Post Ratings Discussion

[exball]

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

For the most part, I agree. But some people end up dogpiled with like 50 offtopics and autistics. It's a bit unfair to them.

 

[Joan Nyan]

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.

But what if you see something that you think is autistic and 100 other people have rated it winner (see: all of discussion)? Does your "vote" not count then? I mean, i know the ratings don't matter but still.

 

[Sweet and Savoury]

Might be easier/better to just make other ratings invisible.

You see your own but not others. No doggy style ratings then.

Just let the owner of the post see ratings in his history thingie and they can still bitch to thier hearts content about drama and revenge posting.

After all ratings should be about what you think about the post not what button every other A-log hit.

 

[Coster]

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.

I like the idea of capping off-topic ratings. You don't need 20 people saying you're off-topic.

 

[klystron]

The best thing to do with ratings is not give a crap.

 

[Dr. Meme]

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 don't like this, the feeling of having a billion points on your profile is worth making quality posts. Negative ratings are usually well deserved, and if not you can always report a user.

 

[CatParty]

Don't change a thing. Everything is fine.

 

[klystron]

I don't like this, the feeling of having a billion points on your profile is worth making quality posts. Negative ratings are usually well deserved, and if not you can always report a user.

How do you make a case that someone unfairly rated you negatively? The entire thing is arbitrary.

 

[Null]

Might be easier/better to just make other ratings invisible.

You see your own but not others. No doggy style ratings then.

Just let the owner of the post see ratings in his history thingie and they can still bitch to thier hearts content about drama and revenge posting.

After all ratings should be about what you think about the post not what button every other A-log hit.

This is an exceedingly good idea and seriously reduces the amount of effort.

 

[Adamska]

I kind of like that overall reflection set-up where the majority rating is the one seen, although how does that averaging work? Is it first past the post, simple majority, set majority amount?

Does the five ratings total mean a person can only get at most five different ratings though? That chunk I'm not really understanding here.

 

[Null]

I kind of like that overall reflection set-up where the majority rating is the one seen, although how does that averaging work? Is it first past the post, simple majority, set majority amount?

Does the five ratings total mean a person can only get at most five different ratings though? That chunk I'm not really understanding here.

You make a post.
Null and KatsuKitty rate you agree.
Champthom rates you like.
CatParty rates you informative.
Sweet and Savory rates you dislike.
DeagleDad420 rates you autistic.
Holdek rates you dumb.

You receive 1 agree rating.

 

[Adamska]

Ah, so it defaults to highest rating and prefers positive then. I think I understand now.

 

[Clown Doll]

But some people end up dogpiled with like 50 offtopics and autistics. It's a bit unfair to them.

The ratings literally don't mean anything and autistic isn't even a negative rating. They're literally just feelgood/feelbad pills you can give to other people.

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.

This means that ratings-whores who are still afraid of racking up negs will end up resorting even more to low-effort funnyman posts because "bad neutral" and negative ratings don't count for dick under the new system. Trollshielders will also benefit greatly because negative ratings are used relatively rarely so you'll basically be able to make scathing and shitty comments with reprisal because the uneven poz/neg ratio will drown out any negative ratings.

This stems from a things:
1) Stray shitty ratings on high-visibility good posts.

If people can't mentally prune the stray negatives from these posts and stop getting upset about racking a few virtual boo-boos then I don't know what to tell them.

2) To reduce the impact of revenge-rating.

That's why reports exist. An alternative would be that there's a cooldown if you neg-rate someone's posts multiple times in a row.

3 )Single high-visibility bad posts accumulating dozens of negative ratings on an otherwise good poster's record.

Most of those posts have been from people who either got banned shortly thereafter or on the spot for being aggressively bad shitposters. If they're getting a ton of negs on their post, isn't that a sign that they should remove it if they feel like they're being overwhelmed by negative feedback?.

4) People piling on off-topic ratings on a person who doesn't really need that many negative votes.

The negative ratings aren't as far as I know a shorthand to moderation, so whether somebody 'doesn't need' or needs negative posts is kind of absurd, it's the community's opinion whether the post deserves more or not. The only instances that I've witnessed forum lynching is Marjan thread and maybe Church thread where the lolcows in question are negative rated massively but they're both people who are denser than lead so their 'dumb' ratings are generally well deserved.

After all ratings should be about what you think about the post not what button every other A-log hit.

Knowing who rated who whatever is imo far more important than the rating itself, imo. If a forum member says something and you'll see for example a christorical figure, a moderator or a Verified person rate it "Agree", you'll know that it carries more weight and the implication changes based on what rating they tick on it. If some person gets a stray dumb, you'll know that "oh yeah, it's that butthurt loser who rates everyone's post "dumb" again". You'll also be better able to tell when trollshielding/whiteknighting cliques are jerking each other off and disregard a post's ratings if they come from unreputable sources. I used to be against the ratings system in general, but as it's been in use, I've come to find it invaluable to identify people who are like-minded with each other as well as gauging community reactions to certain things. The ratings in and itself basically do nothing, they're just trophies on your virtual wall, but seeing other people's ratings validates them more than they're supposed effect on the recipient, especially if they're averaged which means that individual people won't be able to make their opinion a post count for jack shit if they're averaged out of the equation.

 

[EI 903]

Ratings don't trigger anything, but it does help when I'm skimming through threads. If a top hat or an Off-Topic shows up, I know I should read the post closer. Same with anything that has a lot of Dumbs.

 

[Null]

This means that ratings-whores who are still afraid of racking up negs will end up resorting even more to low-effort funnyman posts because "bad neutral" and negative ratings don't count for dick under the new system.

They did this before the rating system and will continue to do so after any changes or removal of the system. Nothing stops a person from hitting the post button more than X amount of times.

Most of those posts have been from people who either got banned shortly thereafter or on the spot for being aggressively bad shitposters. If they're getting a ton of negs on their post, isn't that a sign that they should remove it if they feel like they're being overwhelmed by negative feedback?.

They would still see the number of ratings. The only thing changing would be the total numeration being based off bad posts versus negative ratings combined. You made one bad post, not a post so catastrophically bad it's worth 50 negative ratings.

The negative ratings aren't as far as I know a shorthand to moderation, so whether somebody 'doesn't need' or needs negative posts is kind of absurd, it's the community's opinion whether the post deserves more or not. The only instances that I've witnessed forum lynching is Marjan thread and maybe Church thread where the lolcows in question are negative rated massively but they're both people who are denser than lead so their 'dumb' ratings are generally well deserved.

The same shit happens to P-Logic, Connor, or anyone the community collectively decides they don't like. More myopically, it happens to individual posts that people decide they don't like.

But you're missing my point almost entirely. It's the idea that someone will make a newbie post and get 50 negative ratings that'll carry over forever. It's not deserved, and the ratings carry equal weight regardless of what they are. The number of negative ratings do not accurately reflect the quality (or lack there of) of the post. A shitty joke on the front page earns 100 winner ratings and a wonderful drawing on the next page might get 1/10th that. Conversely, a slightly off-topic post in a busy thread immediately earns 20 off-topic ratings because people dogpile on it, which is the same number of ratings an obscure post about licking shit out of an asshole will earn in its entire life time.

To put it as autistically as possible,

Gross Ratings = ( Reception x Time x Visibility x Random )
Mode Ratings = ( Reception )

The only thing that matters in my proposed system is the most frequent opinion of a post.
Time doesn't matter because the lifetime of the post ceases to matter after it receives a score (unless it changes).
Visibility doesn't matter because 5 ratings are the same as 500.
Randomness is removed because a single vote is insufficient to change the mode.

 

[Clown Doll]

They would still see the number of ratings. The only thing changing would be the total numeration being based off bad posts versus negative ratings combined. You made one bad post, not a post so catastrophically bad it's worth 50 negative ratings..

Can people still see who rated which post what? To me it has much more value than the ratings themselves.

All of this hypothetically speaking, yes, that would be the plan. It would function exactly the same but posts would derive a singular rating based on the mode of its reception.

I see. Thanks for responding.

 

[Null]

Can people still see who rated which post what? To me it has much more value than the ratings themselves.

All of this hypothetically speaking, yes, that would be the plan. It would function exactly the same but posts would derive a singular rating based on the mode of its reception.

 

[Uzumaki]

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.

If a new poster gets a bunch of negative ratings for a bad post, they're going to think twice about making similar posts again. Unless you use the rating levels for moderation purposes (you don't seem to and why would you when you have your own judgement?) then all that's hurt is that person's ego. If a few internet stickers is going to seriously hurt their feelings then maybe online social interaction isn't for them,

However, I definitely think there should be some sort of post or something prominently placed that explains what a-log means, because like others have pointed out we have dumb fucking newbies all over the place pimping that rating on everyone making accurate observations about Chris's behavior. Misused dumbs don't bug me as much because that's more subjective, but A-log actually has a meaning. It's getting debased to the point of losing all specificity, like "tragedy" and "ironic" before it.

The best thing to do with ratings is not give a crap.

I'd have rated this agree, but you don't care.

 

[Null]

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.

This new system would not prevent this situation from happening.

If a new poster gets a bunch of negative ratings for a bad post, they're going to think twice about making similar posts again. Unless you use the rating levels for moderation purposes (you don't seem to and why would you when you have your own judgement?) then all that's hurt is that person's ego. If a few internet stickers is going to seriously hurt their feelings then maybe online social interaction is for them,

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

However, I definitely think there should be some sort of post or something prominently placed that explains what a-log means, because like others have pointed out we have dumb fucking newbies all over the place pimping that rating on everyone making accurate observations about Chris's behavior. Misused dumbs don't bug me as much because that's more subjective, but A-log actually has a meaning. It's getting debased to the point of losing all specificity, like "tragedy" and "ironic" before it.

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

 

[CatParty]

@Null how does this effect my point totals?