|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Quick Questions, Short Answers - No Debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9
|
nwr writes: Nobody is taking the ratings seriously, as best I can tell. But the cheers/jeers are sometimes entertaining. I agree that the cheers/jeers can be entertaining, and I confess I feel gratified when a substantial number of people award cheers to one of my posts. Conversely, I'm a bit annoyed when I observe some members jeering posts merely because they fundamentally disagree with the jeered members' beliefs, rather than because the post is badly reasoned, poorly argued, off-topic or offensive. Given the existence of a rating system, I'd like it to reflect the real world more closely: the weight we give to someone's applause when they applaud everything is slight; the credence we lend to the sourpuss who boos every note is close to nil. So I'd like the impact of a member's jeer or cheer to reflect their overall behavior. If the King of Jeers (you know who you are ) jeers my post, the impact of that jeer should reflect the fact that the King jeers hundreds of posts per month. Likewise, a cheer from the partisan who cheers my post because he cheers everything from his camp, however trivial or offensive, shouldn't give me much of a bump compared to the more judicious member who awards cheers as though nominating a POTM. In the real world, the social value of our judgments reflects how and how often we dispense them. A better rating system would do that, too. Perhaps the algorithm that calculates a rating based on a defined period of time could also calculate the value of a cheer or jeer based on how many the rater has already clicked during the same period. It would also be entertaining to view each member's cheer/jeer count, perhaps in the public section of the profile."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member
|
GM writes: After all, they're under enough pressure just being wrong about everything. I know that if I was on a board where every creationist had a rating from 7 - 10 whilst every evolutionist languished on a 1 - 3 rating.... The bottom line, Granny, is that ratings reflect that the majority on creationist boards figure evolutionists are just being wrong about everything and vise versa for the majority on evolutionist boards. A message may be well constructed grammatically and well articulated, yet so illogical and senseless that a negative rating is deserved, regardless of ideology. Of course, that gets back to what is regarded as illogical and senseless. I welcome a low rating, having the minority ideological views on about everything here at EvC. I would be concerned if opinions would be highly rated by the majority of folks having much different views than those I ascribe to. For that reason, ratings are rarely objective. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future. Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13040 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I like these ideas. I'll keep them in mind when I think about changes the next time I remodel the rating system.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Thank you, sir.
"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chuck77 Inactive Member
|
There should be no rating system and only + for a post if you like it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi percy,
I agree with Chuck that there should only be a mark for good posts - particularly if you want to key it to post of the month selections (would you need more than 1?) If you are going to go +/-, then there should be some way to normalize the results for the numbers of people of the + and - persuasions. I would think that the default and average would be 5 and then skew the below 5 to go from 1 to 5 and the above 5 to go from 5 to 10. Someone with no cheers or jeers should be a 5. It would also be interesting to be able to click on a members rating and see a link to the most cheered and most jeered posts. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined:
|
Your post was excellent this time, I will say that, sir!
Mainly because of the original ideas, very sophisticated! (though might be hard to employ.) The rating-system as it is, sadly, just seems to shame the Christian with strong biblical views. You might say, "oh - poor persecuted mike", but that's not my point, we should be able to award posts that don't consist of ad hominem attacks, and they shouldn't be allowed to be jeered. There are people on EvC that never insult me, no matter how much I disagree with them. On a board like this, this sytem only shows majority-opinion, most of the clicks, could be defined thus; Negative = I hate mikey, and everything he stands for, and I disagree with him all the time.Neutral = when mikey doesn't say anything with the term, "evolution" or "atheist" in it. Positive= when mikey becomes an evolutionist. Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 886 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
Just a quick suggestion regarding the rating system. I have noticed that some people just go down the posts in a thread and, (or at least it appears) they cheer those posts they agree with and jeer those they disagree with regardless of quality of content. It ends up that creationists have a low score and evolutionists have a high score. I am sure that is not what you intend for the rating system.
What I suggest is only being able to rate a post that you actively participate in. In other words, unless you respond to a post or a post is a response to you, you can not rate it. This may help the ratings to better reflect the quality of a member's posts. Perhaps a "like" button in addition to the rating button would allow non-participants to acknowledge a good reply without actually participating, but it would not affect the member rating. Just a thought HBD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5
|
What I suggest is only being able to rate a post that you actively participate in. In other words, unless you respond to a post or a post is a response to you, you can not rate it.
I don't agree with that. I rarely rate. But if I see a post that is total bullshit and way off topic, I should not have to reply to it in order to be able to jeer.Jesus was a liberal hippie
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
herebedragons writes: Just a quick suggestion regarding the rating system. I have noticed that some people just go down the posts in a thread and, (or at least it appears) they cheer those posts they agree with and jeer those they disagree with regardless of quality of content. It ends up that creationists have a low score and evolutionists have a high score. I am sure that is not what you intend for the rating system.What I suggest is only being able to rate a post that you actively participate in. In other words, unless you respond to a post or a post is a response to you, you can not rate it. This may help the ratings to better reflect the quality of a member's posts. Perhaps a "like" button in addition to the rating button would allow non-participants to acknowledge a good reply without actually participating, but it would not affect the member rating. Just a thought The problem with that is that you limit the raters to the same-oles, some of who are trollish. It should be open to all members. Perhaps it would be good if there was some way for guests to rate. There would have to be a way to eliminate members not logged in. Edited by Buzsaw, : Restructure sentenceBUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future. Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi herebedragons,
I have noticed that some people just go down the posts in a thread and, (or at least it appears) they cheer those posts they agree with and jeer those they disagree with regardless of quality of content. I see any way for a rating system to avoid being a popularity vote.
Perhaps a "like" button in addition ... It used to be like\dislike, and still ended up being a popularity vote.
I am sure that is not what you intend for the rating system. As I understand it, the rating system is an attempt to identify good quality posts for the Post of the Month thread. Initially (iirc) it was a numbered scale. This too became a popularity vote. Personally I think only "cheer" "like" or "+" should be allowed if the intent is to identify good posts. Perhaps it should be labeled "well written" ... Another kick that may be cool but difficult to implement would be a highlight and "like" the highlighted quote, then when the "well written" button is hovered it would either pop out the section or highlight it.
It ends up that creationists have a low score and evolutionists have a high score. Only because there are more evolutionists that use the rating system than creationists. I've been on other boards and the ratings and distribution of people were reversed. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I suggested long ago three ratings:
Post of the dayPost of the week Post of the month That way there are no negative ratings, just good, better and best. The suggestion was ignored of course...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 886 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
As I understand it, the rating system is an attempt to identify good quality posts for the Post of the Month thread. And members who consistently make good, thoughtful and considerate posts. At least, as I see the purpose.
I (don't) see any way for a rating system to avoid being a popularity vote Your probably right. I kinda like Coyote's suggestion in [MSG=252]. That way you wouldn't have indiscriminate jeering. Good, Better, Best. It could still be used as a popularity contest though.
I've been on other boards and the ratings and distribution of people were reversed. I am sure that's true. I was just kinda thinking that it would be nice to look at a members rating and have an idea of whether it would be worthwhile to enter into a debate with them or not; rather than whether they are creationist or evolutionist. But I guess it doesn't really take too long to figure that out by just responding to a few posts. HBD Edited by herebedragons, : corrected link Edited by herebedragons, : corrected link again!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 886 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined: |
Actually, I like that idea.
Maybe not "Post of the ..." that would imply only voting for one post? Maybe just good, better, best?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Coyote writes: I suggested long ago three ratings:Post of the day Post of the week Post of the month That way there are no negative ratings, just good, better and best. The suggestion was ignored of course... Likely the reason it was ignored is that it wouldn't fix the problem. Take a survey of monthly POMs. How many favor minority members? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future. Someone wisely said something ;ike, "Before fooling with a fool, make sure the fool is a fool."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024