Post Ratings Discussion

[Uzumaki]

Blatant Hypocrisy Time:

As one of the biggest detractors of the sticker system I probably shouldn't be suggesting new stickers (thereby expanding it) but if we're going to have them we need one that translates to "you failed to get the joke in the post you're quoting". That's something very sticker-able because the alternative is just to post an image macro of McBain and have people agree sticker that, so it's use would hardly shut down any debate.

 

[Holdek]

Blatant Hypocrisy Time:

As one of the biggest detractors of the sticker system I probably shouldn't be suggesting new stickers (thereby expanding it) but if we're going to have them we need one that translates to "you failed to get the joke in the post you're quoting". That's something very sticker-able because the alternative is just to post an image macro of McBain and have people agree sticker that, so it's use would hardly shut down any debate.

You could just use the autism one.

Well I apologize for it,It was dumb looking back at it now.What a first impression this has been...

It's okay buddy, every post is an opportunity to start fresh.

 

[Uzumaki]

You could just use the autism one.

Yeah but it doesn't convey the same thing.

 

[Sammy]

Does "informative" confer positive ratings? I wonder if it should.
Its always great if someone puts a lot of time and effort into writing a long, informative post (Best examples, almost all of the Baron G. Cornedbeef counter-interview thread and following cow general thread), which people then rate "informative," But don't really get any positive rating for the effort. On the other hand, I don't know how much of a priority your Gamerscore on Kiwi Farms should be in general, so... I dunno. What do you guys think?

 

[Clown Doll]

Does "informative" confer positive ratings? I wonder if it should.

"Informative" is a positive rating.

Only neutral ratings are :
Autistic,Optimistic,Dislike,Horrifying,Disagree and "Press 2!".

You can look at your received ratings-tab and if the number for the rating is green, it's positive, black for neutral and red for negative.

 

[Mollybdenum]

I don't know how much of a priority your Gamerscore on Kiwi Farms should be in general, so... I dunno. What do you guys think?

It consumes my mind during all waking hours.

 

[Sigyn]

I was wondering if there was a list of different ratings and what level/priveleges are required to use them. I'm sure they're somewhere in this thread but I'm reluctant to search 20+ pages to find it. Like, for example, I know the "Drink" one is available after donations. But what about Horrifying or Semper Fidelis? I'd like to know what to do to be able to use those. It might be helpful at some point if someone would make a thread dedicated to that and other privelege/level things. Like an FAQ. Again, sorry if this is redundant.

 

[Clown Doll]

But what about Horrifying or Semper Fidelis?.

Semper Fidelis is the Wounded Warrior charity drive rating, as in, you had to donate to the charity to get it.

Horrifying/Deviant are part of a different charity campaign too, for an Autism fund.

I'd like to know what to do to be able to use those..

Ship sailed on that one, sorry!.

Ohhhh, Gotcha. Are they still around?.

I really have no idea, you might want to ask the site administration if they roll around again in some new Charity Drive or become able to buy by default.

Again, I still think a lot of the newbie repetitive questions could be avoided with an FAQ on this specifically.

I think that the requirements for the "unlockables" change around, so I dunno, no-one on this forum really even seems to read the rules so I don't know what a FAQ would do, but the wow le Doge fase :^)-rating for example is only usable on some certain, locked places...

 

[Sigyn]

Semper Fidelis is the Wounded Warrior charity drive rating, as in, you had to donate to the charity to get it.

Horrifying/Deviant are part of a different charity campaign too, for an Autism fund.

Ohhhh, Gotcha. Are they still around? Thanks for the info. Again, I still think a lot of the newbie repetitive questions could be avoided with an FAQ on this specifically.

 

[Null]

No ratings available to new users.
Positive, neutral, and off-topic ratings available to 1 post users.
Negative ratings available to trusted users.

"DRINK", off-topic rating, available to forum donators.
Semper Fi and Deviant ratings available to Semper Fi Fund donators and forum donators (as of January 1st).
Horrifying and Deviant ratings available to Autism Research Institute donators and forum donators (as of January 1st).

 

[Godot]

I just get the vibe, like on so many other forums, that it's mostly catered to popular members and opinions. It seems to drive away potential members, and I've been running forums for years to experience this. Even a well-worded post that doesn't adhere to the usual views of the community get voted down, which is unfair. I believe there should be a limit to how much you can give in a day.

I disagree for two reasons
1. There is a number of ratings in three categories, and I rarely see well worded replies get negative ratings, not to mention, usually members will explain why you're getting negative ratings. I know my account is new but I've lurking for a while
2. Said ratings don't affect the visibility of your post, this isn't like reddit where a post will shoot up to the top and then continue getting positive ratings, thus staying there, the only group think you're going to get on ratings is by people who decide based on what others think, usually I already know if my feeling of a post is good or bad, I'll vote similar to what others are voting simply because it's easier that way for example if I agree with something I still ask myself, like, agree, feels or informative? Sometimes I'll rate whatever the top one of these is other times I'll rate which of them I feel if one sticks out in particular

 

[Coster]

1. There is a number of ratings in three categories, and I rarely see well worded replies get negative ratings, not to mention, usually members will explain why you're getting negative ratings.

Null made a point once that ratings are more for the post's dissemination of content/information than the subject of the post. If it was about the subject, every post in Chris' section would be Autistic.

 

[CatParty]

Yall are just jelly of my 40k positives

 

[PsychicFish]

An illustration of the problem with the ratings system:

Psychic was also very active in Peter Coffin's thread. Handing out negative ratings, defending him adamantly, and so on. I'm not going to jump to conclusions, but this could warrant further inquiry.

If you do not vote with the circlejerk, then you are subject to investigation as being a shill.

Basically, your only options are to vote how everyone else votes, or don't vote at all, NO FREE THINKING ALLOWED.

 

[Coster]

An illustration of the problem with the ratings system:



If you do not vote with the circlejerk, then you are subject to investigation as being a shill.

Basically, your only options are to vote how everyone else votes, or don't vote at all, NO FREE THINKING ALLOWED.

The ratings tell people how to think only if they let them. Also, "subject to investigation?" One person said it's worth looking in to, that's it. Ratings are abused and misused often enough that people disagreeing and downvoting posts they don't like or agree with can easily be misconstrued as petty revenge rating or something like that.

 

[XH 502]

If you do not vote with the circlejerk, then you are subject to investigation as being a shill.

Basically, your only options are to vote how everyone else votes, or don't vote at all, NO FREE THINKING ALLOWED.

I didn't say anything about an investigation, nor did I do any sort of "digging" after the fact. All I pointed out was your history of defending Peter Coffin and then Brianna Wu in a manner that bordered on insulting other members at times. The negative ratings alone did not factor into the quoted post, but they made your protests stand out as potential white knighting or troll-shielding.

That said, Null resolved the matter quickly and it was dropped. Also, I'd like to point out that I don't hold much (or any) power here. I'm just some random user who wondered "huh, this seems odd".

 

[CatParty]

An illustration of the problem with the ratings system:



If you do not vote with the circlejerk, then you are subject to investigation as being a shill.

Basically, your only options are to vote how everyone else votes, or don't vote at all, NO FREE THINKING ALLOWED.

circle jerk my 42k likes

 

[PsychicFish]

circle jerk my 42k likes

Well done, your mother must be very proud of you.

 

[Le Bateleur]

An illustration of the problem with the ratings system:



If you do not vote with the circlejerk, then you are subject to investigation as being a shill.

Basically, your only options are to vote how everyone else votes, or don't vote at all, NO FREE THINKING ALLOWED.

I do so hate to give reign to my ego, but a little of what you feel like does you good, etc...

Are you serious? Do yourself a favour and check my posting and rating history, and consider that I still have over 10,000 likes at a 5:1 likes:posts ratio. Downvotes? 125, off more than 2,000 posts.

Why?

Because, despite my opinions running pretty much diametrically opposite to prevailing thought on at least one very high traffic board, I know how to get on with people and contribute to the discussion in a way that is near-universally agreed as not sucking balls. I'm far from alone in this regard.

If you're constantly being downrated, it's not your opinions that are unpopular - it's your cackhanded way of putting them across.

Post better. Get good.

 

[PsychicFish]

Are you serious?

At no point was I complaining about downvotes.

Did you even read what you replied to?