Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why Ratings Are Not Objective.
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 1 of 88 (535786)
11-18-2009 12:08 AM


I've noticed that the ratings are abused by vindictive members who have no scrupples about using them simply to wage personal attack on fellow members with whom they disagree on ideology, etc.
One of such appears to be following me around the forums, indiscriminately loading up my ratings with ones. That's quite obvious when you get, for example three in a row, one being simply a short statement announcing that you were compiling your message while another was posting and that you had to leave for other duties for a spell. In another thread, most of my messages in the thread suddenly got indiscriminately loaded up with ones.
I've noticed that most of the high threes and fours apply to the majority POV and most of the lows go to the creationists. I suppose that's to be expected.
Imo, the rating system would be fine if it weren't for a few vindictive members. It only takes one of these types to trash another's ratings.
I know it's not a biggie issue. I can live with it and go about doing the best I can, but given it does not end up being fair and objective, methinks the cite would do well without the system. Why provide this club for vindictive members who abuse it to go on personal attack against others with whom they disagree or as revenge when they get refuted in fair debate?

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2009 1:01 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 3 by Dr Jack, posted 11-18-2009 4:49 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 11-18-2009 5:08 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 8 by iano, posted 11-18-2009 7:39 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 9 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 11-18-2009 9:00 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 17 by onifre, posted 11-18-2009 3:23 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 50 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-20-2009 12:57 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 2 of 88 (535790)
11-18-2009 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
11-18-2009 12:08 AM


one use of ratings ...
Hi Buz,
I agree, as this has been my experience on other forums. You also see ratings done by people who don't engage in the debate so that they are not "at risk" of having their POV destroyed.
Personally, when I see ratings set up like this, and begging for such abuse, I figure that they are a good measure of how much I have annoyed people who like to be complacent in their views. If I get over 4 then I haven't annoyed enough people.
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 11-18-2009 12:08 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 3 of 88 (535811)
11-18-2009 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
11-18-2009 12:08 AM


Hi Buz,
I entirely agree, and indeed raised this problem in the announcement thread for the feature. I believe Percy has plans afoot to replace it with a better system more suited to this board, although I don't know the current status of that plan.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 11-18-2009 12:08 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-20-2009 1:08 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 4 of 88 (535814)
11-18-2009 5:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
11-18-2009 12:08 AM


I was also against any system of negative ratings, and I have not rated any posts. The system as it stands is NOT fine (at the least the "member ratings" should default to 3, not 5) and is open to abuse.
(Although I will note that the best contributors are on the evolution side and the worst are generally on the creation side, so there is no evidence of general abuse. Nor is it plausible that the person giving '1' ratings to Buzsaw's posts is motivated by losing a debate to him - indeed as far as I know Buzsaw hasn't won a single debate here, but has lost frequently).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 11-18-2009 12:08 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Wounded King, posted 11-18-2009 5:15 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 10 by Buzsaw, posted 11-18-2009 9:34 AM PaulK has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 5 of 88 (535815)
11-18-2009 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
11-18-2009 5:08 AM


Adding information to the genome. is a prime example of this. Virtually all of Kaichos man's posts have a post rating of 1 and almost all posts responding to him have a rating of 5, even one liners. It looks like someone has just gone through the thread systematically making ratings regardless of the actual quality of the post.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 11-18-2009 5:08 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Huntard, posted 11-18-2009 5:27 AM Wounded King has not replied

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


Message 6 of 88 (535816)
11-18-2009 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Wounded King
11-18-2009 5:15 AM


Another point
Also, I've been pondering this, what if a post is a good quality post (well built up, good formatting of the message, fluent and nice sentences) yet is full of completely wrong assumptions. Then what? The quality of the post is very good, the contents however is completely rubbish. How to rate such a post? A 3 would give the impression that there's something to the contents, and a lower rating wouldn't do the quality of the post justice.
Problems problems....

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Wounded King, posted 11-18-2009 5:15 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2009 7:32 AM Huntard has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 7 of 88 (535826)
11-18-2009 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Huntard
11-18-2009 5:27 AM


Re: Another point
A 3 would give the impression that there's something to the contents, and a lower rating wouldn't do the quality of the post justice.
Maybe a grid? quality of writing and quality of content?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Huntard, posted 11-18-2009 5:27 AM Huntard has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


(1)
Message 8 of 88 (535827)
11-18-2009 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
11-18-2009 12:08 AM


Buzz writes:
One of such appears to be following me around the forums, indiscriminately loading up my ratings with ones.
Consider it a Badge of Honour, Buzz..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 11-18-2009 12:08 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Jumped Up Chimpanzee
Member (Idle past 4942 days)
Posts: 572
From: UK
Joined: 10-22-2009


Message 9 of 88 (535830)
11-18-2009 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
11-18-2009 12:08 AM


I don't think the ratings should be displayed against the posts at all. Each post should be viewed and judged entirely on its own merit and not pre-judged according to how the highly or lowly the member has previously been rated.
I can't see any purpose in displaying a member's rating against each post unless the intention is to create a prejudice. (Maybe there was no purpose, it was just something that evolved on the site!)
Maybe you should just be able to view a member's rating against their profile and not on the actual forums.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 11-18-2009 12:08 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 10 of 88 (535834)
11-18-2009 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
11-18-2009 5:08 AM


PaulK writes:
Buzsaw hasn't won a single debate here
In nearly 7 years? No wins? Paul, can you even spell objective?
Of the many you've flubbed on, this one message per contestant, debate right here tops them all.
Perhaps we could just slap each other with a one-er here and now and call it a draw.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 11-18-2009 5:08 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 11-18-2009 11:18 AM Buzsaw has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 11 of 88 (535844)
11-18-2009 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Buzsaw
11-18-2009 9:34 AM


quote:
In nearly 7 years? No wins? Paul, can you even spell objective?
None that I can recall. Remember that I did qualify my statement with "as far as I know" even though you chose to snip it.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Buzsaw, posted 11-18-2009 9:34 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Rahvin, posted 11-18-2009 11:31 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 14 by Buzsaw, posted 11-18-2009 1:04 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 12 of 88 (535846)
11-18-2009 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by PaulK
11-18-2009 11:18 AM


Well, that's the other problem, isn't it - "winning" isn't usually an objective assessment, either. We very rarely (on any side of any argument) squeeze a concession out of our opponents around here - I don't doubt that many of our debates leave participants on all sides believing they have "won" the argument.
I'm not a fan of ratings in general. It's too simplistic, and works more as a distraction than reasonable feedback.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 11-18-2009 11:18 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Buzsaw, posted 11-18-2009 1:00 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 13 of 88 (535861)
11-18-2009 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Rahvin
11-18-2009 11:31 AM


Rahvin writes:
Well, that's the other problem, isn't it - "winning" isn't usually an objective assessment, either. We very rarely (on any side of any argument) squeeze a concession out of our opponents around here - I don't doubt that many of our debates leave participants on all sides believing they have "won" the argument.
Nevertheless, the ratings most often reflect on whether the debater has won, i.e. ideology. Thus the disparity between creo and evo ratings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Rahvin, posted 11-18-2009 11:31 AM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Rahvin, posted 11-18-2009 2:18 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 14 of 88 (535863)
11-18-2009 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by PaulK
11-18-2009 11:18 AM


PaulK writes:
None that I can recall. Remember that I did qualify my statement with "as far as I know" even though you chose to snip it.
Oh, wow, Paul. Thanks! That's reassuring, in that the verbal jab was based on your knowledge.
Edited by Buzsaw, : add quote

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 11-18-2009 11:18 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 15 of 88 (535874)
11-18-2009 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Buzsaw
11-18-2009 1:00 PM


Nevertheless, the ratings most often reflect on whether the debater has won, i.e. ideology. Thus the disparity between creo and evo ratings.
I'm not sure what the ratings "usually" represent. It could be a perception of having made an effective argument, proving one's point or refuting another's position.
Or it could simply be an agreement with an individual's position, regardless of how effectively it's argued.
Or it could be a ranking of writing quality.
That's the problem - a bare 1-5 ranking system is too simplistic. You are receiving low ratings that may be undeserved from one perspective, but are well deserved from another. Is it simply because you are a Creationist? Are you making poor arguments? Is your writing style not well-liked? Did a given post have anything about bigotry? Were you blatantly factually incorrect? Did the voter simply not like you?
There's no way to tell. And that's the problem. The ratings serve only as a distraction whose meaning is wholly subjective. They can even do harm, as people can assign a degree of authority or credibility based on rankings that has nothing to do with he effectiveness of a given post. I see your current rating is a 2.2...and there's no way for me to tell why.
Personally, I don't even pay attention to ratings. I try to take each argument as separate from others, so that I can make arguments and rebuttals on the merits of what is actually said and not my perception of the poster. I'm not always successful (I am human, after all), but I try.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Buzsaw, posted 11-18-2009 1:00 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Coyote, posted 11-18-2009 2:27 PM Rahvin has not replied
 Message 20 by Buzsaw, posted 11-18-2009 8:00 PM Rahvin has 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