Why Ratings Are Not Objective.

I understand that the numbers are a user-friendly, easy way to put in some sort of rating system. So my thoughts here may be too in-depth for what you want the rating system to be. If that's the case, just ignore me.But... it could be done without numbers entirely, and not have any of the negative affects of "being spammed" as well. But, it seems like it may be rather in-depth and perhaps not so user-friendly... and maybe also bog down the database. Here's the basics:For rating individual message:
Instead of a rating system (1-5 or 1-3 or whatever), it could just be an agree/disagree or for/against system. You could list the total numbers of all those who are for and against each post where the Message Rating number is now. But, if you click on this area, it opens a wee pop-up box (like the one used for suspensions and such) that lists all user names that voted for or against. I think listing the user names is important so that no one can vote anonymously. The internet itself is already anonymous enough, and this adds some semblance of accountability.For rating member profiles:
Staying with the above system, each member would have a list of "for" and "against" for all those who have rated their messages. Members would be under either "for" or "against" according to the last-rated message they did for that profile.Example (for ease of display, I'm assuming all messages are being rated before the next message is posted, but this need not be the case at all):
Percy posts 3 messages: Message 1
Message Rating: 3 For, 2 Against
If you click you get a little box saying:
For: Moose, Nosy, Stile
Against: Asgara, PD Percy's Profile After Message 1
Member Rating: 3 For, 2 Against
For: Moose (1F-0A), Nosy (1F-0A), Stile (1F-0A)
Against: Asgara (0F-1A), PD (0F-1A) Message 2
Message Rating: 1 For, 2 Against
If you click you get a little box saying:
For: Stile
Against: Asgara, PD Percy's Profile After Message 2
Member Rating: 3 For, 2 Against
For: Moose (1F-0A), Nosy (1F-0A), Stile (2F-0A)
Against: Asgara (0F-2A), PD (0F-2A) Message 3
Message Rating: 1 For, 0 Against
If you click you get a little box saying:
For: Asgara
Against: --- Percy's Profile After Message 3
Member Rating: 4 For, 1 Against
For: Asgara (1F-2A), Moose (1F-0A), Nosy (1F-0A), Stile (2F-0A)
Against: PD (0F-2A)This way you get a few things:
-if someone goes insane and gives negative marks for all posts on some particular member... it only acts as "1 Against" on that member, and that memeber's profile will show "0F-24A" from that insane user and it's obvious to all who the baby is.
-members ratings will constantly be updated as to how people are liking their latest messages
-you'll be able to identify if someone rates someone good most of the time, and then just happens to rate them bad once or twice
-if you want to get really nifty, you could also link the "Stile (2F-0A)" part on Percy's member profile back to the post for Stile's latest rating on Percy...Bad things:
-server and database heavy, not sure how many requests would need to be made, perhaps too intensive? Each message would also need to store For and Against member IDs. All profile information and counts could be retrieved through seaches of the message database, though (I think).Also, I'd suggest implementing an Admin Tool of something like "nullify user's ratings" if an admin perhaps identifies an insane member, and the admin decides it would be best for the board (for whatever reason) if their insane ratings were "forgotten."Edited by Stile, : Just added a few things for clarity. Not that it helped much... I feel like this idea isn't even too clear in my own head right now...Edited by Stile, : "anonomous" is funny looking... and rightfully so

Well, considering working for a company and not getting paid for it is illegal and the company can get into some very serious issues were it to be discovered, your unpaid overtime could have been the very reason you got rated less than you probably deserved.It happens all the time where I work. Someone has a project, but overtime isn't approved, so they stay late off the clock to finish it. They usually get talked to very sternly if they're found out, and we're told very often to either go home and just let the project take longer, work as long as you need to, but flex your schedule the rest of the week to stay under 40 hours, or talk to a supervisor and see if they can get overtime approved for you, but under no circumstances, work off the clock.

Hi Perdition,I'm salaried, so maybe I shouldn't have called it unpaid overtime. When projects reach crunch time long hours are common, but there are other reasons for working longer hours. Whether it pays off or not you don't find out until later at salary review and bonus time. The neat thing about hourly is that overtime definitely pays off.--Percy

As a salaried employee, I am exempt from overtime.Are You an Exempt Employee?

Hi Stile!I want a system with the flexibility to implement a number of approaches, including ones along the lines you describe. It should also be possible using correlations to divide members into camps and adjust the impact of their ratings according to how strongly they and who they're rating correlate with the different camps. Properly implemented, a low rating from some members could have the effect of increasing someone's rating.But this will take time to implement. For now I advise that no one pay much attention to the current ratings. Whether high or low, they're both imposters a la Kipling's If.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

No problem at all. Just wanted to get an idea out of my head. But it sounds like you're already working on a bigger-and-better system. I'll save my criticism for the next round, then... whenever it is. Meh, I don't pay attention to ratings much anyway. I can just appreciate that you're making the software for a more... common and general audience. Anyway, good luck with all the new features you're planning on still editing/adding.

I fail to see how this even could work given the widespread nature of debate. Two members from opposing camps of the deistic/theistic Vs atheistic debate might wholly agree with each other on social threads relating to gun laws or anti-discrimination laws. For example.I like the new member stats on forums participated in with percentages etc. Is there a way to see when a member last logged in? Regardless of having posted. If not is this a stat that could be published in a members stats profile?And if we want to get controversial is there a way to show not just the stats pertaining to the threads a member participates in and the number of posts per day - but their number of words per post?Half joking with that last one

Oh ye of little faith. At some point the member's profile page will include whether he's currently active, and if so what he's doing, like reading a thread or posting a message. And if he's not active then it will include when he was last active and what he was doing at the time. How about a readability index. Your first paragraph scores at 11th grade with an ease of reading of 44, about mid-range of the Flesch-Kincaid reading ease score.I'm currently working on private messaging.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I don't know if that is a subtle compliment, a subtle dig or just a statement of pure fact. But it sounds like a good idea. Flesch-Kincaid reading ease score

Viv Pope puts us all to shame. Cut-n-paste some stuff from him and some of the rest of us into this Readabilty Index Calculator. I bet you won't find anyone who beats him.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I'm certainly not happy with my score on these few sentences: -10 for readability? Is it any wonder that I have no friends?

---

The world breaks everyone, and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those it cannot break, it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these, you can be sure that it will kill you too, but there will be no special hurry.

Yes so you know anyone with a grade 10 or higher should be able to comprehend what you say.My 11 is: Enjoy

The grade level was 18. The readability was 20 points below legalese. I guess you couldn't read it either. AbE: The Horta, with "No kill I.", had a grade level 2 and an ease of reading of 90.Edited by lyx2no, : Just thought it would be important to know that.

---

The world breaks everyone, and afterward many are strong at the broken places. But those it cannot break, it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these, you can be sure that it will kill you too, but there will be no special hurry.

Ah. My readability was 47, still well below sunday comics (which I'm not sure is a bad thing). I've been told that I need to write on a simpler level with a grade 5 target - to make sure my points get across. This is difficult to do when I already consider my points to be pretty simple.

---

might be interesting to have a "readability meter" for posts ...(as if you have nothing else to do)