Why Ratings Are Not Objective.

In the original ratings thread I suggested three ratings:--Post of the Day
--Post of the Month
--Post of the YearThis way there are no negatives, and any ratings should be reserved for exceptional posts.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Like that douche petrophysics ... I agree.- Oni

why is a rating system even necessary?I guess it could make some people feel all warm and fuzzy or then again it could also simply be an ego thingIt will never be objective anyway...not when diametrically oppossing sides are rating each other.

On this board, in this context, a rating system as currently employed is not necessary. I don't even bother with it, personally, however, Percy is using this as a test bed for his forum software. As such, he needs to make sure it has features people want, and needs to test those features.There are many forums out there that have a rating system, and for some, it is even helpful. For example, a forum on gardening might have a rating system so that if you ask a question about fertilizer and you get three different suggestions, the person who's been more highly rated has probably been more helpful and useful as a resource.Remember, we are but rats in Percy's giant lab, if you're nice and make it to the end of the maze, you may even get a piece of 10-day old cheese, so buck up.

In my case it was obviously one who does not like me. I'm not pointing any fingers, however. I hope others will refrain from doing so as well. That's not the purpose of this thread.I had a 4.3 up until one message. Suddenly my rating dropped to 2.9. I checked and noted that obviously some meanspirited member loaded my messages on that thread indiscriminately with ones. I don't think it was the member who posted the message to which I was responding who crashed my rating. Since then it appears that someone (perhaps the same person) is following me around. When you get a one for saying you will be away from your computer a spell, that's obviously a malischous application of the rating system.As I said, it's no biggie to me. The only reason I'm going into details here is for the premise of the thread.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Hi Buz,The rating system only uses the average rating given by any particular member. In other words, if you want to do the dirty on someone's member rating, the worst you can do is rate them 1, once. Any subsequent 1s would just average out to 1 and not affect the overall member rating (only the message rating). The same would be true of repeatedly rating the same member at a 5.Just for the record, I also think that the rating system is a bit hard on creationist members. You guys have enough to deal with in being completely wrong all the time er, outnumbered. I'm sure that Percy will get around to introducing something a little better. Remember, this forum isn't just our playpen, it's where Percy does his software development too.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi, Buzsaw.I just gave you a 5 on your last post, just to make you feel better.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

I posted a couple times on an LDS forum awhile back (lds.net). They had a very simple rating system: there was a button, by the "reply" button you could use to give someone a "thank you for this useful post" or a "laugh out loud."Laughs were meant to be used for humorous posts, but they often got used to laugh at people who made points that were thought of as absurd. So, I wouldn't suggest that. Maybe there could be a "smiley face" option: then people wouldn't have to waste a post to smile. Of course, CS's post rate would go way down if that were the case. I think the "thank you for this useful post" worked fairly well: every message had a little section beneath it that listed all the people who said "thank you."The only semblance of a reputation, rating or score was a running tally of the laughs and thanks a person got.Since the crowd here is a bit more intellectually oriented and (generally) objective, I think a more sophisticated system is appropriate and workable here. But, something simple like the lds.net system could be a way to break in the concept.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

And I gave you a 1 on your next post just to see what'd happen. You went from 4.5 to 4.4.AbE {does the maths}*grovels, scrapes*Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Hi Iano. The rating system is still fully operative for a purpose. Imo, so long as that's the case, it should be used for the purpose which it serves.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

On prophecytalk members may give blessings for messages which turn them on. There's no negative options. That works fairly well. However at that site, though there's different doctrinal issues, most are professing Christians, so there's not the degree of ideological disparity which we have here.

Hi Granny. I understand how it works, but if a meanspirited poster suddenly and indiscriminately dishes out a bunch of ones, a good rating can be halved or so as suddenly as the ones were tagged. I don't think the fives is affected as much since they would not be given for meanspirited reasons. Perhaps that's why systems void of negatives might work more efficiently.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Buz, you've misunderstood; Not if only one person is doing it. The member ratings are based on the average of each member's ratings of your posts. It doesn't matter how many times a single member rates you a 1.Say if I decide to get all Old Testament on you and wax some wrath. I rate all your messages a 1 out of spite. It won't be any different from if I'd rated a single message at 1. The software takes an average of my votes on your posts and uses that (along with everybody else's). I could rate you a 1 for all 6790 of your posts and the net effect on your member rating would be the same as if I'd only done it once.If lots of members have rated your messages, a single 1 vote won't have much effect. If only a few members have rated your messages, a single 1 vote could cause a big swing.Capish?Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

My best guess is that you are wrong, but I may be wrong. I have been assuming that a members rating is the sum of all the individual message ratings divided by the number of messages rated. In all, I think Buzz's appraisal is pretty accurate.I'm in favor of a 1,2,3, good, better, best type message rating system, with no (member supplied) negative ratings. The admins could/would do a separate a negative ratings system, applied to messages that are moderation issue problems.I think Percy is working on a system that will try to take disproportionate power away from an individual member. Also, in the longer term, there will be no member rating at all, only message ratings.I would also like to see an Amazon.com type system where, instead of a messages rating being an average, the number of 1, 2, and 3 point message votes would be displayed. Perhaps there could also be available info on what member voted what point level.Adminnemooseus

Hi Moose, like the new Zippy!I'm going off this; Message 37Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : Added link.