The intent is consistent with what LindaLou mentioned at one point, and is the same as the Post of the Month threads. Members should rate messages as to their quality, not as to whether they agree or disagree, or whether they like or dislike the author.
That will be difficult to control.
I've been on boards where ratings were used to grade participants from the lurkers, who did not have to justify their ratings -- it could be that they honestly rated people OR it could be that they used the ratings as part of their campaign to prove their side.
Certainly it is difficult to objectively rate a post that you are debating against, and this will be the average result.
You might want fewer buttons with some guide as to their meaning
I think it is valuable to be able to mark exceptional posts, and you could have a
Post of the Month Nomination
That would automatically put the nomination in the POTM thread.
You could also have the message display
This message has been rated POTM material by
RAZD
Onifre
Straggler
etc
This would allow readers of the thread to notice the POTM nominations and also see who it was that was making the rating (and see how biased it is based on their opinion of the rater/s): one should be willing to stand for their vote eh?
Overall ratings for members is more problematical, as it is not a true survey of opinion (and it is opinion) of all the readers.
My experience on other boards has been that it is used as a weapon for lurkers to bump messages they agree with while avoiding confrontation with reasons why their position is poor or bad - an indication of confirmation bias for messages you agree with and of cognitive dissonance for messages you disagree with. In other words it becomes argument by popularity.
I even asked to be rated poorly (it was a OEC Christian run and YEC dominated forum) because the bias was so thick that messages clearly false (CTD's math) were rated high.
So I would not have an overall member rating system.
If you want to keep a record of POTM through the radio button response on a members profile, with links to the posts, then that might be a value when running yearly stats.
I would also have the rating show which admin rated it so, and keep the stats only in admin land.
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.
Re: Tram getting "1" message ratings -- make that the default rating
Except people mark a post 1 because they don't like what it says, regardless of how well written or on topic it is, and mark posts a 5 because they like what it says, regardless of how off topic it is and how much it fails to address the issue/s.
Looking at the message gives you no clue to why they are marked that way other than pettyness.
I still think it should be seen who rates a post what (perhaps each poster gets two ratings: what others rate them and what they rate others).
Yes it is a bogus system, and abused very much like a creationist site I was at -- and I had the same reaction than Tram has had: give me ones, because the lower my rating the more controversial I am.
If the default rating was 1 then anyone marking a post could only rate it higher.
At first I was a little bewildered when I saw cheers\jeers in place of like\dislike ...
... and then I realized that these terms more accurately described the way the buttons were used: to cheer for the home team and to jeer at the opposition.
As it sits, this would seem to be an indicator of (a) how many people you coddle to and (b) how many people you annoy (so if my "rating" gets above 7, then I haven't annoyed enough people).
But of course, I still think that a single button or check box for "good post" (isn't this what you want to know?) would be sufficient. If you don't like a post or disagree with it then say so, and say why.
Good post
This goes along with the old urban advise "if you don't have anything good to say, then don't say anything at all" ...
If you wanted to expand on this, you could have a feature where hitting the button would then open up a small form with check boxes to show why it is a good post:
Post of the Month candidate Well written Clarity of message Concise To the point other
Likewise you could have a button down with the and buttons that would open a window with some options:
Flag for response from: Flag for admin review
off topic abusive language spam other
This would create a flag similar to the replies and could be annotated below the replies in the same way:
Replies to this message:
Message 93 by Trae, posted 06-14-2011 8:07 AM
Admin has not yet responded
Flags to this message:
RAZD to Taz, posted 06-14-2011 8:10 AM
Taz has responded
Grumpy to admin, posted 06-14-2011 8:12 AM
Admin has acknowledged this flag
Where the flag would be treated like a response and show up on the members page as a yes with an arrow.
And those that want to be partisan team players, that consistently cheer their "team" and consistently jeer any opposition, will continue to do so. That's why I've said that if my rating gets too high, then I am not annoying enough people .
I've been on partisan websites where similar ratings are used, but anonymous, and my experience was that a majority of the ratings were from lurkers, cheering and jeering.
There's one exception to the above that I am experimenting with. And that's for posts in PNT. For a PNT post, I give a "+" for "please promote - this is an interesting topic" and a "-" for "I see this as a topic not worthy of promotion."
And member rating is gone (not that I thought it showed much value)
Maybe there could be a (gold?) icon for 5+ cheers and then this could be linked to POTM (so it is more of a consensus vote) in the future system -- automatically posts thread and message?
Face it -- any rating system will be used as a popularity contest
Face it -- any rating system will be used as a popularity contest, because that is human nature. You rate this positive that are popular with you and negative that are not.
rating show which admin rated it so, and keep the stats only in admin land.
.
) and posting it as a percentage number.
™ Version 4.2
(1)