New Feature: Message Rating System

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.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.

That seems to be a rather sweeping generalization.I give a message a 5 if it is unusually well written and well argued. Admittedly, I am not as likely to think a message well argued if it has a seriously wrong conclusion. But it isn't the conclusion that I am rating on.I don't actually rate very many messages.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

People will still vote as they want to vote. I don't think it is worth all of the programming trouble to make the changes you suggest.Personally, I give a "+" mainly for exceptioinally well written posts or posts with exceptionally important content. And I give a "-" mostly for posts that are incoherent or that contain abusive language.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."

I rarely jeer a message based on content alone.I do occasionally jeer messages for being nasty and mean-spirited. And I do sometimes jeer messages for being incoherent.I sometimes jeer PNT posts, as a hint that I don't think this PNT warrants approval.It seems to me that if jeers are used intelligently, then they can be useful.

I don't have a problem with the way you have participated. No apology needed IMO. (I disagree with the part of Admin's comment that you quoted).

Is this the place to express my disagreement with Adminnemooseus? I thought the cheers and jeers were working very well. Now we are going to miss those red markers from Faith and others.

Thanks to whoever changed it back.And a Merry Christmas to everybody, including those who give me jeers.

I disagree, and I consider that an unfair analysis.You are taking the ID viewpoint: the feature was designed by an intelligent agent, and its purpose comes from the intentions of the designer.I prefer the evolution viewpoint: the feature evolved through a process of trial and error, and it gets its purpose from the way that it is being used.It has turned out that the way it is used varies. But that's hardly surprising.Some people have been using the "cheer" for "I agree" and the jeer for "I disagree". Wouldn't the "jerk" designation be more appropriate for somebody who posted a reply "I agree" or a reply "I disagree" to just about every message?People have adapted to using the cheer/jeer system as a form of communication. People vary in how they use it, as with any system of communication.My suggestion: put back the jeer button, and embrace the way that people are actually using the system.