Post Ratings Discussion

[Mourning Dove]

I agree, considering the recent developments surrounding OPL's piercing, I think we need a "disgusted" or "horrified" rating. I've been using "Feels" for certain graphic/horrifying posts, but they don't quite communicate my proper emotions towards the posts. This new rating can be a neutral one, like Autistic, Optimistic, or Off-Topic.

 

[Guardian G.I.]

I agree, considering the recent developments surrounding OPL's piercing, I think we need a "disgusted" or "horrified" rating. I've been using "Feels" for certain graphic/horrifying posts, but they don't quite communicate my proper emotions towards the posts. This new rating can be a neutral one, like Autistic, Optimistic, or Off-Topic.

I agree. We all need a "horrified" rating.

 

[Konstantinos]

I agree, considering the recent developments surrounding OPL's piercing, I think we need a "disgusted" or "horrified" rating. I've been using "Feels" for certain graphic/horrifying posts, but they don't quite communicate my proper emotions towards the posts. This new rating can be a neutral one, like Autistic, Optimistic, or Off-Topic.

I second this motion. Ratings like "Dislike" and "Autistic" don't adequately convey the disgust most people feel towards the likes of Nick Bate and Tyce.

 

[Null]

Ratings reflect the post's dissemination of content, not the content itself. If it did, every post on the Lolcow boards would be autistic.

 

[Le Bateleur]

When calculating the likes and dislikes leaderboard, is it possible to alter the method so that a single user's contribution to another user's likes or dislikes total is capped at a certain amount? This could be a specific number or a percentage.

The main advantage of this is that it prevents one user singlehandedly placing another on the dislikes (or likes) high score list.

It also means that both boards would more accurately reflect which users post content that is widely appreciated or not welcomed, respectively.

 

[Null]

When calculating the likes and dislikes leaderboard, is it possible to alter the method so that a single user's contribution to another user's likes or dislikes total is capped at a certain amount? This could be a specific number or a percentage.

The main advantage of this is that it prevents one user singlehandedly placing another on the dislikes (or likes) high score list.

It also means that both boards would more accurately reflect which users post content that is widely appreciated or not welcomed, respectively.

Eh, that's be really complicated to sort out.

If a single user is abusing the system to harass another user they should be reported. The shit between Male and Hunger Mythos is exactly what I don't want to see.

 

[Null]

Ratings reflect the post's dissemination of content, not the content itself. If it did, every post on the Lolcow boards would be autistic.

To the people who keep begging for the horror rating. That's not what ratings are for.

 

[hm yeah]

i was gonna suggest using a "the scream" face for a horror rating, but whatever

 

[rocket]

I don't exactly frequent chat so this may have already been shot down since the topic was discussed, but on the topic of making negative ratings more meaningful: is there a way a negative rating can subtract from the positive total? There's been a fair amount of bragging about the post/positive ratio.

 

[hm yeah]

actually, an "i'm confused"/"i don't get it" rating, represented by a simple question mark, may be good to have around.

still would like a horror rating though.

 

[Holdek]

How about "Eww."?

 

[OBAMATRON]

Retaliatory negative ratings are pathetic and reflect poorly on your sense of self worth.

 

[Null]

Like, I intended the rating system to be used as a form of feedback, and people take it seriously, but I get the idea people take it too seriously.

 

[EI 903]

Like, I intended the rating system to be used as a form of feedback, and people take it seriously, but I get the idea people take it too seriously.

They do, but that's part of the fun.

 

[sparklemilhouse]

It feels like someone has been abusing da hell out of the alog rating lately in the Chris forum?

 

[exball]

One way or another, the A-logs are going to win.

 

[DustygreeneNCR]

They replaced the A-log rating with an off topic one. Am I the only person who thinks the A-log rating is pretty useful? Certainly not as off-topic, but it is able to convey a thread as possibly BEING A-loggy and just mean spirited.

 

[Holdek]

One way or another, the A-logs are going to win.

And the weens are gonna A-log.

 

[sparklemilhouse]

I got an "alog" the other day for saying that Kai dresses like a toddler. I was just stating the truth.

 

[Null]

I got an "alog" the other day for saying that Kai dresses like a toddler. I was just stating the truth.

A-Logging isn't defined by being incorrect. Chris is unhygienic, overweight, and pretty unsympathetic. Writing "Chris is a disgusting fat piece of shit" can be said to be true true but it's still a-logging.

Ultimately the system is peer review only. If you feel it's incorrect, don't concern yourself with it.