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
Off-Topic should definitely be marked Negative, because it's main purpose is to police idiots who derail threads, but I think Optimistic should be kept gray because Optimistic is often used to signal/imply that someone is having unrealistic expectations about a situation, so it could go either way.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Optimistic
Reactions: WireSponge, Simplicity111, autism420 and 10 others
Optimistic is most of the time used with the meaning that places emphasis on the rainbow part of it anyway...
So uh, I have a little idea, not sure if suggested before - when you click on someone's profile, you could see all the ratings this user has given to you - so you can have some sort of idea what he/she thinks of you.
 
  • Feels
  • Like
Reactions: Count groudon and Holdek
SCRuler said:
So I'm a tad bit new to this.
I've determined that dumb gives negative rating and I'm guessing that "Feels" gives inherently positive rating.
I got at least three "Autistic" ratings, and it's decidedly neutral. Is it an inherent insult or what?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say it's inherently insulting, although it can be used in such a fashion. It's often a simple statement that, in the rater's opinion, the content of the post is characteristic of a communication style or worldview commonly seen in people with autism.

I suppose this is why it is classified as neutral.
 
  • Agree
  • Informative
Reactions: WireSponge, Simplicity111, CWCTime and 3 others
Optimistic's rainbow I don't think has anything to do with Chris and the LGBT, it's more like "That's optimistic" (with a rainbow, generally something "happy"), and thus neutral (sometimes a rainbow is just a rainbow)

Autistic is a bit more amorphous, I think--could be on the wrong side of Informative, or maybe a less mean "Dumb" post.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Simplicity111
So how do I rate something when it's not on the list? I've seen a few examples of Deviant and Horror, but it's not in the punchlist. I'm just wondering about that.

And to burst in on the Autistic/Optimistic thread, I can see optimistic being neutral, since its so nuanced, but autistic feels like it should be negative, at least based on when and how I use it as a rating. Autistic could be used to define intricacy, where a person has provided so much detail that it goes above "Informative", ie a good trait. However, it could also be used when the person is going on about a specific subject that interests no one, displays overly obsessive tendencies, or is too self absorbed and so on in their post to really listen to others. I usually like to use it for the latter points, since to me that fits more than the former as a descriptor and it conveys most of what I want to say, while the positive is literally covered by informative.

Optimistic on the other hand can go many ways. You can use it in its traditional way, where a person hopes that things will go well. You can use it when a person is being cheerful or determined about making something positive. Or you can use it for when the person is being naive or overly idealistic. I don't personally use it that often, since usually a post has another element in it I emphasize more, but it works beautifully as a neutral descriptor.
 
Horrifying is a 2014 charity reward. So is Deviant and Semper Fidelis on the Jace boards.

Optimistic is a fluff rating. Autistic is a fluff rating. You can mean it negatively or throw it on my posts when I write a 5 paragraph essay about network security.
 
  • Informative
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Simplicity111, IrnMayden14, Skeletor and 5 others
Just wondering, is there a reason in my "ratings given" I've appeard to have given ratings I dont have access to? Would I be correct in assuming that the new ratings share the tracking id of some of the ratings from before we culled a bunch of them?

Don't really care about the result, just curious as to the mechanism behind it.
 
Strelok said:
Just wondering, is there a reason in my "ratings given" I've appeard to have given ratings I dont have access to? Would I be correct in assuming that the new ratings share the tracking id of some of the ratings from before we culled a bunch of them?

Don't really care about the result, just curious as to the mechanism behind it.
Click to expand...

Same, although I don't recall giving a few on the ones listed in my profile at all, even including obsolete ratings listed.

EDIT: That would explain a lot. I rated a few things in that thread. Thanks for the info.:biggrin:

Thanks for the info by the by. That answered pretty much everything I wanted to know. As an aside, a white knight rating suggested earlier would actually be a good counter for the A-Log one, at least in my personal opinion.
 
Strelok said:
Just wondering, is there a reason in my "ratings given" I've appeard to have given ratings I dont have access to? Would I be correct in assuming that the new ratings share the tracking id of some of the ratings from before we culled a bunch of them?

Don't really care about the result, just curious as to the mechanism behind it.
Click to expand...
All of TJChurch's ratings were converted to Deviant in his honor after the rating was added.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: WireSponge, Simplicity111, Konstantinos and 1 other person
Adamska said:
Same, although I don't recall giving a few on the ones listed in my profile at all, even including obsolete ratings listed.

EDIT: That would explain a lot. I rated a few things in that thread. Thanks for the info.:biggrin:

Thanks for the info by the by. That answered pretty much everything I wanted to know. As an aside, a white knight rating suggested earlier would actually be a good counter for the A-Log one, at least in my personal opinion.
Click to expand...

That would just create more drama, as anyone who said anything not critical of Chris would get swamped with them.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Simplicity111
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back