|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 50 (9220 total) |
| |
foresthealth | |
Total: 920,774 Year: 1,096/6,935 Month: 377/719 Week: 19/146 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: New Feature: Message Rating System | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3978 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 391 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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................
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13143 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
shalamabobbi Member (Idle past 3174 days) Posts: 397 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1730 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
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. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 164 days) Posts: 34140 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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 2431 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I suggested long ago:
Post of the DayPost 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Otto Tellick Member (Idle past 2656 days) Posts: 288 From: PA, USA Joined: |
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:
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6490 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: |
RAZD writes:
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.positive rating only avoids problems 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1730 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Either seem like a good system. Perhaps a combination: everyone sees the votes, the poster sees who voted.
Enjoy. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tram law Member (Idle past 5030 days) Posts: 283 From: Weed, California, USA Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2620 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined:
|
Tram law writes:
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. 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. ![]()
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tram law Member (Idle past 5030 days) Posts: 283 From: Weed, California, USA Joined:
|
Why thank you. Have a virtual beer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3987 Joined:
|
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025