get rid of the post rating feature.

[Ski the Swift]

Is it wrong that I'm patiently waiting to midnight so I may again vote people down?

Yes it is.

*-1*

*also waits to give more minus votes*

[Guest Ro_]

Is it wrong that I'm patiently waiting to midnight so I may again vote people down?

Due to my extensive research (looking for the bottom of beer cans) I found some time between 2:22am central time and 7:34am central time my negative marking resumed. Alas, I have no positive marks as of yet.

[Sophelia]

My question is this: what's the idea here? Why is this feature considered? I'm all for testing it out, but I'm interested in the thinking behind it and the long-term consequences (such as the overall atmosphere on the board). Beyond the obvious objection "it could be abused" (which I don't think it will on any major scale, despite my best efforts) - is this something that we want on our board?

The possible benefits would be if it changed the overall tone of posts on the board by giving more positive encouragement to people making well-reasoned, funny, moving, or informative posts, and discouraging posts which are more destructive.

The vast majority of board members are the 'lurkers', who read and don't post much. Perhaps they don't have time, are shy, intimidated, or don't want to repeat what others have said. But now these people can actually interact a little, and make their views known. It might help the posters and other readers to get this more inclusive feedback, rather than just the views of the tiny atypical sample who actually post replies.

The other thing is that many posts get no replies or comments at all. There was a thread on this which concluded (I think) that 'regulars' will naturally tend to get more responses, because people who know them are more likely to notice their posts and want to reply. But for newbies it can be disheartening, when finally summoning up the courage to post, nobody seems to notice. Or indeed even for 'regulars', sometimes one spends a long time researching a post, or pours out one's heart, and gets no reply because some other issue has captured people's attention. Or maybe it was a minority-interest topic, some really erudite discussion on an obscure book, which nobody feels knowledgeable enough to respond to... but maybe found the post intriguing enough to move the book higher on their 'might read' list. With a voting system these posts might get some response or recognition which they don't at the moment. And if this makes a difference between a newbie giving up posting, or going on to write more posts, I'd say it's worth a try.

(Agree it needs testing - if a newbie makes a hesitant first post and gets negative votes, this could put them off. But then again, if negative votes are used only rarely, then if they get votes maybe we do want to discourage them and give them a harsh message ;) )

[sologdin]

that was well considered and reasoned, sophie. i'd give you a positive point, but i already blew them on bolstering the reputation of my alts.

[Sophelia]

that was well considered and reasoned, sophie. i'd give you a positive point, but i already blew them on bolstering the reputation of my alts.

:lol:

Hmm. I wonder if the way people use their points corresponds with the way they use money. Clearly spreading the points equally around all your alts, and not choosing one person to receive more votes, is a kind of personal communism :P Of course I want points not to be a limited commodity, so I don't want them to be like money, more like love ;)... or money you can print yourself.

[Datepalm]

. And if this makes a difference between a newbie giving up posting, or going on to write more posts, I'd say it's worth a try.

I see your point, but at the same time I feel like those first few ever-so-polite, totally ignored posts are a bit of a necessary baptism by fire. If its interesting - they shall respond. I don't like the idea of these half measures. A plus without a response just feels like a charity case. Pity-response. I'd rather have the honest ignoration/flame/snark.

Mostly, i'm not too bothered anymore because the few posts i've seen tagged one way or another seem totally random and have not turned up any desire in myself to figure out who or why clicked them. Likewise, I don't feel any need to click myself.

The only actual function seems to be that you can eliminate posts from your view - I imagine that will make for very confusing thread reading for anyone who does it, since the board already has strong etiquette against contentless posts and they are not common, and so frankly I have no sympathy for anyone who prefers to trust the judgment of others over their own in regards to what posts are worth reading.

edit - just like money, I prefer to liberate myself of the points. I do belive everyone to be fundamentally equal, after all.

[Ran]

"Over here though, you still see every comment, so the browsing exprerience isn't enhanced in any way."

No, you don't have to. Check the bottom of any thread, or your profile settings. You can ignore posts below a minimum threshold -- for example, anything below 0. Not that I expect many will use it, but that function works.

If it works as I think it may well work, the system will encourage self-policing, something which has not scaled well with the growth of the forum. If a forum manages itself with less need for moderator intervention, I think that'll be a win.

We're not removing it until we've tested it to see the impact on the forum, in any case, so it's pretty premature to be arguing against it. Give it a couple of weeks, use it and observe it alongside everyone else, and then I'll be very interested in nformed opinions as to whether it's a keeper or not.

[sologdin]

-1 for totalitarianism, ran.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

S John,

You're lucky that I'm out of ammo or there'd be a minus headed your way.

Okay, I'm perplexed. Why?

Ran,

In fairness I should say I'm also concerned that the reputation scores can be assigned for any reason not just the quality of the post. Aren't those of us, I think of myself here, with less popular political opinions going to suffer for those opinions?

[Sophelia]

edit - just like money, I prefer to liberate myself of the points. I do belive everyone to be fundamentally equal, after all.

I agree - that's why I think it's essential for the system to work for rating *posts* not people.

Everyone is equal, but that doesn't mean you can't criticise someone's behaviour on occasion, or admire it on other occasions.;)

Actually I was posting because I just noticed that if you get a vote you can still edit your post and keep the vote. Somebody who was feeling very mischievous could replace their original message with something dubious and give the misleading impression the board approved of it. There, just thought I;d point that out here before someone decided to demonstrate it on unwitting readers.

(I don't think this is a huge flaw since their original post was still worthy of votes, and the changed version would probably attract negative attention if it stayed up any amount of time. However, it does mean even more so that votes should be taken with a pinch of salt, like a Goodkind recommendation on a book. The system would work better if posts were frozen from being editable as soon as they got a vote, or something - not that I would encourage that change. Just an observation)

[Ski the Swift]

This is just getting ridiculous.

*-1*

[Sophelia]

*insert emoticon expressing a wry look with one eyebrow raised, an amused tilt at one side of the mouth, yet still managing a slight pout*

Someone negged my post!

Makes me realise I need to write really short posts otherwise I won't know which bit someone is objecting to. ;)

ETA: :lol: And someone cancelled it out again! Um, thanks... but really, you needn't have! (I did the same with one of Ran's though - I pozzed it because I thought the neg was uncalled for. I mean, it was a post making a good point, but I wouldn't have spent a vote on it had it not been for the minus sign) Hmm - here it could have been the original neg was a mistake and it was just cancelled by the same person, in which case all my attention to my own post rating was an accident giving me an illusory sense of being a Controversial Person... *tails off*

[sologdin]

In fairness I should say I'm also concerned that the reputation scores can be assigned for any reason not just the quality of the post. Aren't those of us, I think of myself here, with less popular political opinions going to suffer for those opinions?

scot--

you aren't seriously suggesting that you will be injured or somehow deterred from participation by anonymous ratings that, as you have pointed out very cogently, may have no reasonable relation the post that is actually rated?

that said--is one's "reputation in the community" of an internet message board an interest protected by the law of defamation?

and, if so, do negative rating points randomly or otherwise improperly assigned constitute damage to one's reputation that is published to third parties, and, if false, therefore cognizable as a claim under the law aforesaid?

i can represent you, incidentally, in your defamation claim against malicious raters herein. PM me for a discussion of my contingency fee.

[S John]

S John,

Okay, I'm perplexed. Why?

Because so far I've giggled like a school girl every time I've given out a minus, especially if the post I voted down was about disliking minuses.

Just saying that your previous post was exactly the sort of post I have been targeting, but I've used all my votes already. Don't worry, I imagine it'll wear off in a few days.

[sologdin]

Don't worry, I imagine it'll wear off in a few days.

this is likely exactly how it will work for the vast majority of reasonable posters here--rep votes will be amusing for a short time. the novelty will wear off, and people won't be arsed to vote a post up or down unless it's really slick or really annoying--the five votes for each per day will likely end up being way too many, by the time everyone's accustomed to it.

[Datepalm]

I agree - that's why I think it's essential for the system to work for rating *posts* not people.

Everyone is equal, but that doesn't mean you can't criticise someone's behaviour on occasion, or admire it on other occasions.;)

But the post scores build up into "reputation", and, there you go, people are assigned a numerical value! Tatoo it on our arms, why don't we.*

Critiscism and commendation are social interaction (This has been explained to me in ways I understand by people I trust) I want actual interaction - if someone has somethign to say - say it - not anonymous clicking. Thats cheating.

Anyhow, as of now, i'm just ignoring the function. My current opinion is that it will be a relief to see it go, but I don't see the harm in a couple weeks fair trial either. Who knows, maybe i'll change my mind. (I don't think i'll be up in arms if it stays either. The longer its around, the less attention I pay to it.)

*I should point out i'm Jewish, ashkenazi, short of relatives due to the holocaust, and still inordinately fond of jokes about it. Solo - do I get a nazi point?

[Ixodes]

I am accepting offers for a board publicist. I realize that a neutral reputation will not help me achieve board fame. I have no ability for self promotion so I will enlist other more talented folks to help me.

I envision a compenstation system based upon the number of positive reviews, although I will entertain all options.

[sologdin]

do I get a nazi point?

not obvious that you've godwinned the thread, considering that the reputation system is in fact just like the holocaust.

offers for a board publicist

ix--

that's a kickass idea--an Internet Reputation Management firm. if you get any clients who need to sue for online defamation, as i have described above, you've got my card.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sologdin,

I'm not so petty as to claim this qualifies as defamation. I'm simply concerned that if unpopular opinions are dinged for their unpopularity rather than their quality the discussions I've enjoyed for so long may suffer.

[Ran]

In fairness I should say I'm also concerned that the reputation scores can be assigned for any reason not just the quality of the post. Aren't those of us, I think of myself here, with less popular political opinions going to suffer for those opinions?

Totally understandable concern. All I can say as to that is that that's something we'll be looking at in a couple of weeks. It may be that your concerns are misplaced and nothing of the sort will happen. We shall see what the next couple of weeks will bring. Empirical evidence trumps all. :)