Post Ratings Discussion

Should we have a fish hook rating?

  • Yea

    Votes: 1,032 85.5%

  • Nay

    Votes: 175 14.5%
  • Total voters
    1,207
I'm curious, is there ever a certain ceiling of negative ratings one can get before they are banned? I see that the two most negatively rated users are not banned, but I think they're also lolcow figures as well.
 
Mourning Dove said:
I'm curious, is there ever a certain ceiling of negative ratings one can get before they are banned? I see that the two most negatively rated users are not banned, but I think they're also lolcow figures as well.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. Pretty sure it's still case-by-case.

LOLCows are kept around despite really high negs because they keep giving fresh lulzmilk.

And, for example, Hunger Mythos and Male got into a ratings war the likes of which this forum has never seen (wow such carnage) so they are on the board for most negs but they won't be banned (hopefully).

And I racked up a lot of negs because when I said I sent Chris some money some people went berserk.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: IrnMayden14 and Mourning Dove
Mourning Dove said:
I'm curious, is there ever a certain ceiling of negative ratings one can get before they are banned? I see that the two most negatively rated users are not banned, but I think they're also lolcow figures as well.
Click to expand...
The top 2 most negative rated people are lolcows "defending their honor" or some shit.
I don't think there should be a cap on how many negative rating you get before a bann. If you get banned it's because the people who help run this site objectively decided you are breaking rules and are bad for the community, as opposed to someone who disagrees with you managed to assemble a personal army of autism givers.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: Simplicity111, Randall Fragg, Da Pickle Monsta and 3 others
Well, like Null said- the ratings are peer ratings. You get kicked off the site for rules violations or making it a worse place. Having a lot of bad ratings just means the community thinks you're an idiot. Different things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WireSponge and Simplicity111
I hate to see the wisdom in anything about social media, but at this point I completely see the merit in why there are no "negative" feedback rankings on most social media. We've gotten everything including:

1. Spergs creating alts to boost their arguments/neg their enemies.
2. Just random people who average like 1 post a month -- just a totally irrelevant contribution to content -- but have handed out hundreds, sometimes thousands of ratings.
3. Closet autists who rank every fucking post they read. Like you can imagine them with pipe and a cup of tea, weighing the merits of a poster's controversial assertion that Chris shits himself and is possibly gay.
4. Revenge rankings.
5. The fact that you can post just about anything non-ween but slightly mean in Discussion and they love it like flies on shit.

and -- not directed at anyone in this thread -- but

6. Whiney shit. Yeah, I'm aware of the complaining-about-complaining thing with this one, but it's true.
 
  • Autistic
  • Like
  • Dumb
Reactions: Pineapple Fox, Simplicity111, CisCat and 8 others
I think most sites with rating systems (Reddit comes to mind) all seem to have issues with the abuse of the system and in some cases, it enforces a hive mind mentality. I think in our case, it's useful to have certain ratings just so we don't have a shitload of posts in a thread that are just variants of "I agree/I disagree", "HI A-LOG!", etc.

It's not really worth getting too worked up with the ratings though. If your only form of validation is from an Internet forum discussing an autistic manchild and other autistics, I think you should try and get some help in boosting your self esteem. I made a comment saying how I liked Chris's choice of music in his latest video and someone rated me as an "A-Log" because they interpreted that to be a sarcastic comment. But I only have 3 negative ratings out of 1150 or so positive ones so I'm not getting worked up over that.

I don't want to see people get banned purely on the basis of the ratings. In the past, we had issues where people would look at our posts and think that people who said stuff like "I think Chris is a worthless piece of shit who needs to die for his crimes against autistics like me" had some tremendous weight over other posts when now, people will probably downrate a post like that fast and people looking at it will see that everybody thinks the said poster is full of it. Making bad posts isn't really a bannable offense, it's things that break the rules which are primarily based off people's safety and to have a standard set for discussion. Trust me, the bar is pretty low for discussion here.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Winner
Reactions: Pineapple Fox, WireSponge, Randall Fragg and 11 others
I think I'm only really reiterating things that have been said before but I like ratings in the sense that they allow you to give input on something without, like someone said previously, there being a flood of "I agree with your post" or "ur post is dumb kill urself" afterwards. As long as that's the only function they serve and have no effect on anything than your e-peen then they work pretty well and save a bunch of fluff to sift through in threads.

We should be lucky we don't have that 'smartness' system that Facepunch used to have, otherwise things would get messy real quick.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: José Mourinho, Coster, Fibonacci and 3 others
Altissimo said:
can we get a rating that means "use the search function, dumbass"
Click to expand...
We call that "late." The "late" rating can be used when a post doesn't convey any new information because it has already been posted before, or asks for information that has already been made well known. If someone didn't use the search function they are by definition late because they're posting or asking about something that has already been covered elsewhere.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Agree
Reactions: Pineapple Fox, Simplicity111, José Mourinho and 4 others
It's going back a while now so I don't remember the finer points, but you had a 'smartness' rating score which was raised or lowered by certain factors. Terrible spelling would knock points off for example, correcting your mistakes or not making any would earn you points back. It was mainly used to stop 'ppl typn lik dis bby'. Certain words would drain points too.

Your score affected your permissions on the forums too I think. It was dumb but kinda fun.
 
  • Informative
  • Autistic
Reactions: IrnMayden14, Holdek, Smutley and 1 other person
I have a question for either null or the mods concerning the new rating system and trophies. Is having 250 positive ratings the same as 250 likes?
 
AnchuentProphecy said:
I have a question for either null or the mods concerning the new rating system and trophies. Is having 250 positive ratings the same as 250 likes?
Click to expand...
At least some trophies dependent on likes are dependent on likes only. For example @Holdek has 4160 posts and 4648 positive ratings, but only 3660 likes. He does not have the trophy for having a 1:1 like:post ratio and 500+ posts even though his positive ratings exceed his posts. It might be different for the 100/250 likes trophies but I doubt it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Holdek
champthom said:
I think most sites with rating systems (Reddit comes to mind) all seem to have issues with the abuse of the system and in some cases, it enforces a hive mind mentality. I think in our case, it's useful to have certain ratings just so we don't have a shitload of posts in a thread that are just variants of "I agree/I disagree", "HI A-LOG!", etc.

It's not really worth getting too worked up with the ratings though. If your only form of validation is from an Internet forum discussing an autistic manchild and other autistics, I think you should try and get some help in boosting your self esteem. I made a comment saying how I liked Chris's choice of music in his latest video and someone rated me as an "A-Log" because they interpreted that to be a sarcastic comment. But I only have 3 negative ratings out of 1150 or so positive ones so I'm not getting worked up over that.

I don't want to see people get banned purely on the basis of the ratings. In the past, we had issues where people would look at our posts and think that people who said stuff like "I think Chris is a worthless piece of shit who needs to die for his crimes against autistics like me" had some tremendous weight over other posts when now, people will probably downrate a post like that fast and people looking at it will see that everybody thinks the said poster is full of it. Making bad posts isn't really a bannable offense, it's things that break the rules which are primarily based off people's safety and to have a standard set for discussion. Trust me, the bar is pretty low for discussion here.
Click to expand...

Today's inspirational quote:
RKjTBL4.png
 
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: WireSponge, Konstantinos, Pikonic and 6 others
I have a question: how many ratings does one person have to give in order to be banned from giving them? I can't give A-log or Late ratings anymore. I rarely use them compared to my Agree and Like ratings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back