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."