Jump to content

get rid of the post rating feature.


Recommended Posts

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.

i feel you, man. we'll have to see how it comes out in the wash.

it is, nevertheless, a useful market mechanism insofar as it improves the quality of information in the intellectual marketplace that the board represents. in this case, it's a type of metadata being improved--but the principle is the same.

are you saying, therefore, that you are anti-marketplace-of-ideas, or just anti-markets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :)

You're assuming people are rational actors when it comes to their clicky economy. Besides, we could well false conciousnify ourselves - if we start changing the content of our posts to what we think will achieve more clickyness/reputation, we won't be aware of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, wait just a minute...we're complaining that the rating system is totalitarian? No, no, my friends, you have it backwards. Formerly, all power to determine the substantive value of posts was held by the elite class of moderators. Now, the power to assign value to posts has been democratically returned to the people, and what do we hear? Complaints that the plebes will misuse the authority, and calls for it to be returned to the elite, and for our own good, no less. Friends, I know it can be scary when freedoms formerly reserved for the powerful are returned to the masses. It's unpredictable, chaotic, and difficult to control. But surely we can take on this new scary responsibility of becoming more active, involved, and informed Board citizens. With freedom, comes responsibility. I, for one, stand ready.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the post scores build up into "reputation"

Yeah, well that's the aspect I have most reservations about, too.

But fortunately it isn't too prominently emblazoned, and Ran could always excise those bits so it wasn't possible to see people's total scores. I feel as if what we're testing is the post rating system. (I'm not sure what I think about that yet, as I've never tried it before, can see the arguments for and against)

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.

OK, perhaps technically anonymous voting is too one-way to be an interaction, but the effect is two-way. I'm a lecturer and I use an anonymous voting system in my lectures, to get student feedback on whether I am explaining things clearly, what they have learned, what they think of the lecture. This is called 'interactive' lecturing, perhaps misleadingly. I agree actual back and forth comments with students is more interactive/sociable, but as here, much of the audience is too shy to speak out, and due to the lecturer:student ratio there just wouldn't be time for everyone to express a view anyway. The anonymous voting system is really helpful as I respond by adjusting my lecture as I go along, so it feels like a dialogue to me, between me and my class.

Seems to me that technology allows a lot more diversity in communication, than the spoken word, so I wouldn't draw a line and say this form is not valid. But completely understand the concern that it might be bad for people's feelings, attitudes and perceptions. I think Ran is brave to try it out and I agree with him that it needs to be tested for a little while before knowing either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're assuming people are rational actors when it comes to their clicky economy. Besides, we could well false conciousnify ourselves - if we start changing the content of our posts to what we think will achieve more clickyness/reputation, we won't be aware of it.

Ah, this is reminding me of B.F. Skinner's "Beyond Freedom and Dignity". We are all part of a behaviorist experiment here. ;) We will be conditioning each other to be better citizens... but is that not what happens out there in the real world too? We don't know how much we have changed our natural behaviours based on the smiles and frowns of the people all around us...

Hey, wait just a minute...we're complaining that the rating system is totalitarian? No, no, my friends, you have it backwards. Formerly, all power to determine the substantive value of posts was held by the elite class of moderators. Now, the power to assign value to posts has been democratically returned to the people, and what do we hear? Complaints that the plebes will misuse the authority, and calls for it to be returned to the elite, and for our own good, no less. Friends, I know it can be scary when freedoms formerly reserved for the powerful are returned to the masses. It's unpredictable, chaotic, and difficult to control. But surely we can take on this new scary responsibility of becoming more active, involved, and informed Board citizens. With freedom, comes responsibility. I, for one, stand ready.

Bravo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, wait just a minute...we're complaining that the rating system is totalitarian? No, no, my friends, you have it backwards. Formerly, all power to determine the substantive value of posts was held by the elite class of moderators. Now, the power to assign value to posts has been democratically returned to the people, and what do we hear? Complaints that the plebes will misuse the authority, and calls for it to be returned to the elite, and for our own good, no less. Friends, I know it can be scary when freedoms formerly reserved for the powerful are returned to the masses. It's unpredictable, chaotic, and difficult to control. But surely we can take on this new scary responsibility of becoming more active, involved, and informed Board citizens. With freedom, comes responsibility. I, for one, stand ready.

The freedom...of alienation! I'm not claiming its authoritarian. Just capitalist. Previously, posts - and people - had no quantifiable value at all. each of us could decide for themselves what they considered valuable. For some its complex economic statistics, for others whether Catherine the Great could take Margaret Thatcher in girl fight, for other yet, pithy sex jokes. Each gave as they could, and were free to respond as they needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should have the reputation classifications the same as D & D character alignment. For example (unless proven otherwise) I see S. John as Evil Chaotic.

Interesting you should say that. I looked at my profile and under my reputation it says "Neutral".

Seriously!

We already *are* in a giant D&D game and we never knew it... :uhoh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I first read about this feature my immediate thoughts returned me to high school:

'+1 because, wow, his eyes are so dreamy. I hope he totally signs my yearbook.'

'-1 because she's like, a total skank. And her belt totally doesn't match her shoes'

But really, a value/assessment assigned by other people (especially when I can't see who assigned that value) isn't necessarily going to sway my opinions on who wrote a post, or what they said. And I hope, the same can be said for me, and my posts. Unless of course, you find me to be a total tool. Please don't. Please?

<insert tearful plea for reconsideration here>

My real, true concern is this: If this rating system is to somehow help the overall quality of posts and discussions, a simple +/- 1 isn't really going to help. You've assigned a quantitative value to a qualitative assessment. Was I voted down because I had an inflammatory post? I was rude? Or was it simply because my prose sucks, and my valid point got lost in my poor expression? Was I voted up because you agree with me? Because I was concise and to the point?

And as an aside: A small value on either side of zero isn't all that helpful either. +2 because a handful of people voted, or like 30 people waged a divisive war while rating the post? We don't actually know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should have the reputation classifications the same as D & D character alignment. For example (unless proven otherwise) I see S. John as Evil Chaotic.

I agree. And, thanks the the boards new post rating feature, I was able to express my agreement with the click of a button! I guess that renders this post superfluous, but whatevs, I'm not above padding the stats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should have the reputation classifications the same as D & D character alignment. For example (unless proven otherwise) I see S. John as Evil Chaotic.

Interesting you should say that. I looked at my profile and under my reputation it says "Neutral".

Seriously!

We already *are* in a giant D&D game and we never knew it... :uhoh:

I just checked my profile again and I am now Good. :o

*bows to Ixodes*

(Really needs to say whether Lawful or Chaotic though)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My real, true concern is this: If this rating system is to somehow help the overall quality of posts and discussions, a simple +/- 1 isn't really going to help. You've assigned a quantitative value to a qualitative assessment. Was I voted down because I had an inflammatory post? I was rude? Or was it simply because my prose sucks, and my valid point got lost in my poor expression? Was I voted up because you agree with me? Because I was concise and to the point?

And as an aside: A small value on either side of zero isn't all that helpful either. +2 because a handful of people voted, or like 30 people waged a divisive war while rating the post? We don't actually know.

These are good points. It's a crude measure indeed, but hopefully it's not going to stop some people actually replying as per usual to point out what they have issues with. ;)

It is interesting trying to guess why a post is attracting - points, but I haven't found it difficult to work out why the + ones in most cases (well, surprised to get some on my posts, and unexpectedly pleased).

Honestly, I like it so far. I think its fun. Theres something pretty satisfying about hitting that minus button.

I like kittens!

:lol:

See - it's working!

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

solo,

i can't imagine that the minority here is intimidatable, though--whether that minority is defined as conservative boarders (which may or may not be the case) or far leftists. i'm certain that commodore, scot, sam, el ah, and our other regular rightwing posters won't be scared off by a little negative blip on the bottom of the screen. more likely it'd be read as a badge of honor.

i also can't imagine that the handful of reds up in this bitch will commit board seppuku just because they receive a numerical register of the displeasure that their ideas normally receive in routine discourse away from the internet.

This is what I was looking for. Well done, sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should have the reputation classifications the same as D & D character alignment. For example (unless proven otherwise) I see S. John as Evil Chaotic.

I was just coming to post to say we should think of the reputation as a sorta geeky alignment system. I was beaten to it. I'd so Up your Viva but I'm all +'ed out for the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So ... everyone starts out as Lawful Neutral: no particular votes.

Then if your posts are loved by all, you become Lawful Good. Conversely, if your posts are hated by all, Lawful Evil.

And then, lets say your posts are divisive. Lots of plus and minus posts, leaving you Neutral -- now you're Chaotic Neutral. And if they just happen to tilt towards a negative or positive reputation, Chaotic Evil or Chaotic Good.

Now I just need to find someone to make a mod... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So ... everyone starts out as Lawful Neutral: no particular votes.

Then if your posts are loved by all, you become Lawful Good. Conversely, if your posts are hated by all, Lawful Evil.

And then, lets say your posts are divisive. Lots of plus and minus posts, leaving you Neutral -- now you're Chaotic Neutral. And if they just happen to tilt towards a negative or positive reputation, Chaotic Evil or Chaotic Good.

Now I just need to find someone to make a mod... ;)

:P

Well, until that time you could use the 4th edition D&D alignment scale:

lawful good, good, unaligned, evil, chaotic evil... :P

I like your suggestion better though ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:P

Well, until that time you could use the 4th edition D&D alignment scale:

lawful good, good, unaligned, evil, chaotic evil... :P

I like your suggestion better though ;)

Ad&D 2nd Ed! (/waits for the flood of negatives)

(That was the one with The Cavalier wasn't it?!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of being able to give a positive or negative reaction to a post. I am not sure I like referring to it as "reputation" though as that imputes like/dislike of the poster rather than the post. I use that like/dislike feature on Facebook when I basically agree or like what someone has said, but don't really have anything new to add. It is kind of annoying to write/read posts that basically ramble around when all the person wants to do is say that they agree with a prior post. I like that FB allows you to see the names of who liked it and who didn't like it.

I think Soph has it right that less active members might be more apt to participate in that way. I usually won't post in a thread if I think that my point of view has already been well represented by another post, but I think it would still be nice to be able to chime in without having to clutter up the thread with another post saying, "I agree with so-and-so"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, until that time you could use the 4th edition D&D alignment scale:

lawful good, good, unaligned, evil, chaotic evil... :P

I strongly resent the insinuation that law is a force of good and chaos is associated with evil. When did dnd become a font for totalitarian propaganda?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...