Post Ratings Discussion

[Uzumaki]

This new system would not deprive a person of short-term feedback, only long-term repercussions.

Okay so you're saying under the new system all the ratings would stay visible on the individual posts, but only the total "final rating" applies to your weird little green total thing? Am I following correctly?

I think people take the post-by-post ratings a lot more seriously than their overall total. The individual ratings on the posts are the most public and visible. If you can still see that someone got 50 dumbs on a post I don't know how much only giving them 1 red whatever will soften the blow.

It does, however, mean that if person A makes a post that gets 100 dumbs and person B makes a post with 5 dumbs, 4 agrees, 3 likes and a winner, they're both considered equally dumb for posterity. It destroys the community's ability to differentiate between different magnitudes of dumb.

This is exactly what the system would help weed out, but applied to something you personally are concerned with.

Here is where you've lost me. I don't see how this would encourage people to make more accurate use of the tags, it would just make it so that the misuses didn't "count" on the green/red total.

Unless I've yet again managed to completely miss the point.

In any event, I don't really care either way. Whatever makes people happy. I was never the target audience for the ratings system.

 

[Null]

@Null how does this effect my point totals?

Severely.

Okay so you're saying under the new system all the ratings would stay visible on the individual posts, but only the total "final rating" applies to your weird little green total thing? Am I following correctly?

Yes.

It does, however, mean that if person A makes a post that gets 100 dumbs and person B makes a post with 5 dumbs, 4 agrees, 3 likes and a winner, they're both considered equally dumb for posterity. It destroys the community's ability to differentiate between different magnitudes of dumb.

I think dumb people are self-evident in being dumb. A number doesn't affect that.

You're also completely ignoring why a scenario like that would happen. What, did the guy casually advocate raping infants or something after positively discussing Chris for a few days? Something like that just isn't going to happen. A normal situation is that a new poster makes one bad post and it results in a score that'll tag along for as long as he has an account. A dumb person like, like I Want Cake, will consistently make shitty posts.

The much more likely situation is that someone says something unpopular. They disagree with GamerGate, or say that obliging pronouns is dumb, or that Marvin is a shitlord or something. Maybe not retarded, just unpopular. With the groupthink mentality of the board, these sorts of ideas get brutally censored by people dogpiling on ratings.

If anything, it increases the weight of a dumb post. I mean, how fucking shit does something have to be where it only obtains "dumb" status after a community census is reached? A stray a-log rating makes you roll your eyes, but having a post affirmatively marked dumb will matter a lot more.

 

[CatParty]

Severely.

Then this idea is terrible

 

[Uzumaki]

I think dumb people are self-evident in being dumb. A number doesn't affect that.

I'm completely with you.

You're also completely ignoring why a scenario like that would happen. What, did the guy casually advocate raping infants or something after positively discussing Chris for a few days? Something like that just isn't going to happen. A normal situation is that a new poster makes one bad post and it results in a score that'll tag along for as long as he has an account. A dumb person like, like I Want Cake, will consistently make shitty posts.

But that's the thing. If someone makes a controversial post that gets a lot of diverse positive ratings but where dumbs just barely edge out the highest positive rating because of vindictive people who can't tolerate dissent, under the new system it would be just as black a mark on their record as someone saying literally the dumbest thing ever and got every person on the forum to rate it dumb. Obviously you have a broader perspective on this than me, but most of the posts I see with lots of dumb ratings really deserved them. It's the borderline cases that you're worried about that are being equivocated with the really really dumb posts under the new system.

I guess maybe an even stronger rating than dumb would help. Like you have one negative rating for "come on man, you're better than that" and another rating for "get off my screen". That way you can still track totals by post and not by rating, but the community can still adequately express disgust in shades of nuance.

 

[klystron]

Your point about the inherent arbitrariness of the ratings seems to imply that you should just leave it the way it is. I think seeking a "fair" rating system is a bit of a snipe hunt. I thought this was like Whose Line Is It Anywhere where everything is made up and the points don't matter. I've had people I was arguing with rate every one of my replies where I disagree with them autistic. I think that that kind of thing is hilariously petty, and reflects more poorly on them than me. People should see those stray negative ratings so they can see that kind of thing. Sometimes knowing who gives out dumb negative ratings is important information.

Well this discussion happened in another thread (TJChurch I want to say) but it got off-topic. There is a lot of dumb/autistic rating going on on this forum when "disagree" would do. But we can't expect everyone to be civil on the Internet. That said though, there's still a line to be drawn. If I am discussing welfare reform with someone and they say something like "well it's all those niggos taking advantage of the system" that's a dumb comment since I live in a virtually all-white state and have never seen so much welfare abuse. I could make the case for saying "dumb" but I would still personally use "disagree." Is it a dumb statement? Probably. But who is going to play the role of ultimate authority in the case of them appealing a "dumb" rating for that post?

Perhaps a metric for such a system would be to look at the number of positive vs negative ratings. For example, let's say I am discussing guns with a liberal forum member and I say they reduce crime. The liberal may rate me dumb. @The Dude would rate me agree. Therefore could the case be made that they should have rated me disagree instead? I would think the amount of time needed to solve all this crap would be a burden to the mods. This is why I support the "don't give a crap" method.

But that's the thing. If someone makes a controversial post that gets a lot of diverse positive ratings but where dumbs just barely edge out the highest positive rating because of vindictive people who can't tolerate dissent, under the new system it would be just as black a mark on their record as someone saying literally the dumbest thing ever and got every person on the forum to rate it dumb. Obviously you have a broader perspective on this than me, but most of the posts I see with lots of dumb ratings really deserved them. It's the borderline cases that you're worried about that are being equivocated with the really really dumb posts under the new system.

There's a lot of intolerance for dissent here. That's how it goes. Internet.

 

[ChurchOfGodBear]

FWIW - It seems like the A-Log rating really gets misused a lot, to the point where it's not even meaningful. It's supposed to mean something that's needlessly negative to the lolcow, but it's starting to be used like 'Disagree x 2'.

 

[Uzumaki]

There's a lot of intolerance for dissent here. That's how it goes. Internet.

This is why I preferred the "no ratings" system. So if someone disagreed with you they had to articulate why they disagreed with you, and if their reason was stupid it was laid bare for all to see. It takes a bit more balls to say "you're wrong and here's why" than to press a button to give someone a garbage can sticker.

But if we're going to bother having them I think it's worthwhile to note both the frequency and magnitude of bad posts.

FWIW - It seems like the A-Log rating really gets misused a lot, to the point where it's not even meaningful. It's supposed to mean something that's needlessly negative to the lolcow, but it's starting to be used like 'Disagree x 2'.

Yeah it's not really a tool that's useful to put in the hands of newbies, since it's so steeped in the forum culture. Maybe it could be one of those special reward ratings like deviant. Then by the time someone actually got access to it they'd have a sense of what the term means. In any event I find I disagree with it's use more than I agree with it.

 

[Morbid Boredom]

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.

I got really bent out of shape over negative ratings my first month, here, I confess. Now, I just use it more as a warning. If someone posts something really obnoxious, I check their profile -if they're pretty deep in the red, I'll avoid engaging them -after all, I'm not crazy, everyone thinks that user is an asshole.

 

[ChurchOfGodBear]

I got really bent out of shape over negative ratings my first month, here, I confess. Now, I just use it more as a warning. If someone posts something really obnoxious, I check their profile -if they're pretty deep in the red, I'll avoid engaging them -after all, I'm not crazy, everyone thinks that user is an asshole.

I do that too. When someone's really unhinged, there's no point in getting your hands dirty messing with them.

Unless they're a lolcow visiting their own thread. Then that shit's on like Donkey Kong.

 

[Clown Doll]

Maybe it could be one of those special reward ratings like deviant

This means that only a tiny handful gets to rate people 'a-log' which makes it even less useful, assuming it was that in the first place.I think you could make the case for it to be tied into your post count or time spent on this forum but making it a donator-only rating will render it completely and utterly irrelevant.

I guess maybe an even stronger rating than dumb would help. Like you have one negative rating for "come on man, you're better than that" and another rating for "get off my screen".

The tools provided by this forum are great, everything that's wrong with them is user error. If people can't mentally process what "dumb" is and how to understand it's context when given by someone then no amount of technical fixing is going to help in that.

This is why I preferred the "no ratings" system. So if someone disagreed with you they had to articulate why they disagreed with you, and if their reason was stupid it was laid bare for all to see..

The thing is that the ratings system was meant to cut down on pointless "I agree!" or "I disagree!"-posts.

It takes a bit more balls to say "you're wrong and here's why" than to press a button to give someone a garbage can sticker..

Also takes more time and articulation which is a victory to the shitposter that's not breaking the rules but puts out a lot of autistic no-effort posts that you could voice your disapproval to by simply tagging them "dumb".

FWIW - It seems like the A-Log rating really gets misused a lot, to the point where it's not even meaningful. It's supposed to mean something that's needlessly negative to the lolcow, but it's starting to be used like 'Disagree x 2'.

Just look at the context and if it has nothing to do with lolcows, report them for false rating or shit.

 

[Trickie]

I think this new system is a good idea if this sort of thing is really a problem for newbies, but I would also really miss being able to see how many total positive ratings I've gotten. Is there any way we could keep a running total off to the side somewhere, even if it's only a total of the positive ratings?

 

[ChurchOfGodBear]

Just look at the context and if it has nothing to do with lolcows, report them for false rating or shit.

Is that a reportable offense?

 

[Clown Doll]

Is that a reportable offense?

Abusing the ratings system in general is a reportable offense and it can lead to people's rating privileges to be taken away.

if this sort of thing is really a problem for newbies

Imo people like Rat Droppings and that girl who doxxed Savannah Chandler deserved to be shot down in a hail of garbage cans,but that's just my opinion.

 

[klystron]

This is why I preferred the "no ratings" system. So if someone disagreed with you they had to articulate why they disagreed with you, and if their reason was stupid it was laid bare for all to see. It takes a bit more balls to say "you're wrong and here's why" than to press a button to give someone a garbage can sticker.

But if we're going to bother having them I think it's worthwhile to note both the frequency and magnitude of bad posts.

I would be fine with "no ratings" myself. But hey, it's also fun. I mean a lot of times someone with 50 drink ratings makes me laugh or something like that.

Also, disagree should be used more because it's a positive rating. It doesn't mean you agree, but it shows respect.

I think this new system is a good idea if this sort of thing is really a problem for newbies, but I would also really miss being able to see how many total positive ratings I've gotten. Is there any way we could keep a running total off to the side somewhere, even if it's only a total of the positive ratings?

I think Trickie doesn't need any positive ratings because people rant and rave over her comic. Seriously though, you guys make a good point about scaring newbies off. Especially people who don't know our culture (but are certainly capable of picking it up) who come in and ask a question about Chris that we know or have some "trolling idea" and he gets 50 negative posts and a locked thread. Maybe it would be a good idea to hide newbie ratings (or disallow them) until after 10 posts or something.

Another idea would be to turn ratings off once a thread is locked.

 

[Holdek]

It's an interesting idea Null, but it also has its drawbacks as Uzumaki has articulated. I'd say what's edging me against it though is that it's going to be more complex and perhaps less intuitive to the users.

As far as "really dumb" rating...well I guess we could add that, or just make "dislike" a negative rating that should be used above "dumb."

 

[klystron]

Why not just make an overall score for each user that can go from -1 to 1 then weight ratings into that as well as the rater.

Let's say I'm a new user, and I post in the introduction thread. I get two likes and a dumb. My current score would essentially be .66. Now let's say that on my next post, the person who rated me dumb in the first post rates me dumb again. Instead of being 0 (I have 2 likes and 2 dumbs, which should be even) I have something like .33. If someone else rated me dumb though, I'd have 0. In fact, further weighting could come from how many positive or negative ratings the rater has given. If someone likes to rate a lot of people negatively his rating would contribute less to the overall score than someone who rarely does so.

Individual contributions to the formula of the various ratings themselves could allow the scores to be biased towards positive or whatever. Something like "disagree" could contribute positively but less than "agree" for example.

Obviously this concept would require us to come up with some agreed upon formulae but it could be done. Of course, I'm just throwing this out there so I can geek-out over the discussion.

 

[Xarpho]

It's an interesting idea Null, but it also has its drawbacks as Uzumaki has articulated. I'd say what's edging me against it though is that it's going to be more complex and perhaps less intuitive to the users.

As far as "really dumb" rating...well I guess we could add that, or just make "dislike" a negative rating that should be used above "dumb."

If a post is actually "really dumb", it will get multiple negative ratings, if it's just some sperg with an axe to grind, the one dumb to an agree or a like or whatever shouldn't make much of a difference.

 

[Le Bateleur]

While I like the idea of modal ratings evening out the "front page effect" whereby the total ratings a post receives is significantly influenced by where in a thread it gets posted, I have to say that I think the system generally works well. Looking at the lists of most positives received and most negatives received, I have to say it reflects pretty well which users stand out as good and bad contributors to the community. This demonstrates that, over time, things like the "front page effect" tend to even themselves out.

This becomes even more pronounced when you look at a ratio of positive ratings:posts. The current high-scorers on this metric, based on me doing the maths in my head, are DeagleDad, Skyraider and _blank_ - each of whom regularly bring in popular content.

Maybe it would be informative to display the ratio of positives:posts in users' profiles?

 

[klystron]

If a post is actually "really dumb", it will get multiple negative ratings, if it's just some sperg with an axe to grind, the one dumb to an agree or a like or whatever shouldn't make much of a difference.

Surely no kiwi would have an axe to grind and rate anyone's posts negatively just because. That'd be silly.

 

[Xarpho]

Surely no kiwi would have an axe to grind and rate anyone's posts negatively just because. That'd be silly.

You'd hope so, but there's at least one or two I can think of off hand...