New Feature: Message Rating System

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, : ()

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.

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.

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.

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

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".

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.

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.

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

I would give this one a couple pluses.

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

I don't think we want that.

??

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.

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?

Well and good, Coyote, but this will really discourage YECs and even OECs. I don't think we want that. ??

No we don't want that.

But I don't think it would discourage them much--nothing, not even evidence seems to faze most of them.

But it might encourage better posts from them?

Coyote writes:

But it might encourage better posts from them?

That's why the coefficients in my Flood formula could change.

Cheers x 2, POTMs x 8....or something we can all agree on.

...or something we can all agree on.

Good luck with that.