Post Ratings Discussion

[Ti-99/4A]

What is the grand total of negative ratings given out and what percentage of those are just TJ Church and Holden?

 

[Null]

39,844 negative ratings.total
16,770 ratings belonging to Holden and Cowlick

42% share between them.

 

[KingofManga420]

Out of curiosity who's given the most dumb ratings?

 

[Uzumaki]

Could you do that thing again when you post the ten most liked posts? Given the influx of new users and the expansion of the rating system I imagine the list has changed substantially.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Brother, the Hulkster thinks there should be a probationary period before being allowed to rank (like 50 or 100 posts).

Way too many people have no idea what a-logging is. They think posting "wow Chris is an idiot for getting arrested again" is a-logging.

You end up with things like this (taken from a user with zero posts):

 

[Null]

@Hulk Hogan Most of our friendly lurkers like to rate without posting. It's not fair to them. That person, however, is clearly using only negative ratings. Please report their profile.

 

[P-Logic]

If there's an A-Log rating, then I think there should also be a white knight rating.

 

[Holdek]

@Hulk Hogan Most of our friendly lurkers like to rate without posting. It's not fair to them.

Maybe a longer probationary as in the amount of time your account has been active? That way it applies to lurkers as well as posters.

If there's an A-Log rating, then I think there should also be a white knight rating.

Is white knighting really a problem here, though?

 

[Coster]

Is white knighting really a problem here, though?

Are you paying attention to who suggested a white knight rating?

 

[P-Logic]

Is white knighting really a problem here, though?

Is the ratings system designed to solve problems?

 

[Null]

Maybe a longer probationary as in the amount of time your account has been active? That way it applies to lurkers as well as posters.

That's not a terrible idea. I could make it a 3-day thing like we have with off-topic. People may be confused why they can't vote, though. I may leave a message there.

If there's an A-Log rating, then I think there should also be a white knight rating.

Maybe. I'm thinking that "Optimistic" is usually what people rate White Knighting.

 

[Null]

Addendum:

Is the ratings system designed to solve problems?

It's a more tactile feedback system. It encourages group-think in some ways, but it also tells new posters what sort of posts are frowned upon.

Are you paying attention to who suggested a white knight rating?

P-Logic is probably the only person who genuinely does not give a shit about ratings in any way. I think this is the first time he's even publicly acknowledged the system exists.

 

[Null]

I'm thinking of changing the way ratings work.

Lets say you have a post. You get 100 winners, 5 autistics. Your grand total will reflect 1 winner rating, 0 autistic ratings. I'm also considering making it have a threshold, like 5, so if you get 3 ratings in total you get 0 points.

This stems from a things:
1) Stray shitty ratings on high-visibility good posts.
2) To reduce the impact of revenge-rating.
3) Single high-visibility bad posts accumulating dozens of negative ratings on an otherwise good poster's record.
4) People piling on off-topic ratings on a person who doesn't really need that many negative votes.

Discuss.

 

[pickleniggo]

I'm thinking of changing the way ratings work.

Lets say you have a post. You get 100 winners, 5 autistics. Your grand total will reflect 1 winner rating, 0 autistic ratings. I'm also considering making it have a threshold, like 5, so if you get 3 ratings in total you get 0 points.

This stems from a things:
1) Stray shitty ratings on high-visibility good posts.
2) To reduce the impact of revenge-rating.
3) Single high-visibility bad posts accumulating dozens of negative ratings on an otherwise good poster's record.
4) People piling on off-topic ratings on a person who doesn't really need that many negative votes.

Discuss.

I kind of like this since I've randomly been getting negative ratings on posts that are otherwise appreciated by others. It's really affecting my forum ego.

 

[4Macie]

I'm thinking of changing the way ratings work.

Lets say you have a post. You get 100 winners, 5 autistics. Your grand total will reflect 1 winner rating, 0 autistic ratings. I'm also considering making it have a threshold, like 5, so if you get 3 ratings in total you get 0 points.

This stems from a things:
1) Stray shitty ratings on high-visibility good posts.
2) To reduce the impact of revenge-rating.
3) Single high-visibility bad posts accumulating dozens of negative ratings on an otherwise good poster's record.
4) People piling on off-topic ratings on a person who doesn't really need that many negative votes.

Discuss.

Would this be newly implemented starting now? Or would it go through all our posts and adjust?

 

[Null]

Would this be newly implemented starting now? Or would it go through all our posts and adjust?

If I took the time to do this it would have to work retroactively.

 

[Sweet and Savoury]

If I took the time to do this it would have to work retroactively.

It seems like an awful lot of work for very little, are ratings really bothering folks so much?

I figured ratings were just for shits and giggles

 

[Null]

It seems like an awful lot of work for very little, are ratings really bothering folks so much?

Yes.

However, I feel that new people or casual posters are often too frequently discouraged from posting because they get shit on by ratings. I also think it's really bullshit that someone can make one off-topic post and get 50 negative ratings because people dogpile that shit.

 

[KingofManga420]

Yes.

However, I feel that new people or casual posters are often too frequently discouraged from posting because they get shit on by ratings. I also think it's really bullshit that someone can make one off-topic post and get 50 negative ratings because people dogpile that shit.

Is there a way to set a cap for off topic ratings on a post maybe? Like 3-5?

For the record I also think the whole thing sounds like a lot of work but I guess it doesn't really matter that much since its just ratings.

 

[Joan Nyan]

Yes.

However, I feel that new people or casual posters are often too frequently discouraged from posting because they get shit on by ratings. I also think it's really bullshit that someone can make one off-topic post and get 50 negative ratings because people dogpile that shit.

I think anyone who's that bothered by their ratings takes the internet too seriously and should go back to Tumblr.