New Feature: Message Rating System

limiting the votes in some way (think Tanypteryx)

I apologize for screwing it up for everyone else. I guess it became a lazy way to participate.

Damselflies or Zygoptera are a suborder of Odonata. They are usually more slender than dragonflies and hold their wings closed when perching. Their heads are dumbbell shaped with the eyes making up the knobs at the ends of the dumbbell.

FYI dragonflies are in suborder Anisoptera.

A vote (cheer or jeer) could be about content, style, quality, position, entertainment value, etc., and there's no way to know.

Maybe there should be a row of jeer and cheer buttons. One set each for content, quality, position, etc. and maybe you could only vote for one attribute per post. It probably would defeat the purpose of multiple choice if there was an "all of the above" button.

Almost always I voted on content and sometimes I wished I could vote more than once for really good ones. Some votes were for position or quality.

I have to say thank you for the work you have put in to this site. It functions better than any other forum that I have used and has some great features to pinpoint who and what you are responding to. No other forum does that well. I like this community and feel like I know some of the members well from reading their posts over the years. Most of all this has been a great way to learn about science that is outside my own field.

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.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

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.

This is NOT at all how I saw you using the (+)/(-) system.

Ok, so I used the +/- system differently than you wanted.

you seemed to just give most to all of the evolution side messages a (+)

Usually I agreed with their posts, so I expressed my agreement. Often I would see creationists giving anyone who had ever disagreed with them a (-). When that happened I would give that message a (+) to counter their (-) and because I figured it irked Faith when she did that.

and most to all of the creationist side messages a (-).

I give the creationists lots of minuses because, in my opinion, their posts so seldom contain factual information and because I disagree with what they are saying.

I interpreted and used a feature of the forum differently than you. And my judgement of very good messages and very bad messages has a different scale than yours.

I get that you do not like my participation at EvC or any of my messages, that is your right.

Which, to me, was nothing much more than you being a jerk (OSLT).

That's the 2nd time you have called me a jerk in the last month or so. I guess you think I deserve it, but that is something I have not done to any one here.

I can understand the experiment and challenge of setting up a rating system as a program component.

Quite a few people have pointed out that the idea of voting and rating is mostly pointless and immature.

I used the old system a lot, but got Moose's panties in a bunch because I didn't use it the way HE wanted.

Adminnemooseus writes: 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.

Why bother with the members having the (+) option? The simplest solution would be for Moose to control both the (+) and (-) options and to assign the member ratings he wants.

Right now despite not having the (-) option, members are still voting for or against messages. I note that the pro-evolution side is getting pretty much all the (+) votes and no vote at all now is equivalent to a (-) vote. Even creationists don't seem to be voting for other creationist's messages.

So I would suggest: (total posts in the last 960 hours + total cheers over the last 960 hours = value), written just as a simple integer equation: p + c = v For example, as an illustration, a fictional member of this board could have Last 40 day Value: 243p + 88c = 331 appearing below this fictional member's other info.

I think we should also have a way to factor in the number of cheers and Jeers this fictional member has made.

We could call this the "Jerk Factor".

I think I should be able to rate my own posts, too.

I would give this one a couple pluses.

I don't care what somebody's rating is in an n-day period. I'm only interested in n = forever.

I agree! As long as I keep my 10.

In that case you should be really happy now.

Swooning........I earned every zero!

There probably should be a rating for how many messages you have rated (cheered).

Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.