Post Ratings Discussion

[Sexual Stallone]

Dont even pretend that you dont want a #$wag rating

 

[CatParty]

ratings need more #$wag

 

[Sexual Stallone]

make it either a dollar sign icon or a hashtag icon #420pussayallnight

 

[Mourning Dove]

Every time someone gives the autistic rating to a post, we should donate $0.01 cents to Autism Awareness instead of Chris.

 

[TrippinKahlua]

I know exactly what "A-Log" means, but let me tell you I love getting A-Log ratings. Its just funny to imagine myself in that hat.

 

[TL 611]

Can you draw a picture of what you want?

I edited the post to be a little clearer while you were responding, but if you still need a graphic for further clarification I can do that when I get home. Out with the family rn.

I like Himawari's idea. Quite often when scrolling through active threads, you're skimming through pages and pages of stuff and you miss certain informative posts. I think what Himawari was suggesting was a little "i" icon at the top of certain posts as a header. So you could see at a glance which posts in a thread are worth reading.

However I think I've thought of a better way maybe... it may just make threads look gaudy. Could we possibly highlight posts with 60%+ "Informative" rating? Have the entire post a slightly different grey to usual, or a light blue or something. Provided a kinda shitty MSpaint thing:

The difference in colour of the posts doesn't need to be a lot or anything, just a sliiight distinction. Maybe. I dunno it's not necessary but I'm just putting my two-cents in.

 

[Goodbad Girl]

I'm mostly a lurker, so I don't post very often. Since the changes, I hadn't been able to rate anything since I have yet to make 20 posts, but today I noticed that I can (still no access to the "off-topic" section). I'm curious: is this an error, or has it been changed so that now every user has the ability to rate posts? (Apologies if this has already been addressed on another thread)

 

[Null]

I'm mostly a lurker, so I don't post very often. Since the changes, I hadn't been able to rate anything since I have yet to make 20 posts, but today I noticed that I can (still no access to the "off-topic" section). I'm curious: is this an error, or has it been changed so that now every user has the ability to rate posts? (Apologies if this has already been addressed on another thread)

Nah I changed it back to allow everyone because I felt it unfairly punished lurkers.

 

[Morbid Boredom]

Hi! I joined about a week ago, having lurked here for months. I have only seen the older system in use, and only posted under the new system.

I cannot say the option of multiple ranking is better (how would I know?), but I do like it -and yes, I have (sometimes) avoided making redundant comments just by giving "a nod" to one of the people who put it better than I could have.

 

[Abethedemon]

I think we should be able to add more than one rating, for example if something both autistic and informative or late but good.

 

[Holdek]

I think we should be able to add more than one rating, for example if something both autistic and informative or late but good.

Sorry, but your idea is both gay and unrealistic.

 

[Himawari]

Sorry, but your idea is both gay and unrealistic.

I can't give you the actual rating in this forum so I hope this will do:

 

[Null]

Ratings by use amount.

Agree, 24165
Winner, 11561
Informative, 8638
Press 1, 8334
Autistic, 4902
Friendly, 4241
Optimistic, 3186
Dumb, 2534
Disagree, 1340
A-Log, 955
Old, 701
Off-Topic, 494
Dislike, 439
DRINK!, 350
Press 2, 210

 

[Le Bateleur]

Ratings by use amount.

Agree, 24165
Winner, 11561
Informative, 8638
Press 1, 8334
Autistic, 4902
Friendly, 4241
Optimistic, 3186
Dumb, 2534
Disagree, 1340
A-Log, 955
Old, 701
Off-Topic, 494
Dislike, 439
DRINK!, 350
Press 2, 210

Cool data.

I've given out 5% of all the A-Log ratings and 6% of all the Old ratings to date

Also 2% of the Winner ratings and 3% of the Agrees though.

 

[Holdek]

Cool data.

I've given out 5% of all the A-Log ratings and 6% of all the Old ratings to date

Also 2% of the Winner ratings and 3% of the Agrees though.

Well aren't you a negative Nancy!

 

[Pikonic]

Ratings by use amount.

Agree, 24165
Winner, 11561
Informative, 8638
Press 1, 8334
Autistic, 4902
Friendly, 4241
Optimistic, 3186
Dumb, 2534
Disagree, 1340
A-Log, 955
Old, 701
Off-Topic, 494
Dislike, 439
DRINK!, 350
Press 2, 210

Nice to see the negatives are close to the bottom.

Cool data.

I've given out 5% of all the A-Log ratings and 6% of all the Old ratings to date

Also 2% of the Winner ratings and 3% of the Agrees though.

You're like the Anti-Holdek

 

[Da Pickle Monsta]

Can we get a barfing rating or an eye bleach rating or some other way to indicate that we've been on the receiving end of way too much information in the rating system?

 

[Null]

Can we get a barfing rating or an eye bleach rating or some other way to indicate that we've been on the receiving end of way too much information in the rating system?

I think the use case is too narrow. Autistic covers that pretty well though. I can't tell if "TMI" is a explicitly negative thing or not.

 

[RetardBus]

I think the use case is too narrow. Autistic covers that pretty well though. I can't tell if "TMI" is a explicitly negative thing or not.

"Disgusting" or "Creepy" might also be good for horrocow threads like Nick Bate. I think that's what DPM might have meant.

 

[XYZpdq]

How about "Eww."?