The Promote / Demote thing
- Thread starter TN2IC
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 189
- Points
- 1,210
No, that information isn't available (even to Staff) so you can only make a guess based on who's online/reading your stuff. If you're concerned about it.
- Reaction score
- 189
- Points
- 1,210
Ok folks, I've made a slight change to the rating system, and I'm looking for your feedback. There are two methods of displaying ratings. We've seen the first, which shows every positive and every negative rating. (E.G. +7/-2).
There is another method, in place now, which shows just the "sum" of a person's ratings. In the above example, the visible rating would be simply "5". I've added a poll to this thread to get a sense for which method people prefer; I'm committed to making this work if at all possible.
Your comments and feedback (and ratings!
) are welcome.
Cheers
Mike
There is another method, in place now, which shows just the "sum" of a person's ratings. In the above example, the visible rating would be simply "5". I've added a poll to this thread to get a sense for which method people prefer; I'm committed to making this work if at all possible.
Your comments and feedback (and ratings!
) are welcome.Cheers
Mike
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
I prefer the single rating, that way it's not a perceived contest between a member's fans and detractors.
- Reaction score
- 189
- Points
- 1,210
It definitely has merit... it prevents people from judging based solely on the negatives and ignoring the positives. On the other hand, the + and - system gives us more info. A poster with +10/-1 is very different than a poster with +52/-43 but they will both show as "9" in the summation system.
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 430
Can it show the single number sum, plus the total number of votes?
9 (11 votes) vs. 9 (95 votes)
9 (11 votes) vs. 9 (95 votes)
I think that the pluses and minuses system is better. For instance like you said someone could be 30/-35 and that means that half the time or so, they say some good things. But if it was a mixed system it would come up as -5 and then people might think that this person is completely off mark when in actuality that wouldn't necessarily be the case.
- Reaction score
- 189
- Points
- 1,210
Michael O'Leary said:
If we showed that, it would really be showing the full values. 9 (95 votes) is +52/-43, it just requires a few calculations to get there.
- Reaction score
- 189
- Points
- 1,210
One more note... a few people have expressed concerns about the system, specifically around low volume contributors.
In my opinion, a poster with +5/-0 or even -1 is doing well. I really believe the key is to leave the system in place for an extended period to work the anomalies out of it and people will eventually get an appropriate rating. +5/-1 means a low traffic, valuable contributor. Higher numbers mean more contributions, and the rating values give a sense for the tone of those contributions. Over time, anyone who contributes will have high numbers, positive or negative, even if they are "low volume" contributors.
In the early days (I.E. right now), it's going to be very easy to skew those ratios one way or the other, but as time goes on, they'll "settle in" to the right values. For example it's easy to change the "tone" of a rating for a user who has just 5 votes. However when they have 20, or 100, a single vote will do nothing to change their "standing". It's only after a trend starts to develop in their rating that their style will become clear.
So in a nutshell, it's going to take a bit of time for the system to be useful, which is why I think we need to give the it fair shake before we call to shut it down.
Cheers
Mike
In my opinion, a poster with +5/-0 or even -1 is doing well. I really believe the key is to leave the system in place for an extended period to work the anomalies out of it and people will eventually get an appropriate rating. +5/-1 means a low traffic, valuable contributor. Higher numbers mean more contributions, and the rating values give a sense for the tone of those contributions. Over time, anyone who contributes will have high numbers, positive or negative, even if they are "low volume" contributors.
In the early days (I.E. right now), it's going to be very easy to skew those ratios one way or the other, but as time goes on, they'll "settle in" to the right values. For example it's easy to change the "tone" of a rating for a user who has just 5 votes. However when they have 20, or 100, a single vote will do nothing to change their "standing". It's only after a trend starts to develop in their rating that their style will become clear.
So in a nutshell, it's going to take a bit of time for the system to be useful, which is why I think we need to give the it fair shake before we call to shut it down.
Cheers
Mike
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Well, my opinion is that we should get rid of the whole thing. But as long as it is here, I guess I will use it, in a way. But like others, I will not use it on peoples posts in Radio Chatter.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Mike,
I like the plus es and the minus es displayed.
More info and a clearer meaning.
Similar to the eBay rating system - if it's being abused, it should be clear.
I think it will keep us on a more respectful track.
A constant reminder of the golden rule. ( whichever golden rule you go by )
If someone is way outta line, he'll get a clue before the mods have to act.
Just my two shekels worth.......... ;D
I like the plus es and the minus es displayed.
More info and a clearer meaning.
Similar to the eBay rating system - if it's being abused, it should be clear.
I think it will keep us on a more respectful track.
A constant reminder of the golden rule. ( whichever golden rule you go by )
If someone is way outta line, he'll get a clue before the mods have to act.
Just my two shekels worth.......... ;D
- Reaction score
- 2,602
- Points
- 940
I've voted to scrap the whole thing, notwithstanding my ego being able to withstand negative votes 8)
Edited: my original post used the word "nugatory," which may have proven confusing
Edited: my original post used the word "nugatory," which may have proven confusing
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Mike Bobbitt said:
Just a point on that, if this idea isn't trashed again: Even "low volume" contributors can score high. There is a possibility that with one absolutely fantastic post, several members will give a member a promotion and promote them higher than their total posts. The number of posts a person makes really has not relevance. Someone with consistant excellent advice and posts will be promoted no matter how many posts they may make. It really doesn't make any difference if they may have made only one or two posts, or a thousand. If they are good and people feel like promoting them, then they will be promoted. I know I exaggerated a bit there, but I hope everyone will catch my drift.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Sorry, but nope, too much of a popularity contest... I vote for scrap it.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Personally, I don't care one way or the other, and haven't voted.
I can see that it might turn into a popularity contest (especially amongst the younger crowd here - I'm thinking of the Cadet threads). I can also see how it MIGHT enable someone new on the site to make a judgement regarding a poster's "credibility". I'm not sure that any "virtual" credibility I might earn here in any way translates to the real world - but can see it as a minorly useful tool for that purpose.
I'm not a big fan of smilies (although I do use them occasionally), either - but if using smilies gives someone a charge, I don't object to them either. I don't use the "status" thing Mike put up either - but do find some of the statements found there amusing. My display is set up to NOT see peoples avatars - but some folks get great joy out of seeing them.
What I'm saying is that Mike offers a great "menu" of choices here - you don't need to use every item on the menu to have a good time participating - and if you don't want to use a certain item - then don't.
If these little features don't require a great deal of time to manage, and have an appeal to some on the board, then I don't see the harm.
Edit: Missed a word.
I can see that it might turn into a popularity contest (especially amongst the younger crowd here - I'm thinking of the Cadet threads). I can also see how it MIGHT enable someone new on the site to make a judgement regarding a poster's "credibility". I'm not sure that any "virtual" credibility I might earn here in any way translates to the real world - but can see it as a minorly useful tool for that purpose.
I'm not a big fan of smilies (although I do use them occasionally), either - but if using smilies gives someone a charge, I don't object to them either. I don't use the "status" thing Mike put up either - but do find some of the statements found there amusing. My display is set up to NOT see peoples avatars - but some folks get great joy out of seeing them.
What I'm saying is that Mike offers a great "menu" of choices here - you don't need to use every item on the menu to have a good time participating - and if you don't want to use a certain item - then don't.
If these little features don't require a great deal of time to manage, and have an appeal to some on the board, then I don't see the harm.
Edit: Missed a word.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
You have my vote Roy. I would rather take the time to add in a thank you or to pass credit for help received in a post or a topic. At the same time I would like to see the reasoning behind a negative/positive critique of a post. Sometimes it is a simple as source information not included in the post, other times it is the "out of your lane" variety. In the aforementioned examples this tends to promote discusion without the perception of a personal affront. It allows others to formulate an educated opinion and therefore a well thought out rebuttal(Vern's rule of thinking before replying). A great many of us have had experience in critiquing the abilities of others and in my judgement this is one of the hardest tasks, how to 'holistically' score. One of the more numerous replies to posts has been "your profile is blank and then the reason for filling in said information". I have my own mental list of who I can reach out to if I need expertise in a certain area and I feel that has worked out well. As to the need for statistics; is the glass half empty or half full ?Roy Harding said:
my .002
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
3rd Herd said:
My Mech Eng son would tell you that the glass is twice as big as it needs to be
And you're right - contextual agreement or disagreement has more relevance to me than a mere statistic. I look at my own "rating" and I don't have a clue who agreed with what I said where (or who disagreed about what either). I DO look at people's profiles - it gives me a sense of who is offering an opinion. I'm aware that this is the internet and folks can put anything they want in there - but the posers are usually tripped up fairly quickly.
Anyway - I still don't have a firm enough opinion on the thing to vote.
Yrys
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 11
- Points
- 430
Quote from: Mike Bobbitt on August 10, 2007, 09:57:43
No, that information isn't available (even to Staff) so you can only make a guess based on who's online/reading your stuff. If you're concerned about it.
Yah, me too. Somebody care enough for me to move me from 0 ! I wonder on what post...
No, that information isn't available (even to Staff) so you can only make a guess based on who's online/reading your stuff. If you're concerned about it.
PMedMoe said:Nope, just curious!
Yah, me too. Somebody care enough for me to move me from 0
! I wonder on what post...- Status
Similar threads
