The most recent change I had made, was to limit the effective window to 30 days rather than the original 90 days. Now, all the (-) are no longer in the window. I was under the vague impression that the member rating system would work somehow, even with only (+) votes. Such does not seem to be the case.

One of the problems with using either +/- or just + ratings is that it isn't compared to the whole number of posts with neither rating.

If you want just + ratings then the member rating could be

(number of + rated posts / total posts) in last 30 days

either as a percentage (%) or per mille (‰.)

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 179 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-06-2014 4:31 PM		Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
	Message 185 by xongsmith, posted 02-07-2014 12:51 PM		RAZD has acknowledged this reply

ringo

Member

Posts: 16806

From: frozen wasteland

Joined: 03-23-2005

Member Rating: 3.4

ringo Posts Only

Message 182 of 258 (718532)
02-07-2014 11:06 AM

Something Faith said gave me the idea that we should have an irony rating for each post. The scale should go from one to, say, a million.

New Cat's Eye

Inactive Member

New Cat's Eye Posts Only

(1)

Message 183 of 258 (718533)
02-07-2014 11:07 AM

Reply to: Message 179 by Adminnemooseus
02-06-2014 4:31 PM

Re: Ideally, a (+) for a very good message, a (-) for a very bad message

I was under the vague impression that the member rating system would work somehow, even with only (+) votes. Such does not seem to be the case.

Then just change it back to what it was before. It at least worked somehow.

Oh, and I made an off-topic post here: Message 93

But I was asking about a specific board function so I don't think it should be a big deal.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 179 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-06-2014 4:31 PM		Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

Tanypteryx

Member

Posts: 2250

From: Oregon, USA

Joined: 08-27-2006

Member Rating: 5.3

Tanypteryx Posts Only

(2)

Message 184 of 258 (718538)
02-07-2014 11:46 AM

What is the point?

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.

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

xongsmith

Member

Posts: 1887

From: massachusetts US

Joined: 01-01-2009

Member Rating: 6.6

xongsmith Posts Only

(1)

Message 185 of 258 (718544)
02-07-2014 12:51 PM

Reply to: Message 181 by RAZD
02-07-2014 10:22 AM

Re: Ideally, a (+) for a very good message, a (-) for a very bad message

RAZD suggests:

(number of + rated posts / total posts) in last 30 days

I think 30 days is too small a sample.

In honor of the YEC members, and Dr. Cosby, how about 40 days and 40 nights (960 hours) and wait for the sewers to back up?

30 introduces that pesky infinite 1/3 into the decimal representation for those who would divide the waters.

But also why not just show total posts + total cheers. People that post a lot should get some relative recognition over those that tend to lurk, such as myself. The use of Total posts would also encourage breaking up huge, long posts into smaller pieces. (hmm, now who could i be talking about?) And by total cheers, I mean a single post that gets 4 cheers should get 4 points.

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.

The OCD folks here (like me) could calculate 331/960 = .3448 approx. Other OCD types might just divide by 40 and get their 8.275 per day number.

We could keep records. Who reached the highest v ever? But then we'd have to declare a post that merely says "Hi." a non-post. The post would have to say something germane. But, agh, that introduces judging. Agh, agh, agh, agh.

Then there is a question about getting a half point or something for merely cheering...i say NO. However, I do admit that my arm could be easily twisted on that question.

EDIT: I came up with the units v is measured in:

Floods

So now the line might appear:

Last 40 day Value: 243p + 88c = 331 floods

Edited by xongsmith, : Came up with the name of the units to measure v.

Edited by xongsmith, : more format

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
	Message 181 by RAZD, posted 02-07-2014 10:22 AM		RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
	Message 186 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-07-2014 1:18 PM	xongsmith has responded
	Message 192 by xongsmith, posted 02-07-2014 1:55 PM	xongsmith has acknowledged this reply

Tanypteryx

Member

Posts: 2250

From: Oregon, USA

Joined: 08-27-2006

Member Rating: 5.3

Tanypteryx Posts Only

Message 186 of 258 (718546)
02-07-2014 1:18 PM

Reply to: Message 185 by xongsmith
02-07-2014 12:51 PM

Re: Ideally, a (+) for a very good message, a (-) for a very bad message

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".

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

This message is a reply to:
	Message 185 by xongsmith, posted 02-07-2014 12:51 PM		xongsmith has responded

Replies to this message:
	Message 188 by xongsmith, posted 02-07-2014 1:28 PM		Tanypteryx has not yet responded

Coyote

Member (Idle past 299 days)

Posts: 6117

Joined: 01-12-2008

Coyote Posts Only

(1)

Message 187 of 258 (718547)
02-07-2014 1:24 PM

A better measure...

A better measure would be cheers x 100 divided by total posts.

That way useless posts would be penalized while substantive posts would be encouraged.

That way, two cheers out of 100 posts would give a rating of 2, while 2 cheers out of 50 posts would give a rating of 4.

Replies to this message:
	Message 190 by xongsmith, posted 02-07-2014 1:31 PM		Coyote has responded

xongsmith

Member

Posts: 1887

From: massachusetts US

Joined: 01-01-2009

Member Rating: 6.6

xongsmith Posts Only

Message 188 of 258 (718548)
02-07-2014 1:28 PM

Reply to: Message 186 by Tanypteryx
02-07-2014 1:18 PM

Re:Jerk Factor

Our Most Honorable Winged One replies:

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".

Yeah!...!...i was looking into that (see the bottom of my post) and my jerkfactor brain hipshot said "No." But I can be influenced.

Maybe Jeers-Cheers..? dunno, gratuitous Cheering is bad. Kneejerk jeering is bad.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
	Message 186 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-07-2014 1:18 PM		Tanypteryx has not yet responded

Tanypteryx

Member

Posts: 2250

From: Oregon, USA

Joined: 08-27-2006

Member Rating: 5.3

Tanypteryx Posts Only

Message 189 of 258 (718549)
02-07-2014 1:28 PM

Self Rating

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

I would give this one a couple pluses.

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 191 by xongsmith, posted 02-07-2014 1:34 PM		Tanypteryx has not yet responded

xongsmith

Member

Posts: 1887

From: massachusetts US

Joined: 01-01-2009

Member Rating: 6.6

xongsmith Posts Only

Message 190 of 258 (718550)
02-07-2014 1:31 PM

Reply to: Message 187 by Coyote
02-07-2014 1:24 PM

Re: A better measure...

Well and good, Coyote, but this will really discourage YECs and even OECs.

I don't think we want that.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
	Message 187 by Coyote, posted 02-07-2014 1:24 PM		Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
	Message 193 by Coyote, posted 02-07-2014 1:55 PM		xongsmith has responded

xongsmith

Member

Posts: 1887

From: massachusetts US

Joined: 01-01-2009

Member Rating: 6.6

xongsmith Posts Only

Message 191 of 258 (718551)
02-07-2014 1:34 PM

Reply to: Message 189 by Tanypteryx
02-07-2014 1:28 PM

Re: Self Rating

No way, dude. No way.....

or make them count opposite:

you rank your post a +, you get a -.
you rank your post a -, you get a +.

Percy wisely already eliminated any chance of self-rating.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
	Message 189 by Tanypteryx, posted 02-07-2014 1:28 PM		Tanypteryx has not yet responded

xongsmith

Member

Posts: 1887

From: massachusetts US

Joined: 01-01-2009

Member Rating: 6.6

xongsmith Posts Only

Message 192 of 258 (718552)
02-07-2014 1:55 PM

Reply to: Message 185 by xongsmith
02-07-2014 12:51 PM

Re: Ideally, a (+) for a very good message, a (-) for a very bad message

Another thing. Posts of The Month. Great stuff. Love the way that there are nevertheless no actual winners. Just nominees. Nominated count should be added into the Flood formula (possible seconds & thirds). Maybe the coefficient should be 8 for nominations, 4 for 2nds & 1 for others. The cheer coefficient might be upped to 2....

So now the line might appear:

Last 40 day Value: 243p + 88c*2 + 2n*8 + 1s*4 + 1other = 440 floods

Is this in tune now?

- xongsmith, 5.7d