New Feature: Message Rating System

Except people mark a post 1 because they don't like what it says, regardless of how well written or on topic it is, and mark posts a 5 because they like what it says, regardless of how off topic it is and how much it fails to address the issue/s.

Looking at the message gives you no clue to why they are marked that way other than pettyness.

I still think it should be seen who rates a post what (perhaps each poster gets two ratings: what others rate them and what they rate others).

Yes it is a bogus system, and abused very much like a creationist site I was at -- and I had the same reaction than Tram has had: give me ones, because the lower my rating the more controversial I am.

If the default rating was 1 then anyone marking a post could only rate it higher.

Enjoy

---

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) • • •

RAZD writes: Except people mark a post 1 because they don't like what it says, regardless of how well written or on topic it is, and mark posts a 5 because they like what it says, regardless of how off topic it is and how much it fails to address the issue/s.

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

I doubt that there's any ideal weighting system that will make the ratings "fair". In a democratic process, people are going to use their own standards for making a choice. It comes down to accepting how they vote or not letting them vote at all.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

Well, the idea is to only allow "positive" ratings, for example, Percy wants to use the rating system to automate the "post of the month" process.

This would mean that no negative ratings can be given, you can only nominate a post or not, I guess.

Huntard writes: This would mean that no negative ratings can be given, you can only nominate a post or not, I guess.

Regarding "Post of the Month," I'm considering having halls of both fame and shame.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

If you are gathering opinions, I would say that being able to rate posts both + and - is a good thing. Isnt feed back always good?

Being able to see how many people rated a message would serve to adjust the weight of the rating.

Regarding "Post of the Month," I'm considering having halls of both fame and shame.

I think this is a bad idea. What purpose does a hall of shame serve? The only reason is to let people gather round guffaw. The post of the month threads draw attention to what is best on the board - it adds to a positive culture of thoughtful comment - it's inverse would do the opposite, adding to a negative culture of mockery and derision. Frankly, it'd be like having a trophy cabinet beneath your toilet.

Admin writes: Regarding "Post of the Month," I'm considering having halls of both fame and shame.

Well, that would defeat the purpose of making it "abuse proof", wouldn;t it? I mean, Poor Buz will have a lot of those "Hall of shame" nominations, as would Bolder, ICD, and Archy. Just going from the current state of things.

So, I think that adding a "Hall of shame" will just get the members with the lowest scores at this point be in there alot. Which I don;t think will promote positive debate, and will only increase the accusations of bias.

I really think the Hall of Shame is a bad idea unless it was limited and qualified, for example, only people who have posts in the Hall of Fame could be in the Hall of Shame.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Thanks for the feedback. I pretty much agree with it all.

But I think I'll still have a Hall of Shame, because thinking forward about marketing I think there are contexts where it could work pretty well. When I release the new POTM code I'll have the Wall of Shame enabled initially (features like this can be enabled and disabled through the control panel), then I'll turn it off as soon as I'm sure it's working properly.

By the way, the names "Hall of Fame" and "Hall of Shame" are just the names that happened to pop into my head. They actual names will be settable through the control panel. Using other names can change how they're perceived quite a bit. For example, what if the "Hall of Shame" were instead called "Whoops!" or some other capricious or whimsical name?

Making such names settable is already done for other board functions. For example, instead of "Director, Administrator, Moderator, Member" I could change it to "Admiral, Captain, Lieutenant, Sailor."

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Whimsical names eh?

How about "Percy's testing thing to put bad posts in that isn't going to be around for long but is needed, or else Percy can't sell his software - Hall"?

So when do you think the whole name fame shame thing will be in place?

Admin writes: For example, instead of "Director, Administrator, Moderator, Member" I could change it to "Admiral, Captain, Lieutenant, Sailor."

Surely "God, deity, angel, mortal" would be more appropriate....

Straggler writes: So when do you think the whole name fame shame thing will be in place?

I should call my company One Guy Coding. No possibilities for help ever panned out. There's no schedule for the improved rating scheme.

Surely "God, deity, angel, mortal" would be more appropriate....

How about "Nobel laureate, scientist, lab assistant, layman"?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

How about "Nobel laureate, scientist, lab assistant, layman"?

I think with those you might disenfranchise half of the target community lol.

---

Your god believes in Unicorns

Go medieval.

God, King, Lords, Knights: then everyone is looking good. Screw the lurking serfs.

Alternatively, start with the king and let the serfs in: hard call.

Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

---

Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!
-Gogol Bordello