Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-22-2017 4:42 PM
403 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,867 Year: 16,473/21,208 Month: 2,362/3,593 Week: 475/882 Day: 96/97 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
18Next
Author Topic:   New Feature: Message Rating System
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18650
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 181 of 258 (718522)
02-07-2014 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Adminnemooseus
02-06-2014 4:31 PM


Re: Ideally, a (+) for a very good message, a (-) for a very bad message
The most recent change I had made, was to limit the effective window to 30 days rather than the original 90 days. Now, all the (-) are no longer in the window. I was under the vague impression that the member rating system would work somehow, even with only (+) votes. Such does not seem to be the case.

One of the problems with using either +/- or just + ratings is that it isn't compared to the whole number of posts with neither rating.

If you want just + ratings then the member rating could be

(number of + rated posts / total posts) in last 30 days

either as a percentage (%) or per mille (‰.)

Edited by RAZD, : ()


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 179 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-06-2014 4:31 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by xongsmith, posted 02-07-2014 12:51 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13181
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 182 of 258 (718532)
02-07-2014 11:06 AM


Something Faith said gave me the idea that we should have an irony rating for each post. The scale should go from one to, say, a million.
  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11440
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 183 of 258 (718533)
02-07-2014 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Adminnemooseus
02-06-2014 4:31 PM


Re: Ideally, a (+) for a very good message, a (-) for a very bad message
I was under the vague impression that the member rating system would work somehow, even with only (+) votes. Such does not seem to be the case.

Then just change it back to what it was before. It at least worked somehow.

Oh, and I made an off-topic post here: Message 93

But I was asking about a specific board function so I don't think it should be a big deal.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-06-2014 4:31 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1470
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.8


(2)
Message 184 of 258 (718538)
02-07-2014 11:46 AM


What is the point?
I can understand the experiment and challenge of setting up a rating system as a program component.

Quite a few people have pointed out that the idea of voting and rating is mostly pointless and immature.

I used the old system a lot, but got Moose's panties in a bunch because I didn't use it the way HE wanted.

Adminnemooseus writes:

I've been advocating from way back, that the (+) option be in the hands of the members and the (-) option be only in the hands of the admins.

Admin/Percy could set up all kinds of variations to choose from, but this would be contrary to the much merit Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS) principle.

Why bother with the members having the (+) option? The simplest solution would be for Moose to control both the (+) and (-) options and to assign the member ratings he wants.

Right now despite not having the (-) option, members are still voting for or against messages. I note that the pro-evolution side is getting pretty much all the (+) votes and no vote at all now is equivalent to a (-) vote. Even creationists don't seem to be voting for other creationist's messages.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


    
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1779
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(1)
Message 185 of 258 (718544)
02-07-2014 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by RAZD
02-07-2014 10:22 AM


Re: Ideally, a (+) for a very good message, a (-) for a very bad message
RAZD suggests:

(number of + rated posts / total posts) in last 30 days

I think 30 days is too small a sample.

In honor of the YEC members, and Dr. Cosby, how about 40 days and 40 nights (960 hours) and wait for the sewers to back up?

30 introduces that pesky infinite 1/3 into the decimal representation for those who would divide the waters.

But also why not just show total posts + total cheers. People that post a lot should get some relative recognition over those that tend to lurk, such as myself. The use of Total posts would also encourage breaking up huge, long posts into smaller pieces. (hmm, now who could i be talking about?) And by total cheers, I mean a single post that gets 4 cheers should get 4 points.

So I would suggest:

(total posts in the last 960 hours + total cheers over the last 960 hours = value), written just as a simple integer equation: p + c = v

For example, as an illustration, a fictional member of this board could have

Last 40 day Value: 243p + 88c = 331

appearing below this fictional member's other info.

The OCD folks here (like me) could calculate 331/960 = .3448 approx. Other OCD types might just divide by 40 and get their 8.275 per day number.

We could keep records. Who reached the highest v ever? But then we'd have to declare a post that merely says "Hi." a non-post. The post would have to say something germane. But, agh, that introduces judging. Agh, agh, agh, agh.

Then there is a question about getting a half point or something for merely cheering...i say NO. However, I do admit that my arm could be easily twisted on that question.

EDIT: I came up with the units v is measured in:

Floods

So now the line might appear:

Last 40 day Value: 243p + 88c = 331 floods

Edited by xongsmith, : Came up with the name of the units to measure v.

Edited by xongsmith, : more format


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by RAZD, posted 02-07-2014 10:22 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-07-2014 1:18 PM xongsmith has responded
 Message 192 by xongsmith, posted 02-07-2014 1:55 PM xongsmith has acknowledged this reply

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1470
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 186 of 258 (718546)
02-07-2014 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by xongsmith
02-07-2014 12:51 PM


Re: Ideally, a (+) for a very good message, a (-) for a very bad message
So I would suggest:

(total posts in the last 960 hours + total cheers over the last 960 hours = value), written just as a simple integer equation: p + c = v

For example, as an illustration, a fictional member of this board could have

Last 40 day Value: 243p + 88c = 331

appearing below this fictional member's other info.

I think we should also have a way to factor in the number of cheers and Jeers this fictional member has made.

We could call this the "Jerk Factor".


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by xongsmith, posted 02-07-2014 12:51 PM xongsmith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by xongsmith, posted 02-07-2014 1:28 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5859
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 187 of 258 (718547)
02-07-2014 1:24 PM


A better measure...
A better measure would be cheers x 100 divided by total posts.

That way useless posts would be penalized while substantive posts would be encouraged.

That way, two cheers out of 100 posts would give a rating of 2, while 2 cheers out of 50 posts would give a rating of 4.


Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by xongsmith, posted 02-07-2014 1:31 PM Coyote has responded

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1779
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 188 of 258 (718548)
02-07-2014 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Tanypteryx
02-07-2014 1:18 PM


Re:Jerk Factor
Our Most Honorable Winged One replies:

I think we should also have a way to factor in the number of cheers and Jeers this fictional member has made.

We could call this the "Jerk Factor".

Yeah!...!...i was looking into that (see the bottom of my post) and my jerkfactor brain hipshot said "No." But I can be influenced.

Maybe Jeers-Cheers..? dunno, gratuitous Cheering is bad. Kneejerk jeering is bad.


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-07-2014 1:18 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1470
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 189 of 258 (718549)
02-07-2014 1:28 PM


Self Rating
I think I should be able to rate my own posts, too.

I would give this one a couple pluses.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by xongsmith, posted 02-07-2014 1:34 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

    
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1779
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 190 of 258 (718550)
02-07-2014 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Coyote
02-07-2014 1:24 PM


Re: A better measure...
Well and good, Coyote, but this will really discourage YECs and even OECs.

I don't think we want that.

??


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Coyote, posted 02-07-2014 1:24 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Coyote, posted 02-07-2014 1:55 PM xongsmith has responded

    
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1779
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 191 of 258 (718551)
02-07-2014 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Tanypteryx
02-07-2014 1:28 PM


Re: Self Rating
No way, dude. No way.....

or make them count opposite:

you rank your post a +, you get a -.
you rank your post a -, you get a +.

Percy wisely already eliminated any chance of self-rating.


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-07-2014 1:28 PM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

    
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1779
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 192 of 258 (718552)
02-07-2014 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by xongsmith
02-07-2014 12:51 PM


Re: Ideally, a (+) for a very good message, a (-) for a very bad message
Another thing. Posts of The Month. Great stuff. Love the way that there are nevertheless no actual winners. Just nominees. Nominated count should be added into the Flood formula (possible seconds & thirds). Maybe the coefficient should be 8 for nominations, 4 for 2nds & 1 for others. The cheer coefficient might be upped to 2....

So now the line might appear:

Last 40 day Value: 243p + 88c*2 + 2n*8 + 1s*4 + 1other = 440 floods

Is this in tune now?


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by xongsmith, posted 02-07-2014 12:51 PM xongsmith has acknowledged this reply

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5859
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 193 of 258 (718553)
02-07-2014 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by xongsmith
02-07-2014 1:31 PM


Re: A better measure...
Well and good, Coyote, but this will really discourage YECs and even OECs.

I don't think we want that.

??

No we don't want that.

But I don't think it would discourage them much--nothing, not even evidence seems to faze most of them.

But it might encourage better posts from them?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by xongsmith, posted 02-07-2014 1:31 PM xongsmith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by xongsmith, posted 02-07-2014 1:59 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1779
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 194 of 258 (718554)
02-07-2014 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Coyote
02-07-2014 1:55 PM


Re: A better measure...
Coyote writes:

But it might encourage better posts from them?

That's why the coefficients in my Flood formula could change.

Cheers x 2, POTMs x 8....or something we can all agree on.


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Coyote, posted 02-07-2014 1:55 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Modulous, posted 02-07-2014 2:47 PM xongsmith has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7407
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


(2)
Message 195 of 258 (718557)
02-07-2014 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by xongsmith
02-07-2014 1:59 PM


Re: A better measure...
...or something we can all agree on.

Good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by xongsmith, posted 02-07-2014 1:59 PM xongsmith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by xongsmith, posted 02-07-2014 3:05 PM Modulous has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1112
13
1415
...
18Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017