it because some of the ideas are interesting:
  • all members get a limited number of votes they may cast on nodes within a 24-hour period
  • the number of votes you can cast is low for newcomers, and increases as your "experience/reputation" increases
  • a vote is either "up" (good node) or "down" (bad node), but of course, many readers of many nodes cast no vote at all -- it's optional
  • every vote on a given node counts toward the "reputation" of that node
  • votes by others on a node you post will affect your "experience/reputation" standing, but not all node votes count toward your personal ranking (some random and non-random factors affect the counting)
  • just the act of casting votes on other peoples' nodes can increase your "experience/reputation" standing (but again, not every vote you cast will be counted toward your own standing)
  • in a normal thread display, you don't see the "reputation" of a node until after you vote on it, but there are ways to find nodes on the basis of "best score" or "worst score", as well as being able to view a list of nodes sorted by their relative rankings.
  • in a normal thread display, you don't see the ranking or score of a given member, but this can be found on the member's "home node", and it's possible to get a ranked list of the "best" members.
It certainly isn't "perfect" (no voting system is), and most members acknowledge that the scores are "meaningless" -- nonetheless, people use the system, and it tends to reflect actual quality when viewed in the aggregate.
In terms of how this translates into ranking members: some people get high rank simply because they cast a lot of votes over a long attendance with no posts of their own; people who generally write very helpful, informative, sensible and inspiring posts get a strong positive standing (and get to cast more votes, but never an unlimited number); people who routinely behave like trolls tend to get a firm negative standing (which limits their ability to cast votes) -- of course, you generally don't need a scoring system to know who the trolls are...
Every now and then you get the "dedicated troll", who views the negative-score standing as a goal to be maximized. It can get ugly, but safeguards (clear criteria for hiding or deleting nodes, such as those already in place at EvC) take care of the worst cases.
There is a likely downside of community ratings here at EvC, owing to what appears to be a population imbalance between those who accept evolution and those who reject it, the former being a decisive majority. This seems to reflect the trend in internet communities generally, based on what I've seen elsewhere (but admittedly, my viewing patterns are not a "balanced sample", and I don't have a sense of supportive hit counts at anti-evolution web sites).
Anyway, I would expect that anti-evolutionists here would have a hard time building up high reputations by whatever metric is chosen, unless/until they really work harder on making cogent arguments. Does this automatically make any ranking system wrong or unfair?
Perhaps people are prone to confuse recognized quality with "mere popularity", but it shouldn't be surprising to find that the two can actually be correlated to an appreciable extent.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : No reason given.
Edited by Otto Tellick, : added a point to the list to clarify a detail

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 08-16-2010 8:00 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 55 of 258 (574876)
08-18-2010 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by RAZD
08-16-2010 8:00 PM


Re: positive rating only avoids problems
RAZD writes:
positive rating only avoids problems
I participate in two forums that have a "positive rating only" system. In both, it is a binary rating. All you can do is give a vote of approval.
In forum A, the vote is public for all to see.
In forum B, the vote is private and seen only by the author of the approved post.
In both cases, the identity of the voter is made available to whoever sees the vote.
Both of these actually work, though in different ways.
It quickly becomes clear in forum A, that the public vote is being used as a public statement, typically an approval of the content (but not necessarily the writing style) of the post.
At forum B it is a bit harder to assess, but it mostly seems to be used as a private way of thanking people for particularly good posts, and often this has as much to do with style as with content.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 08-16-2010 8:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 08-18-2010 6:54 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 56 of 258 (575048)
08-18-2010 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by nwr
08-18-2010 8:48 AM


Re: positive rating only avoids problems
Either seem like a good system. Perhaps a combination: everyone sees the votes, the poster sees who voted.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by nwr, posted 08-18-2010 8:48 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4704 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 57 of 258 (577651)
08-29-2010 10:21 PM


Is there a way I can turn it off or set my number all the way to one?
A lot of people are being dicks to me and zapping me so I'm just going to beat them to the punch and just set it to one.

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Huntard, posted 08-30-2010 5:01 AM Tram law has replied
 Message 60 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-30-2010 3:01 PM Tram law has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 58 of 258 (577702)
08-30-2010 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Tram law
08-29-2010 10:21 PM


Tram law writes:
Is there a way I can turn it off or set my number all the way to one?
A lot of people are being dicks to me and zapping me so I'm just going to beat them to the punch and just set it to one.
No there is no way to turn it off or set it to one yourself. I did help you by giving you a one for this post, however. Glad to be of service.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Tram law, posted 08-29-2010 10:21 PM Tram law has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Tram law, posted 08-30-2010 12:28 PM Huntard has not replied

  
Tram law
Member (Idle past 4704 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 59 of 258 (577792)
08-30-2010 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Huntard
08-30-2010 5:01 AM


Why thank you. Have a virtual beer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Huntard, posted 08-30-2010 5:01 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


(1)
Message 60 of 258 (577822)
08-30-2010 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Tram law
08-29-2010 10:21 PM


Tram getting "1" message ratings
The rating system is badly flawed and the creation side does gets hammered pretty hard.
I think you need to look at what messages are getting rated "1" (not that there's currently a system to track such down). My impression (and I did "1" at least one of your messages) is that you have stood out a bit, for posting trite little comments that serve only to clutter topics.
Usually I only "1" messages via the Adminnemooseus ID, and from the admin appraisal perspective. I think it is the member job to flag good messages with 4's or 5's, and the admin job to flag bad messages with 1's.
Adminnemooseus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Tram law, posted 08-29-2010 10:21 PM Tram law has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2010 8:42 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024