Feedback Ratings Bandwagoning

[MrTroll]

Suggestion: limit the number of ratings each user can give per day (or maybe tie it to some other metric for measuring a poster's "quality" like positive-to-negative ratio, time registered, etc., so that "better" or more responsible people can exert more influence within the ratings system). You can give out 15 or 20 positive ratings and 5 negative ones or something. That would make people think a little more carefully before mindlessly up- or down-voting a post because of the ratings it's already received. Or limit the number of ratings a single post can be given, like 30 positive votes and maybe 10 or 15 negative ones (don't want to set the negative limit too low because usually only truly dumb posts get more than a handful of negs anyway and negative reinforcement by peers is probably a good way to keep most users in line).

 

[Johnny Bravo]

Only those fit to survive the harsh reality that not everyone is going to agree with their posts, and by proxy the kind of people I at least want on the farms, survive.

Exactly. I want people here with a thick skin or who don't take themselves too seriously. We're here to have fun.

 

[Derbydollar]

Suggestion: limit the number of ratings each user can give per day (or maybe tie it to some other metric for measuring a poster's "quality" like positive-to-negative ratio, time registered, etc., so that "better" or more responsible people can exert more influence within the ratings system). You can give out 15 or 20 positive ratings and 5 negative ones or something. That would make people think a little more carefully before mindlessly up- or down-voting a post because of the ratings it's already received. Or limit the number of ratings a single post can be given, like 30 positive votes and maybe 10 or 15 negative ones (don't want to set the negative limit too low because usually only truly dumb posts get more than a handful of negs anyway and negative reinforcement by peers is probably a good way to keep most users in line).

I think that limiting positive ratings solves nothing by taking something away. I also fail to see how positive ratings cause issues in any perceivable way.
The amount of trouble created by doing away with rating notifications and the cries for simplification seem to have caused more issues than the problem itself.

 

[melty]

I think it's important to pretend you don't care, too. As a community we should bitch slap people who can't take a negative rating with grace and humor. Ratings are important but they shouldn't be used as an excuse for whiny drama.

I completely agree, but at some point people just keep going "I don't care about ratings ratings are so stupid who cares" over and over, which gets old as well. Like null said, if everyone thinks they are stupid and pointless and ignores them why have them at all? Because obviously that's not the case. I was joking around when I posted what you quoted but there is a grain of truth there.

Honestly I don't think bandwagoning is an "issue" that needs fixing but I thought it was kind of interesting and wanted to see what people thought or if it was even a real thing at all.

 

[MrTroll]

I think that limiting positive ratings solves nothing by taking something away. I also fail to see how positive ratings cause issues in any perceivable way.

The issue in this thread is people allowing the ratings of the "crowd" to determine their own rating habits. My suggestion was that if posters only get a limited number of ratings per day, that would (hopefully) cause them to use them more thoughtfully than simply dogpiling onto a ratings love/hate fest (which, to the extent ratings matter, is definitely a "problem" and definitely happens).

The amount of trouble created by doing away with rating notifications and the cries for simplification seem to have caused more issues than the problem itself.

Ratings bandwagoning has been happening a lot longer than the week or whatever that ratings notifications have been disabled.

 

[Derbydollar]

The issue in this thread is people allowing the ratings of the "crowd" to determine their own rating habits. My suggestion was that if posters only get a limited number of ratings per day, that would (hopefully) cause them to use them more thoughtfully than simply dogpiling onto a ratings love/hate fest (which, to the extent ratings matter, is definitely a "problem" and definitely happens).

I understand that was the point of your post. My argument was that limiting the amount of positive ratings would probably not solve the issue, and instead take away your ability to agree with posts that you like.
My perspective on what would happen if positive rating limitations happen is like this:

Wow, I'm really liking this thread. People are making lots of good posts! Let's agree with this one too...
Oh, shit. I ran out of positive stickers! Well... If I keep reading this thread, I won't be able to post feels, likes, agrees, or god forbid Nice Memes wow
Guess I'll stop reading this thread for today so that I can rate the good and negative posts properly. *Bookmarks page and never comes back to the thread again*

I think that perhaps you and some other posters take ratings far too personally. Yes, they matter. Yes, they can sting a little if you get bad ones.
Are they akin to an internal employee review, will you be shunned from posting any longer because of them? No.
Wear your negative stickers as a badge. If you don't think your post was a shitpost, defend it or accept that this isn't a safe space.

I personally have not noticed this problem manifest itself, either. I've received negative ratings before, but most of the "Disagreement" ratings I get are of the autistic variety
Where are these posts that users have made, where they were dogpiled on with tons of negative ratings? Where are these users who have had to run away from the mean, mean forum we have here?
What did they say, and why did they receive negative ratings? How many did they actually receive? How often does this occur? Where were they posting? Just who are these monstrous, villainous haters?

If there is a problem here, I feel like it is probably quite localized. Perhaps we could hold a site wide poll to gauge just how much of an issue this is?

 

[LikeicareKF]

lol all this over a meaningless button

 

[MrTroll]

I understand that was the point of your post. My argument was that limiting the amount of positive ratings would probably not solve the issue, and instead take away your ability to agree with posts that you like.

First off, disagreeing with someone's point without providing any rationale, as you did in your last post, is not an "argument". Secondly, you'd still have a set number of ratings to give out per day. Unless you're an extraordinarily busy rater I don't think being limited to some reasonable number (again, with a possible modifier to allow more established or hopefully responsible posters to have more) would seriously disrupt your KF experience. It would just make you (hopefully) a little less likely to up-vote a dozen posts in a row because you find them generally agreeable, or a little less likely to reactively rate a certain post in a certain way because of other ratings it has received. It's like money; if everyone was a billionaire they'd throw cash around like it's meaningless, because to them, it would be.

I think that perhaps you and some other posters take ratings far too personally. Yes, they matter. Yes, they can sting a little if you get bad ones.
Are they akin to an internal employee review, will you be shunned from posting any longer because of them? No.
Wear your negative stickers as a badge. If you don't think your post was a shitpost, defend it or accept that this isn't a safe space.

I'm an ideas guy. I like coming up with solutions for issues, even existentially meaningless ones like the effects that ratings have on message board posting behavior. I'm not personally invested in the ratings I give or receive. This is entirely a matter of abstract problem-solving for me.

 

[Derbydollar]

First off, disagreeing with someone's point without providing any rationale, as you did in your last post, is not an "argument".

I did give rationale. My rationale was that ratings quotas would not solve the issue, that the idea in and of itself was irrational. I further elaborated in my next post:

I understand that was the point of your post. My argument was that limiting the amount of positive ratings would probably not solve the issue, and instead take away your ability to agree with posts that you like.
My perspective on what would happen if positive rating limitations happen is like this:

Wow, I'm really liking this thread. People are making lots of good posts! Let's agree with this one too...
Oh, shit. I ran out of positive stickers! Well... If I keep reading this thread, I won't be able to post feels, likes, agrees, or god forbid Nice Memes wow
Guess I'll stop reading this thread for today so that I can rate the good and negative posts properly. *Bookmarks page and never comes back to the thread again*

Secondly, you'd still have a set number of ratings to give out per day. Unless you're an extraordinarily busy rater I don't think being limited to some reasonable number (again, with a possible modifier to allow more established or hopefully responsible posters to have more) would seriously disrupt your KF experience. It would just make you (hopefully) a little less likely to up-vote a dozen posts in a row because you find them generally agreeable, or a little less likely to reactively rate a certain post in a certain way because of other ratings it has received.

I don't see the problem here. Why is agreeing with posts a bad thing? If you see 30 posts you agree with, why shouldn't you be allowed to up vote them all?
When you see a positive post, do you immediately change your opinion on the subject because that guy had 20 agrees and 15 winner stickers?

How many posts have you read where the ratings were negative, and you went, "Hmmm... Well, other people think this guy is dumb, so I better conform!"
Not many, I hope. What is a far more common occurrence, I imagine is this:

Hmmm... This guy has a bunch of negative votes, but I agree with him. How do I say that without rocking the boat...? I know, I'll post feels instead of agree!

Is this such a horrible and common occurrence that we need to cripple the ratings system?

It's like money; if everyone was a billionaire they'd throw cash around like it's meaningless, because to them, it would be.

Ratings are not like money. They are a show of confidence in your opinion.
Everyone in Congress has the right to vote on a bill, does that make their votes pointless? Does it make them feel like voting is worthless? I guess so, because economics.

I'm an ideas guy. I like coming up with solutions for issues, even existentially meaningless ones like the effects that ratings have on message board posting behavior. I'm not personally invested in the ratings I give or receive. This is entirely a matter of abstract problem-solving for me.

Pursuing non-issues creates issues, however. If the problem is existentially meaningless, is it really a problem at all?

lol all this over a meaningless button

I would rate you feels, but... Yeah

 

[melty]

lol all this over a meaningless button

You know posting multiple times in threads that you don't care, and making your name more or less say "I don't care," doesn't really further the impression that you don't care.

 

[MrTroll]

I did give rationale. My rationale was that ratings quotas would not solve the issue, that the idea in and of itself was irrational. I further elaborated in my next post:

Just expressing a sentiment without backing it up with actual reasoning is not much of a rationale. But whatever, I'm not going to pursue this any further, it's just derailing the thread.

I don't see the problem here. Why is agreeing with posts a bad thing? If you see 30 posts you agree with, why shouldn't you be allowed to up vote them all?
When you see a positive post, do you immediately change your opinion on the subject because that guy had 20 agrees and 15 winner stickers?

It isn't a bad thing, but what's the point of ratings if you're going to just wantonly hand them out to any post you find remotely agreeable? I could pick a thread in the Chris or ADF forum at random and probably agree with 99% of the posts in it, because most of them are going to be completely uncontroversial statements like "Chris/ADF is a fat useless retard/tranny/loser and this latest thing they've done or said is completely gross or stupid" or some variation thereof.

How many posts have you read where the ratings were negative, and you went, "Hmmm... Well, other people think this guy is dumb, so I better conform!"

This isn't about being able to cite specific posts as a case study. It's about patterns of human (and more specifically, KF poster) behavior. Do people allow other ratings to effect their own ratings, even subconsciously? Yes. I'm not holding myself up as an exception to the rule either or pretending to be some kind of autistic philosopher-king in the land of 'tards. Everyone, more or less, is susceptible to group-think and herd behavior, even if they don't know it or think so.

Ratings are not like money. They are a show of confidence in your opinion.
Everyone in Congress has the right to vote on a bill, does that make their votes pointless? Does it make them feel like voting is worthless? I guess so, because economics.

Congress is an exclusive body. Anyone can register here and participate almost without limitation unless they're really dumb and get banned. If anybody could walk into Congress and vote on a bill, then yes, that would radically decrease the value of their individual votes.

Pursuing non-issues creates issues, however. If the problem is existentially meaningless, is it really a problem at all?

Obviously I meant it's a non-issue in a big-picture, go-the-fuck-outside-and-get-some-fresh-air sort of way. To the extent that this place or the quality of the user experience here matters at all, yes, it's a problem. If it wasn't threads like this wouldn't be made.

I would rate you feels, but... Yeah

Oh please. You don't get to nod along to his too-cool-for-school hipster ennui when you're here sperging out about this stuff just as much as anyone else (including me).

 

[LikeicareKF]

You know posting multiple times in threads that you don't care, and making your name more or less say "I don't care," doesn't really further the impression that you don't care.

:/ i didnt choose this name for this forum

 

[nad7155]

You know posting multiple times in threads that you don't care, and making your name more or less say "I don't care," doesn't really further the impression that you don't care.

I give you a winner sticker.

 

[Derbydollar]

Congress is an exclusive body. Anyone can register here and participate almost without limitation unless they're really dumb and get banned. If anybody could walk into Congress and vote on a bill, then yes, that would radically decrease the value of their individual votes.

Well, let's turn it to voters then. All adults have a right to vote in any proper, civilized nation. They have a right to vote on multiple issues.
Are their votes worthless? Do they feel like their votes are worthless? Do politicians sperg out when people don't vote for their bill or criticize them?

Obviously I meant it's a non-issue in a big-picture, go-the-fuck-outside-and-get-some-fresh-air sort of way. To the extent that this place or the quality of the user experience here matters at all, yes, it's a problem. If it wasn't threads like this wouldn't be made.

How needlessly condescending. I don't necessarily believe this to be true either, I see it as backpedaling. If you did mean it in this way, then I'm sorry for misunderstanding you Mr. Abstract Existential Issue solver.

Oh please. You don't get to nod along to his too-cool-for-school hipster ennui when you're here sperging out about this stuff just as much as anyone else (including me).

My meme doge wow scouter is showing your sperg levels... :powerlevel:
If you're going to make yourself sound like a pedantic asshole, then I'll double down on the "too-cool-for-school hipster ennui" just because of your reactions
Or at least I would if that didn't undermine the entire point of this thread- Discussion.

I'll take it you don't have anything more to say about the subject. Our response chain is autistically long too, so I'm going to stop here.
Hope to see you around the forums! Exercise your rights and rate me dumb or something, I'll wear it proudly.

I give you a winner sticker.

Rates Agree

 

[Curt Sibling]

We live in a culture built on herd-thinking. Good luck trying to break the habits we've all be indoctrinated with, and also evolved with.

But in terms of the farms...When I joined kiwi, one of the things I loved the most was the tag system, don't see why we had to change it.
No-one likes getting negative tags, but I accept if I make an ass-status post, I take some hits.

Trashing the system or hiding it due to some complaints is quite the over-reaction.

Just my humble tuppence worth.

 

[exball]

Replace all ratings with dumb.

 

[HG 400]

Write a script to identify the 10 posters who click 'rating you've received' the most and then halal them all.

 

[CatParty]

if someone rates you dumb in the brony or furry or SU or any other hyper autistic community threads for saying those things suck, they are immediately halal.

 

[HG 400]

if someone rates you dumb in the brony or furry or SU or any other hyper autistic community threads for saying those things suck, they are immediately halal.

I like googling them and posting their fetishes.

 

[CatParty]

I like googling them and posting their fetishes.

strong agree