|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why Ratings Are Not Objective. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
In the original ratings thread I suggested three ratings:
--Post of the Day--Post of the Month --Post of the Year This way there are no negatives, and any ratings should be reserved for exceptional posts. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2977 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Imo, the rating system would be fine if it weren't for a few vindictive members. Like that douche petrophysics ... I agree. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4956 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
why is a rating system even necessary?
I guess it could make some people feel all warm and fuzzy or then again it could also simply be an ego thing It will never be objective anyway...not when diametrically oppossing sides are rating each other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3264 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
why is a rating system even necessary? On this board, in this context, a rating system as currently employed is not necessary. I don't even bother with it, personally, however, Percy is using this as a test bed for his forum software. As such, he needs to make sure it has features people want, and needs to test those features. There are many forums out there that have a rating system, and for some, it is even helpful. For example, a forum on gardening might have a rating system so that if you ask a question about fertilizer and you get three different suggestions, the person who's been more highly rated has probably been more helpful and useful as a resource. Remember, we are but rats in Percy's giant lab, if you're nice and make it to the end of the maze, you may even get a piece of 10-day old cheese, so buck up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Rahvin writes: You are receiving low ratings that may be undeserved from one perspective, but are well deserved from another. Is it simply because you are a Creationist? Are you making poor arguments? Is your writing style not well-liked? Did a given post have anything about bigotry? Were you blatantly factually incorrect? Did the voter simply not like you? There's no way to tell. In my case it was obviously one who does not like me. I'm not pointing any fingers, however. I hope others will refrain from doing so as well. That's not the purpose of this thread. I had a 4.3 up until one message. Suddenly my rating dropped to 2.9. I checked and noted that obviously some meanspirited member loaded my messages on that thread indiscriminately with ones. I don't think it was the member who posted the message to which I was responding who crashed my rating. Since then it appears that someone (perhaps the same person) is following me around. When you get a one for saying you will be away from your computer a spell, that's obviously a malischous application of the rating system. As I said, it's no biggie to me. The only reason I'm going into details here is for the premise of the thread. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi Buz,
The rating system only uses the average rating given by any particular member. In other words, if you want to do the dirty on someone's member rating, the worst you can do is rate them 1, once. Any subsequent 1s would just average out to 1 and not affect the overall member rating (only the message rating). The same would be true of repeatedly rating the same member at a 5. Just for the record, I also think that the rating system is a bit hard on creationist members. You guys have enough to deal with in being I'm sure that Percy will get around to introducing something a little better. Remember, this forum isn't just our playpen, it's where Percy does his software development too. Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2724 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Buzsaw.
I just gave you a 5 on your last post, just to make you feel better. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2724 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
I posted a couple times on an LDS forum awhile back (lds.net). They had a very simple rating system: there was a button, by the "reply" button you could use to give someone a "thank you for this useful post" or a "laugh out loud."
Laughs were meant to be used for humorous posts, but they often got used to laugh at people who made points that were thought of as absurd. So, I wouldn't suggest that. Maybe there could be a "smiley face" option: then people wouldn't have to waste a post to smile. Of course, CS's post rate would go way down if that were the case. I think the "thank you for this useful post" worked fairly well: every message had a little section beneath it that listed all the people who said "thank you." The only semblance of a reputation, rating or score was a running tally of the laughs and thanks a person got. Since the crowd here is a bit more intellectually oriented and (generally) objective, I think a more sophisticated system is appropriate and workable here. But, something simple like the lds.net system could be a way to break in the concept. -Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1967 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
Bluejay writes: I just gave you a 5 on your last post, just to make you feel better. And I gave you a 1 on your next post just to see what'd happen. You went from 4.5 to 4.4. AbE {does the maths} *grovels, scrapes* Edited by iano, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
Iano writes: And I gave you a 1 on your next post just to see what'd happen. You went from 4.5 to 4.4. Hi Iano. The rating system is still fully operative for a purpose. Imo, so long as that's the case, it should be used for the purpose which it serves. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
On prophecytalk members may give blessings for messages which turn them on. There's no negative options. That works fairly well. However at that site, though there's different doctrinal issues, most are professing Christians, so there's not the degree of ideological disparity which we have here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Granny Magda writes: The rating system only uses the average rating given by any particular member. In other words, if you want to do the dirty on someone's member rating, the worst you can do is rate them 1, once. Any subsequent 1s would just average out to 1 and not affect the overall member rating (only the message rating). The same would be true of repeatedly rating the same member at a 5. Hi Granny. I understand how it works, but if a meanspirited poster suddenly and indiscriminately dishes out a bunch of ones, a good rating can be halved or so as suddenly as the ones were tagged. I don't think the fives is affected as much since they would not be given for meanspirited reasons. Perhaps that's why systems void of negatives might work more efficiently. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Buz, you've misunderstood;
I understand how it works, but if a meanspirited poster suddenly and indiscriminately dishes out a bunch of ones, a good rating can be halved or so as suddenly as the ones were tagged. Not if only one person is doing it. The member ratings are based on the average of each member's ratings of your posts. It doesn't matter how many times a single member rates you a 1. Say if I decide to get all Old Testament on you and wax some wrath. I rate all your messages a 1 out of spite. It won't be any different from if I'd rated a single message at 1. The software takes an average of my votes on your posts and uses that (along with everybody else's). I could rate you a 1 for all 6790 of your posts and the net effect on your member rating would be the same as if I'd only done it once. If lots of members have rated your messages, a single 1 vote won't have much effect. If only a few members have rated your messages, a single 1 vote could cause a big swing. Capish? Mutate and Survive "A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
The software takes an average of my votes on your posts and uses that (along with everybody else's). I could rate you a 1 for all 6790 of your posts and the net effect on your member rating would be the same as if I'd only done it once. My best guess is that you are wrong, but I may be wrong. I have been assuming that a members rating is the sum of all the individual message ratings divided by the number of messages rated. In all, I think Buzz's appraisal is pretty accurate. I'm in favor of a 1,2,3, good, better, best type message rating system, with no (member supplied) negative ratings. The admins could/would do a separate a negative ratings system, applied to messages that are moderation issue problems. I think Percy is working on a system that will try to take disproportionate power away from an individual member. Also, in the longer term, there will be no member rating at all, only message ratings. I would also like to see an Amazon.com type system where, instead of a messages rating being an average, the number of 1, 2, and 3 point message votes would be displayed. Perhaps there could also be available info on what member voted what point level. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi Moose, like the new Zippy!
I'm going off this;
Taz writes: I just made it my mission to give a 1 to every moderator post I come across, no matter what content. Admin writes: Just to save you some time, if you're going to give every moderator post the score of 1 then you only need to vote for one message from each moderator. It's the average of all your ratings for a moderator's messages that matters. That average rating is combined with the average rating for that moderator from all the other members, then an average is computed. You could rate every single message from a moderator a 1 and it would be the same as just rating one of his messages a 1. Message 37 Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : Added link.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024