Post Ratings Discussion

[Watcher]

Can dumb be called "ween" then? It doesn't feel right not being able to call people weeny spergs

And replace the image with an image of Peppy

 

[CatParty]

The big question is will there be more trophies

 

[Pikonic]

Glaive's Overly Deep Analysis of New Post Ratings

This new post rating system is going to have an interesting effect on a user's likes. With so many new buttons the overall amount of all powerful "likes" which a post receives is going to drop significantly as people distribute their post ratings among the new positive options such as "agree", "funny" "optimistic" "useful", "informative", "creative", and "winner". And since a post can only receive one of these ratings per rater per post, we are going to see less likes in favor of picking a more descriptive option. And these other options do not contribute to a user's total likes or like ratio.

SO, as a result we should see overall like:message ratios fall as the average likes per post drops. Those two being directly correlated as they both drop.
This also will increase the value of a user's likes from their posts made before August 17th 2014 from when it was easier to receive likes with only one rating option.

In addition it should be noted that all of your own ratings that you GIVE are now visible as a total. Meaning people will see how many A-log, Dumb, and Dislike ratings you give out. While there are certainly posts worthy of these negative ratings, I personally would feel apprehensive about giving almost any out knowing that it would be reflected on my profile.

Would be too black/white to say it is inherently better or worse, but it is certainly different.

Summary: Likes are rare now and worth more, egos will be more sensitive

I currently have 4,840 likes on my profile, but I only have 4,824 thumbs up, so all the icons with green numbers should be counted as likes.

 

[ULTIMATEPRIMETIME]

Nah. I see what you want to do, and I understand, "Chris"-ifying things has always been kind of a forum theme (like with Jerkop, Manajerk, Jerkief) but the thing is that confuses the fuck out of a lot of people. If people saw "Ween" they might throw it on anyone's post for fun. Calling a post "Dumb" doesn't really leave room for the imagination.

I've actually heard people have trouble distinguishing between the ranks on our forum because they don't explicitly say "Admin" and "Moderator", so more explicit is better usually.

What if the icon for Dumb is just changed to a Guy fawkes mask?

 

[Null]

What if the icon for Dumb is just changed to a Guy fawkes mask?

I could probably add a separate icon for "Ween" that sits alongside the A-Log tophat. I don't see that one getting misused at all.

 

[Mourning Dove]

I think the Like, Agree, Funny, Winner, Informative, Friendly, Useful, and Creative ratings should be lumped into the like counts we have.

 

[Null]

I think the Like, Agree, Funny, Winner, Informative, Friendly, Useful, and Creative ratings should be lumped into the like counts we have.

They are. The term is "positive ratings". Likes are a part of that.

I'll have to redo trophies.

 

[Glaive]

I currently have 4,840 likes on my profile, but I only have 4,824 thumbs up, so all the icons with green numbers should are counted as likes.

Yeah this is perfect and what I was hoping for. While I was composing my post they were all still marked as black for neutral except for like. I no longer am too spooked to post. Great change.

Like I said in chat I think it exposes your humanity a little if it shows your negative rankings as well as your positive ones. It makes you appear more honest and less like a yes man who just likes everything

You attract more bees with honey than vinegar. If I disagree with a post and actually have something to argue I'll reply rather than taking the dislike route. I'm not afraid of voicing an unpopular opinion if I can back it up.
But that's just how I roll. Since I can't see who's disliked others directly it shouldn't be a big deal. Especially since it won't hide their posts anymore. That would have been only a short hop into reddit functionality with censoring content. Posts should only be removed/censored if a rule is broken and moderation handles it. Groupthink shouldn't have the power to remove unpopular opinions from view.

 

[Null]

You attract more bees with honey than vinegar. If I disagree with a post and actually have something to argue I'll reply rather than taking the dislike route. I'm not afraid of voicing an unpopular opinion if I can back it up.

Keep in mind the only votes considered negative are "Late", "Dumb", and "A-Log". Dislike and Disagree and neutrals.

 

[DeagleDad420]

I don't know if this is a good idea.

I like that you took the initiative with something experimental like this, but I see a lot of problems with it.

First and most obvious: I don't agree with hiding posts based on negative ratings because that encourages the kind of circlejerk bullshit that makes Reddit a human trash heap. We shouldn't silence opinions just because they're controversial. Fuck that.

In general, across the board I think this system will inherently lead towards a lot of likes/ratings whoring that I really don't think we need. It encourages posturing and attention whoring in the most blatant manner possible by literally awarding people points. It makes writing posts a game of "how can I make this appeal to as many people as possible?". I know not everone will use it in this way, but it's a subtle and subconcious shift like this that changes the forum's culture.

The biggest reason I like these forums is that a lot of people on here are thoughtful and articulate and bring up some really good points in discussions. I really worry that we'll lose a lot of that in favor of rating-whore one liners, and the shitposting/Meme Zone tier wacky antics are already a pretty cringeworthy facet of this community. I don't really think we need to encourage that.

There's a reason everyone laughs at Jace for his "press 1" garbage, it's because it's blatant whoring for validation. I think we're above that.

To be honest, the only thing I like about this system is the "Autistic" rating and I want to write some sort of script to automatically rate that on every single post I scroll past because I love it so much.

 

[TL 611]

I don't know if this is a good idea.

I like that you took the initiative with something experimental like this, but I see a lot of problems with it.

First and most obvious: I don't agree with hiding posts based on negative ratings because that encourages the kind of circlejerk bullshit that makes Reddit a human trash heap. We shouldn't silence opinions just because they're controversial. Fuck that.

In general, across the board I think this system will inherently lead towards a lot of likes/ratings whoring that I really don't think we need. It encourages posturing and attention whoring in the most blatant manner possible by literally awarding people points. It makes writing posts a game of "how can I make this appeal to as many people as possible?". I know not everone will use it in this way, but it's a subtle and subconcious shift like this that changes the forum's culture.

The biggest reason I like these forums is that a lot of people on here are thoughtful and articulate and bring up some really good points in discussions. I really worry that we'll lose a lot of that in favor of rating-whore one liners, and the shitposting/Meme Zone tier wacky antics are already a pretty cringeworthy facet of this community. I don't really think we need to encourage that.

To be honest, the only thing I like about this system is the "Autistic" rating and I want to write some sort of script to automatically rate that on every single post I scroll past because I love it so much.

unlike reddit, there are still mods here to correct any abuse that may occur. If someone goes around and forces useful and insightful posts to be hidden, the mods will probably warn that guy about it.

A lot of people on here are thoughtful and articulate, but a lot of people on here are also autistic as fuck and shitposters. It is pretty much impossible to go to one of the "popular" threads and read through all the shitposts (GK, a LOT of discussion, etc.). Im hoping that people won't be retards and like all the shitposts, but if they are then it's an inherent problem with the community, not the rating system.

To be honest even with the previous like system, people were pandering to "likes". That's one of the reasons i think a-logging is so prevelant in Chris, as people will insta-like that shit

 

[TrippinKahlua]

Great, now all I'm gonna have to my cred are "Autistic" and "Dumb" posts.

 

[DeagleDad420]

To be honest even with the previous like system, people were pandering to "likes". That's one of the reasons i think a-logging is so prevelant in Chris, as people will insta-like that shit

If it's already prevelant then why encourage and expand it to the point where it's a like an autistic browser-based MMO?

A lot of people on here are thoughtful and articulate, but a lot of people on here are also autistic as fuck and shitposters. It is pretty much impossible to go to one of the "popular" threads and read through all the shitposts (GK, a LOT of discussion, etc.). Im hoping that people won't be retards and like all the shitposts, but if they are then it's an inherent problem with the community, not the rating system.

Back in my day we just ridiculed those people until they shaped up or left. We didn't need no pansy vote system.

 

[Protoman]

I don't know if this is a good idea.

I like that you took the initiative with something experimental like this, but I see a lot of problems with it.

First and most obvious: I don't agree with hiding posts based on negative ratings because that encourages the kind of circlejerk bullshit that makes Reddit a human trash heap. We shouldn't silence opinions just because they're controversial. Fuck that.

In general, across the board I think this system will inherently lead towards a lot of likes/ratings whoring that I really don't think we need. It encourages posturing and attention whoring in the most blatant manner possible by literally awarding people points. It makes writing posts a game of "how can I make this appeal to as many people as possible?". I know not everone will use it in this way, but it's a subtle and subconcious shift like this that changes the forum's culture.

The biggest reason I like these forums is that a lot of people on here are thoughtful and articulate and bring up some really good points in discussions. I really worry that we'll lose a lot of that in favor of rating-whore one liners, and the shitposting/Meme Zone tier wacky antics are already a pretty cringeworthy facet of this community. I don't really think we need to encourage that.

There's a reason everyone laughs at Jace for his "press 1" garbage, it's because it's blatant whoring for validation. I think we're above that.

To be honest, the only thing I like about this system is the "Autistic" rating and I want to write some sort of script to automatically rate that on every single post I scroll past because I love it so much.

this. not to mention its just straight up visually unappealing and makes the forums kind of look like garbage. if we really need a negative counterpart to likes, we could add in a dislike/autism/ween/a-log button but i dont think we really need all that many different categories. it can sort of be assumed that if you like something, based on context you either agree with it, find it helpful, or think it was funny/creative/whatever. i have enough respect for people on this forum to assume that they can deduce something that simple.

 

[TL 611]

The actual names and stuff of each rating are still being moved around I think. I agree, we probably dont need this many. I'd probably keep these: "Like, dislike, agree, disagree, funny, A-log, informative, autistic, dumb."

If it doesn't work, I imagine it'll get reverted but it's only been a couple hours and tbh I think it's a little bit of fun.

 

[kobebyarlant]

I like to think of this new voting system as an "Interactive Chris Simulation Experience."

 

[Gothicserpent]

I'm really not a fan of these.

Just saying.

 

[TrippinKahlua]

You know, there was a good reason Facebook never implemented a "Dislike" feature despite the massive outcry.

Frankly, the "Likes" never needed to exist in the first place, but while they are pleasant (for what its worth) don't you think a dislike brings about the opposite?

To be completely honest, I never give a shit about likes, nor whether or not I got them. I mainly "Like" others posts whenever I agree or liked what they said.

 

[OBAMATRON]

I thought this was about keeping shitposting down and not about likes.

 

[TrippinKahlua]

Whatever. Guess I'll have to adjust to this.