Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New Feature: Message Rating System
Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 136 of 258 (714696)
12-26-2013 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Tangle
12-26-2013 7:50 AM


Tangle writes:
What was the reasoning behind someone's personal rating varying as a result of someone else's?
Short of just reporting the raw sum of plus and minus votes, how else would you do it?
I've changed the calculation scheme a couple times already, and I'm still not happy with it. It will receive more attention at some point.
What would happen if someone with a score of, say, 7, didn't post for 90 days? Would their score revert to 10 or stick at 7 - or change because of other's scores have changed?
Those with less than 10 votes over the past 90 days receive no rating.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Tangle, posted 12-26-2013 7:50 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Tangle, posted 12-26-2013 3:14 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied
 Message 139 by jar, posted 12-26-2013 3:18 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied
 Message 140 by RAZD, posted 12-26-2013 5:49 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied
 Message 146 by herebedragons, posted 01-07-2014 12:46 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 137 of 258 (714699)
12-26-2013 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Percy
12-26-2013 9:31 AM


Re: Thumbs Down...This Is Personal
Well, that's one view, and I can see why you feel that way, but some bring us messages that aren't always in the words.
What does that mean? All a web forum can have is words. Whatever you get out of those messages are always in the words. Tone and meaning are all based upon the words typed.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Percy, posted 12-26-2013 9:31 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 138 of 258 (714703)
12-26-2013 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Admin
12-26-2013 9:42 AM


Admin writes:
how else would you do it?
It seems that whatever system you dream up, there are problems.
Why not just keep it simple? Count jeers and cheers and display the ratio.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Admin, posted 12-26-2013 9:42 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(4)
Message 139 of 258 (714705)
12-26-2013 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Admin
12-26-2013 9:42 AM


forget the poster.
Don't rate the poster, rate the post only. Tie the rating to that single post only.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Admin, posted 12-26-2013 9:42 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 140 of 258 (714709)
12-26-2013 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Admin
12-26-2013 9:42 AM


Short of just reporting the raw sum of plus and minus votes, how else would you do it?
Which doesn't take into account the amount of posts a person makes and the null votes ...
perhaps some kind of decay weighting based on posting history - the older it is in the post count the less value it has in the rating?
The default should be 5, not 10
Enjoy
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 136 by Admin, posted 12-26-2013 9:42 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(4)
Message 141 of 258 (715228)
01-02-2014 2:03 PM


Unsatisfying reading
Reading threads with nothing but cheer buttons is personally very unsatisfying.
It would make just as much sense to only have a jeer button.
I have been thinking about this through the holidays and it seems to me that there are more ways to participate than answering every post I disagree with, especially when numerous others have already answered (more eloquently and succinctly ) making the same point I would have made.
Phat in message 112 writes:
Its like our teachers and parents used to say to us...if you don't have anything good to say about anyone keep quiet.
This is a debate forum and I think we should be able to vote for a post that makes a good point or a post that does not.
I think we should also be able to show our feelings about a post like this Message 926 in the "Why the Flood Never Happened" thread.
Or this one: Message 932
Faith writes:
Tempe 12ft Chicken writes:
understand that you claim to not care about the meanders, but shouldn't your explanation be able to cope with all of the available evidence, including said meanders?
WHAT KIND OF GARBAGE IS THAT?/ OF COURSE NOT YOU IDIOT. WHO EXPECTS SOMEONE TO KNOW EVERYTHING WHO IS JUST TRYING TO ESTABLISH ONE POINT? YOU PEOPLE ARE LIARS AND CHEATS AND IIDIOTS.
If this is the case, let me see if I have your scenario correct. The Flood came across the whole of the land and when the waters receded, the canyon was carved
THE FLOOD BUILT UP THE STRATA IN THE SOUTHWEST TO SOMETHING LIKE THREE MILES DEEP. AT OR NEAR THE END OF THE FLOOD THE TECTONIC FORCES BEGAN, ASSOCATED WITH THE VOLCANIC ACTIVITY, ALL CAUSING THE EARTHQUAKES AND THE FAULTING, AND CAUSING THE UPLIFT AND THE CRACKING OF THE UPPERMOST STRATA WHICH ALLOWED THE WATER TO RUSH IN, BRINGING CHUNKS OF THE STRATA ABOVE THE KAIBAB WITH IT, WHICH IS WHAT CARVED OUT THE CANYON AND SCOURED OFF THE KAIBAB AT THE SAME TIME.
(albeit minus meanders, which would later be carved by the river). This left some water contained within the canyon, which began the process of carving meanders into the canyon.
WHAT? AT SOME LEVEL THE WATER WAS MORE OF A RIVER THAN A DELUGE. RIVERS CUT MEANDERS. WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM??????????????????????
Now, if I have your position correct, my question would still remain (from many messages ago), "Where are the original portions of the canyon that had to first contain the river prior to any meanders being carved by the Colorado?" If the river had changed course to carve meanders, which could not be carved by the quick removal of flood waters, then it must have originally been in a different location within the canyon.
THIS IS SO STUPID I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO BEGIN. THE RIVER IS WHAT WAS LEFT OVER FROM THE FLOOD WATERS WHEN THE FLOOD HAD PRETTY MUCH DRAINED THROUGH THE CANYON.
Then, the river changed course and began to carve out the meanders, but these mysterious sections of canyon that are required to exist with your model are not seen anywhere, especially where they should be seen, which is near each meander in the river.
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? THIS IS PURE IDIOTIC BLATHER.
CHANGING COURSE? SEPARATE RIVER FROM FLOOD? WHAT KIND OF NONSENSE ARE YOU TALKING?
If your situation is correct and the flood carved out the canyon with the river carving the meanders, then near every meander should be a more ancient section of canyon with no river flowing through it anymore and simply a dry riverbed. This could show that the river did change course after the canyon was carved.
As I see that multiple maps have been posted, could you kindly direct me to where in these maps you see these ancient dry riverbed canyons that do not follow the meanders, but rather the path that receding flood waters would have carved?
GET OFF THIS THREAD. YOU ARE AN IDIOT.
Edited by Tanypteryx, : added another shining example.

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 142 by AZPaul3, posted 01-02-2014 3:27 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied
 Message 143 by Stile, posted 01-02-2014 3:34 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied
 Message 148 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-07-2014 10:29 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 142 of 258 (715243)
01-02-2014 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Tanypteryx
01-02-2014 2:03 PM


Re: Unsatisfying reading
You gave that one a "+" right?
For me anything that elicits a:
- Oh yeah! Get'em, get'm, get'em!
- Well how clever. Good show.
- Wow, Insightful new twist on things.
or
- Ahh, ha, ha, ha, Hilarious!
Gets a "+".
A good post is a good post and the mundane are mundane and require nothing further.
The real jerky, disagreeable, poorly thought out, misdirecting, chaffing, ugly as my third girlfriend kind of posts are not worth my effort to actually move the mouse then click on the red circle. It's a waste of electrons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-02-2014 2:03 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 143 of 258 (715245)
01-02-2014 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Tanypteryx
01-02-2014 2:03 PM


Re: Unsatisfying reading
Tanypteryx writes:
Reading threads with nothing but cheer buttons is personally very unsatisfying.
It would make just as much sense to only have a jeer button.
...
This is a debate forum and I think we should be able to vote for a post that makes a good point or a post that does not.
I agree that this would be much more fair.
But the human beast isn't always fair.
A lot of people can't separate a judging system from their own personal viewpoints and how they feel as individuals.
A lot of people take those jeers/cheers extremely seriously and very personally... even if it's labelled not to be so.
That's just the way a lot of people are.
And, many creationists fall into that category rather than being able to look at things objectively.
(Let's face it... if they could use critical thinking to look at things objectively, they wouldn't be creationists...)
Which then drives this innocent cheers/jeers discussion into the age-old problem at EvC on how to keep creationists around. And whether or not it's worthwhile to do so.
There are ups and downs and people on both sides of that fence, but this is Percy's forum and he gets to decide what to do with it. From what I can tell, he's decided to cater as much as possible to the creationists in order to make things easier for them to stick around and debate topics here.
Therefore... no jeers
Personally, I agree with Percy's decision... but that discussion has another place.
I thought that place was here: Creationist Shortage
...but that's not the discussion I was thinking of. I couldn't find it either, maybe it doesn't exist and I'm just making this all up.
I thought there was a thread on "how to keep creationists at the forum" or something like that and talked about whether or not this site should even try for such a thing (is "bad debate" better than "no debate?").
But, I couldn't find it. So maybe I'm jumbling some things in my mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-02-2014 2:03 PM Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(3)
Message 144 of 258 (715260)
01-02-2014 5:23 PM


I'm personally disappointed in myself that I occasionally/sometimes/always care when people cheer me.
I don't give a monkey's when people jeer - but I think that's because a jeer only comes from the (usually) insane creationist which is, in effect, a cheer in disguise - like being wounded in action attempting something incredibly brave.
Strange and disturbing what this sin of Adam has imbued me with. God is a weird and sadistic git, but you can't fault his imagination.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 145 of 258 (715281)
01-02-2014 9:31 PM


I like the system of only cheers.

Love your enemies!

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


Message 146 of 258 (715565)
01-07-2014 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Admin
12-26-2013 9:42 AM


Cheers System
I too like the cheers only system. Too often jeers appear to be used as retribution or as a personal attack against an opponent(s). The cheers only system would seem to provide a more positive feedback.
Perhaps a member rating system that simply divides number of cheers received in a 90 day period by the number of posts in that same period. This would result in a rating similar to slugging percentage in baseball. For example, if you make 100 posts and receive 50 cheers, you would have a member rating of .500 which would mean you receive an average of 1/2 a cheer for every post. Or maybe multiply the rating by 100 so the displayed rating would be 50.
HBD

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Admin, posted 12-26-2013 9:42 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2014 10:10 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 147 of 258 (715637)
01-07-2014 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by herebedragons
01-07-2014 12:46 PM


Re: Cheers System
Perhaps a member rating system that simply divides number of cheers received in a 90 day period by the number of posts in that same period. ...
How about cheers per hundred posts over the last 100 posts (easier for me than for some ) and posting it as a percentage number.

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 146 by herebedragons, posted 01-07-2014 12:46 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 148 of 258 (715638)
01-07-2014 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Tanypteryx
01-02-2014 2:03 PM


Ideally, a (+) for a very good message, a (-) for a very bad message
You are specifically the reason I discontinued the (-) option. I would have preferred to keep displaying the member rating number, but unfortunately it included the past (-) input even though the (-) was not a current option.
See the subtitle. This is NOT at all how I saw you using the (+)/(-) system. Instead, you seemed to just give most to all of the evolution side messages a (+) and most to all of the creationist side messages a (-). Which, to me, was nothing much more than you being a jerk (OSLT).
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.
Adminnemooseus

Or something like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-02-2014 2:03 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2014 10:35 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 150 by Theodoric, posted 01-07-2014 10:42 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 151 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-07-2014 11:44 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 152 by Dogmafood, posted 01-08-2014 8:22 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 153 by nwr, posted 01-08-2014 8:28 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 157 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-08-2014 3:05 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 158 by AZPaul3, posted 01-09-2014 7:20 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 167 by Shield, posted 01-14-2014 6:56 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied
 Message 178 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-05-2014 11:24 PM Adminnemooseus has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 149 of 258 (715640)
01-07-2014 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Adminnemooseus
01-07-2014 10:29 PM


Re: Ideally, a (+) for a very good message, a (-) for a very bad message
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.
What about the person who starts a thread and wants to mark a reply off-topic?
Would it be possible for admin to disable a reply button and have a pop-up that says "off topic"?

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 148 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-07-2014 10:29 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 150 of 258 (715642)
01-07-2014 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Adminnemooseus
01-07-2014 10:29 PM


Re: Ideally, a (+) for a very good message, a (-) for a very bad message
But then again you are biased. Also, Percy has stated he did not have a particular problem with how he Tanypteryx was using the system. So I guess this is all just your issue and you throwing another hissy fit.
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.
Of course you would because the Admins always know what is best.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-07-2014 10:29 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024