Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   New Feature: Message Rating System
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 76 of 258 (578868)
09-02-2010 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by hooah212002
09-02-2010 8:15 PM


Re: About the Hall of Shame...
How about letting each group in the hierarchy name itself? Polls and votes are easy, I think, and we all like picking our own names.
That would be revealing, adaptable and commercially attractive.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by hooah212002, posted 09-02-2010 8:15 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by hooah212002, posted 09-02-2010 10:21 PM Omnivorous has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 77 of 258 (578869)
09-02-2010 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Omnivorous
09-02-2010 10:14 PM


Re: About the Hall of Shame...
That in itself could be a source of revenue for Percy: paid memberships. For example: I am a member of an overclocking forum in which paid members are privy to a couple menial benefits.
1: a personal title
2: an email address
3: increased PM inbox space (the default is relatively low)
Of course, for a bunch of nerds, this sort of thing is meaningful. Think of it as nerd street cred for the website.
{abe}
I totally mis-read what you wrote and went off on my own tangent. Sorry, cheap beer and little sleep has taken it's toll.....
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Your god believes in Unicorns

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Omnivorous, posted 09-02-2010 10:14 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Omnivorous, posted 09-02-2010 10:34 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 78 of 258 (578873)
09-02-2010 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by hooah212002
09-02-2010 10:21 PM


Re: About the Hall of Shame...
I grok nerd.
I wonder if full moderation is available here in the sense that many debate sites use it, holding posts until they've been vetted: HuffingtonPost turns it on for especially controversial topics, usually relying on filters, spot checks and complaints. It's something you might want to have in a commerical product.
I prefer the lack of pre-post censorship we've always had here.
But maybe that's just me. It would be a good variable switch to have: members subject to full modding, some only to filters, some no modding at all.
The best part? You could pay-off the mods.
If it works for the justice system, it can work here.
AbE: No, what you suggested is congruent.
Edited by Omnivorous, : It's a secret.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by hooah212002, posted 09-02-2010 10:21 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 79 of 258 (578946)
09-03-2010 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Admin
08-31-2010 8:53 PM


Any thoughts on this?
Admin writes:
Regarding "Post of the Month," I'm considering having halls of both fame and shame.
Percy, if the object of the ratings system is to improve the average quality of posts, then I can give you a simple formula that would work.
All votes are positive. We can vote for a post that we think is good, and that would appear as a simple "1" beside the post. If more than one member votes for the post, then that shows as 2, 3,4 5, etc., meaning that a "5" would have much more meaning than it does at present, as it would have to come from 5 members.
Now, the important part. The most complex requirement would be a separate count of posts made which starts on the date the system comes into place. Appearing under a poster's name in place of the current average would be the number of points that poster has received, and the number of posts made since the system has come into place.
So, 40/400 means that the poster has received 40 points for 400 posts. Then, somewhere on the board would be the total number of points given for the total of posts made by the entire board. To keep it simple, for example 400/4000, which would tell us that the average is 1 point per 10 posts, and that the 40/400 member is right on the average.
Now, we have some members who rarely make casual posts, and put a lot of thought into their posting, and they might be achieving scores like 80/370 or even better. On the other end, a lot of casual contentless posts could leave us with embarrassing scores like 5/400.
So, what would happen? I think most posters would not like to be down near the bottom of the pile, and if we saw that was the case, we'd think "heh, about time I started making some effort to put some substance in my posts, 'cos I'm clearly dragging the board down."
The main criticism of this might be that it might work too well, and the board might end up with a much lower posting rate, and just 20 careful posts appearing every day! But I doubt it, as most of us wouldn't take it too seriously, and continue pretty much as now unless we were slipping down to a really embarrassing points per post ratio.
Some people have suggested that the ratings should be open to view who's rated what and whom. While that idea is understandable with the negative ratings that we have now, it would not be a good idea if we have this positive ratings only system. It could lead to members seeing that someone has rated them, and returning the compliment, or to the embarrassing situation of knowing that another member has rated you several times, and knowing that that member is well aware that you've never thought one of his/her posts worth a compliment. So anonymous would be best.
As for those with minority opinions, this would work well. There are less creationists to do the rating, but there are also less creationists posts to rate, so the results should be proportional, and it should be just as easy for a creationist to achieve a good ratio as anyone else.
If it's easy to put in a separate post count for the system, wouldn't that basic version be easier to put into place than the present one was, technically speaking?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Admin, posted 08-31-2010 8:53 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Huntard, posted 09-03-2010 8:38 AM bluegenes has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 80 of 258 (578975)
09-03-2010 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by bluegenes
09-03-2010 6:04 AM


Re: Any thoughts on this?
I don't know, that would mean that "casual" topics in the coffee house, which would gather al lot of "casual" posts would be a thing of the past (like, say the "what kind of music do you like", "Beer topic", "Cigar topic", RAZD's "bycicle topic" and stuff like that), these topics would "endanger" your score if you are very active in them. You would be "punished" for just having a bit of fun (as I am want to do, yes, I am biased ).
Not a good thing, I'd say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by bluegenes, posted 09-03-2010 6:04 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by bluegenes, posted 09-03-2010 11:39 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 258 (578985)
09-03-2010 9:12 AM


Really? We're still on this?
I don't know why we're on this topic again. We all know that the rating system is flawed insofar as petty and petulant people will misuse it to "votebomb" people or ideologies they find repugnant. Even supposing they have, who here actually takes this system to heart? A low score, a high score... it's irrelevant.
My impressions of all of you are not based of the rating system, but are measured on the content of your posts.

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Huntard, posted 09-03-2010 10:42 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 82 of 258 (579012)
09-03-2010 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Hyroglyphx
09-03-2010 9:12 AM


Re: Really? We're still on this?
Well, Tram law brought it up again, and seeing that he is new here, we answered his questions again. After that, it's been really about the implementation on this site in the future, not about the current system, which I think nobody pays attention to anyways. Except perhaps the new guys, until we explain it to them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-03-2010 9:12 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 83 of 258 (579024)
09-03-2010 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Huntard
09-03-2010 8:38 AM


Re: Any thoughts on this?
Huntard writes:
I don't know, that would mean that "casual" topics in the coffee house, which would gather al lot of "casual" posts would be a thing of the past
No, they wouldn't. That's what I meant with the comment about the board being reduced to 20 serious posts a day, but it won't happen. Most of us would continue pretty much as now. And there's nothing to stop you rating posts on those "light" threads that you think are interesting, well written, or amusing etc.
Someone put a "five" on a two sentence comment I put in the humour thread a couple of weeks ago, for example. That made me laugh!
There's no reason why "quality" should mean "gravity". In effect, all it really means is pleasing/interesting/entertaining other people.
Personally, I don't mind any ratings system Percy cares to put in (or no ratings system). The reason I posted that message to him was because it occurred to me that if his objective was raising posting quality, then what I've suggested would work without creating much pain, and we could also avoid the sight of negative posts being piled on people, creationists particularly.
(I've never put a single "one" rating on a creationist. If I think someone's post is that bad, and I want to let them know, I tell them in a reply).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Huntard, posted 09-03-2010 8:38 AM Huntard has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 84 of 258 (579111)
09-03-2010 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Admin
09-01-2010 9:49 AM


Re: About the Hall of Shame...
Admin writes:
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?
In allowing settable names, how difficult is it to allow additional categories for even more user-creativity?
That is, you could rename them to "Awesome" and "Whoops!"... or, if you allowed more categories you could have:
"Awesome!"
"Whoops!"
"Funny!"
"Perfect Grammer"
"Best Creationist Defense"
"Most Efficient Use of Text"
...I'm assuming that additional categories would be as easy as copying some code. That may not be the case. I'm just thinking that if this is easy and relatively not-a-memory-hog... freedom of user creativity is generally a good thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Admin, posted 09-01-2010 9:49 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Admin, posted 09-03-2010 5:47 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 85 of 258 (579137)
09-03-2010 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Stile
09-03-2010 4:39 PM


Re: About the Hall of Shame...
Coding? Easy.
User interface, 2 choices? Still easy. Usually the best approach is obvious.
User interface, more than 2 choices? Not so easy. Has to be thought through carefully. Radio buttons? Select boxes (multiple choice possible). Select menu (multiple choice possible). Right click menu? Dynamic menu?
Database, 2 choices? Easy, boolean field.
Database, more than 2 choices? Not so easy. Text field that requires processing? Two tables? Table per type of hall?
As you might guess, a good part of my time is spent staring out the window!

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Stile, posted 09-03-2010 4:39 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Trae, posted 06-14-2011 8:07 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


(1)
Message 86 of 258 (619739)
06-11-2011 11:05 PM


New (or maybe a revived) ratings idea
First, there was a new recent message/member rating issue topic, which I just closed. It didn't amount to much but can be found at: poster ratings?
Somewhere, not currently to be found, I recall seeing a suggestion from (i believe) RAZD. The essence was that the only rating a member could give to a message would be a "good message" rating - Kind of like giving it a "5", without having any "1" thru "4" option available.
I like this idea. The message would be rated by how many "good message" votes it got. If you see a message with a "7" rating, that would mean it has received 7 "good message" votes. In a similar vein, a members rating would be the sum of his/her "good message" votes received.
"Bad message" voting would be by admin only. As such, an admin can choose to flag a bad message. An individual messages "bad message" rating would be the sum of the admins "bad message" votes. Likewise, there could be a member "bad message" rating.
So, each message and each member could have two varieties of ratings. One from the member perspective, one from the administrative perspective.
Adminnemooseus

Please be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems.

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by tesla, posted 06-11-2011 11:48 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 88 by fearandloathing, posted 06-12-2011 10:43 AM Adminnemooseus has replied
 Message 89 by hooah212002, posted 06-12-2011 4:35 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1593 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 87 of 258 (619740)
06-11-2011 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Adminnemooseus
06-11-2011 11:05 PM


Re: New (or maybe a revived) ratings idea
"Bad message" voting would be by admin only.
This would create drama because members would accuse admins of playing favorites.
It is a subjective system so it needs to somehow remain open for all.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-11-2011 11:05 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 88 of 258 (619781)
06-12-2011 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Adminnemooseus
06-11-2011 11:05 PM


Re: New (or maybe a revived) ratings idea
How about message rating only?
I really dont like the Idea of admin being the only one being able to rate something bad, I agree with Tesla, this is only going to cause more accusations of bias.

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-11-2011 11:05 PM Adminnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-12-2011 11:53 PM fearandloathing has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 89 of 258 (619838)
06-12-2011 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Adminnemooseus
06-11-2011 11:05 PM


Re: New (or maybe a revived) ratings idea
Upvotes a-hoy!
If you don't know what I mean, I am referring to the Reddit Karma system. Good posts/comments get an upvote, while crappy ones get none or a downvote.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Adminnemooseus, posted 06-11-2011 11:05 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


(1)
Message 90 of 258 (619890)
06-12-2011 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by fearandloathing
06-12-2011 10:43 AM


Re: New (or maybe a revived) ratings idea
How about message rating only?
That could be an control panel option
I really dont like the Idea of admin being the only one being able to rate something bad, I agree with Tesla, this is only going to cause more accusations of bias.
I guess I wasn't clear. The guidelines for admin negative ratings would be the forum rules. If an individual admin perceives a rule violation problem, he can easily flag the message with an "admin thumbs down". One of the benefits of such, is that everyone can see when a message has administrative disapproval - A sign that says "All or a significant part of this message should not have been posted". Much easier and much less messy than admin message responses to the offending message, admins needing to "hide" text, admins needing to add "off-topic" banners, etc.
In the tradition of this forum, such admin disapproval would probably tend to come down harder on the evo side members.
In the past, in the spirit of my suggestion, Minnemooseus has given out 5's and 4's to messages, and Adminnemooseus has given out 1's to messages. If you notice a crappy little evo-member message that's been tagged with a "1", chances are it was from Adminnemooseus. An example is this Jar message, for which I also did a zero time suspension and an off-topic banner.
Adminnemooseus
Added by edit: The member done ratings and the admin done ratings would be two separate things.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : "zero time suspension" link.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

Please be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by fearandloathing, posted 06-12-2011 10:43 AM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by fearandloathing, posted 06-13-2011 10:09 AM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 92 by Trae, posted 06-14-2011 7:06 AM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024