New Feature: Message Rating System

I'm sorry you feel that way.

That's a lame justification for removing a tool that helps people to express themselves. It is not sound reasoning to judge the use of a thing by it's abuse. I would agree that some people did abuse the option but I don't think that Tanypteryx was one of them and it wouldn't really matter if he did.Having a cheer without a jeer option is some kind of church lady social engineering manoeuvre and has no place on a forum where ideas should flow without restriction. The cheer/jeer option is akin to a vote and what kind of voting system only allows positive votes? The kind that they have in North Korea that's what kind. Next thing you know it will be banishment for lack lustre clapping.I think that a simple counter that counted the members cheers/jeers would be a good thing and more informative than the old member rating system. A straight count when combined with the members total number of posts should provide all the information anyone would need to assess the members standing in the community. It didn't make sense to me that I should have the same rating as other members who obviously possess vastly superior knowledge and had accumulated a far higher number of supporting votes.

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.

Also, Tanypteryx has clearly stated how he was using the cheers and jeers. Moose has decided to ignore that explanation and use his own bias and to decide how he thinks Tanypteryx was using it.A while back there was admonishments for "piling on". Moose wants to take away the ability to express disagreement with a post completely.There are a lot of posts that are just stupid and a waste of time. This forum has and should give all members the ability to express that they feel a post is a waste of pixels as much as they should be able to praise a post.A post that is nothing more than word salad or preaching should be jeered.

stubborn folks (I wont name names) could use a little preaching. (go ahead...jeer me! )

Can't. It is not allowed.oh yeah. Way to stay on topic.

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

Moose, Moose, you know I love you, but sometimes you act like when Our Great Goddess Athena reached down to give you intellect she put your brain back in sideways. You have become obsessed with this whole +- crap with Tanypteryx in your crosshairs.You're being petty and vindictive, two things that do not look at all good on mooses.I don't know what set you off this time but ...1. Tanypteryx is a good member of this community, has done nothing wrong and deserves better treatment.2. This whole +- crap stuff is petty to begin with.I know Percy wants to test different developments in a live environment and I can appreciate that, but, Moose, Moosie, you and I and a number of others here graduated High School already and should be leaving this popularity contest shit behind.This forum should have the collective intellect that is beyond this childish nonsense.A. Stop stepping on Tanypteryx's fingers. He's a good guy.3. Ignore this juvenile +- member rating silliness and leave such prattle to the children.You're better than this. This community is better than this.

Face it -- any rating system will be used as a popularity contest, because that is human nature. You rate this positive that are popular with you and negative that are not.Why not use smilies picked from a (short)list



Enjoy

Yes, tis. It is still childish none the less in an intellectual forum. Again, I understand Percy's motivation to test these things but for us this should not be any issue at all.[aside]
Yes, I admit I experience a nose-in-the-air snooty intellectually superior feeling in this forum. Not because I am, but because this forum is quite a bit above most everything else out there in forumland.
[/aside]A simple show of ones feelings toward a specific post is a good thing for the respondent, the poster and the lurker. But building some "member rating" based on such responses is juvenile because the data input has nothing to do with good/bad productive/occasional member but only agree/disagree post and, too often, like/detest poster. Look at our Lovely Lady Faith. Her member rating was in the toilet yet she is a good, productive, fun (maddening) member of this community. She helps make this a fun place to play. She is a good member of this community and deserves better.The best way to express ones response is to actually respond in writing. Especially in those cases where you disagree strongly and would give a "-", if it were available which I hope it never is again, you should as a common courtesy to the rest of the hoard tell us why.A quick "+" is quite adequate to express agreement/appreciation for a specific post. While many see the "-" in the same light my personal view is two fold:- There is enough negative around us every day. We really don't need more coming from our playground.- In intellectual discourse disagreement is best served with complete understanding in writing not with some hit-and-run unexplained "-". The "+" doesn't carry the same need for explanation.The "+" is all that is necessary, in my considerably superior intellectually borderline opinion.BTW. If smilies were to be used we would need one flipping the bird and another with its pants down saying "Bite Me!"For what it's worth.

A good point.Maybe we could keep + and - as it was before per message but member rating should reflect popularity and forum-usage.That is, all my messages get lots and lots and lots and lots and some more +'s... therefore, my member rating would be a 10.
And, under the system I propose... Faith's messages may get a bunch of -'s... but her member rating should also be a 10.Each message would show +'s and -'s from all the voters as they deem the message.
But the member rating wouldn't be so much a tally of those +'s and -'s as it would become what it's generally regarded as: a popularity meter.I would be popular because everyone loves all my posts -> Member rating = 10.
Faith might be popular because everyone dislikes all her posts -> Member rating = 10.Administrators would still have to actually read messages and make judgement calls to see if they should suspend members or not.
And member ratings would reflect "impact on the forum" rather than "liked by the majority".
Might even add a little incentive for posters who get a bunch of -'s to stick around...

Why do we need some "popularity" rating? What does it accomplish? Ego?Do away with this member rating stuff via popularity, participation, + or -, secret ballot , dart board or any other way and all these problems with members like Faith and the inevitable and never ending questions "what's it mean?" and "what is fair?" all go away. These things are never quite fair or representative of anything anyway so why all the fuss and bother over such a meaningless number. As long as mine is in the upper ranges near the top then who cares?

I dunno. I didn't invent the thing.I think the explanation is something like this:Percy wrote all the software for this forum.
At the time, Percy thought he would one day release this software for commercial purposes.
As part of the "commercial application" side of things... other forums seem to always include some sort of "popularity rating." Percy's forum not having one at all would be detrimental in the way of making sales.
Percy decided to add one as an option (administrator's choice, as displayed by The Moose) and our usage of such here is simply for testing purposes. Meh. I think it's kinda cool, and adds something.
I also think too many people are too worried about it.
I would rather correct the system to something "more palatable for everyone" instead of getting rid of it altogether.But, really, it doesn't seem all that important one way or the other to me... I mean... nobody's dying over it... Certainly not me. I mean, as long as I'm ahead of you and your mama. Burrrrrrrrrrrrrn!!!!.

Curiously I always took having a high rating as meaning that I hadn't annoyed enough people ...

So did I. Whenever my rating got to high, I used to post to one of Faith's threads. Now that the jeer button is gone, what's the point of doing that anymore?