 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
Add Forum to Favorites | Send Topic To a Friend | View Forum FAQ | Track this topic |
Last Thread Next Thread |
| Don't forget the little people |
|
 |
zyrolasting Member since: 9/26/2008 |
|||
 Posted - 11/11/2009 11:50:30 PM |
||||
| EDIT: The below was written under the assumption others were having the same difficulties with the rating system I did. Now that I see other wise, the post sums up to this: I suggest arbitrary topics appear on the GDNet home page to inspire contributions. You can skip the TL;DR, but it will be left for reference. I am combining a comment, suggestion and idea. My apologies in advance if this has been done somewhere I didn't notice before. So what's the deal?I feel the forum rating system is bureaucratic and unbalanced, and I know it isn't going away. I feel obligated to suggest an idea to improve on it: Offer topics for members to share knowledge and to allow an automated system to recognize their work. These would be held in a contest-like fashion, but would not be heavily organized. I do not intend to recommend anything too formal. In fact, members would upload articles based on a topic changed regularly right by the poll such as... Quote: It could be possible for members to place their submission on their development journal or on another trusted site dedicated to similar content such as CodeProject. To keep close to the community-wide system now implemented, members could vote on content they like. "Winners" could receive a rating boost based on positive votes and nothing else. Users would get this rating boost only if they got enough votes to achieve a minimum payout. What I'm suggesting is that there is also not just one winner, although some will do better than others. Others still can be bad enough to not get a boost, but I do feel something ought to be given to those who make the time to try and help out a community. 5log(x)seems to be a fair rate of growth if you consider X to be the number of votes and Y to be the rating boost. At 0 votes I would think some initial boost (Another 5?) would be great considering the user is taking time out of their day to do something for people (s)he does not know. I am implying that the material is appropriate and worthy of displaying. At 100 positive votes the user would have accumulated 10 points to their rating. To prevent an unfair spike, a submission can be made read-only after so many votes. Given the function is logarithmic, the growth would slow dramatically anyway. As I will explain below, I do not think ratings should be lost from this unless trouble makers are obvious. In other words, this would be in the hands of higher-ups. The votes are lopsided enough in the forums as is. In short, my suggestion is a simple addition to the current system to recognize effort from supportive users. Why do you care about ratings so much?Even if you have no negative standing in the community you can just lose points from people who do what can be described as "rate and run". It's a bit of a bummer to see ratings go down for no reason at all, especially my own! Why do I care? Because I or someone else might have something useful to say. The board settings offer an option to hide posts from people under a certain rating. This sounds good in theory considering that there are people to keep an eye out for, and with tens of thousands of visitors a day something ought to be done to give the mods a break. However, that little number is meant to represent your reputation, and it's mere value can shut you up in several people's posts, even if you had a solution to the problem in the OP or a great idea that could change the way people think about their own project(s). Having a low enough rating puts you on a mod "watch list", even if you've done nothing wrong. The system works, but can easily become one sided and can annul the input of someone perfectly useful. As they say, a mind is a terrible thing to waste. All I ask is that if GDNet is going to be one of the only forums you can find with a rating system, at least give users the motivation to play a part and try to give the community a reason to participate in another light. Think of it as having the servers automatically acknowledge the positive aspects of a user as well as the negative. Why should we listen to you?Because what I am suggesting will benefit GDNet in both content and morale. With an automated system designed to recognize effort made to support this site, users will upload more and more content knowing they at least have better standing and can be more noticeable in topics where they may have been ignored before. People who actually know what they are talking about will be promoted, as they should be. More content will pile up, making for maybe another GDNet book release? Fine, but now what makes you think OTHERS care that much? What makes you think WE care that much?Because you obviously do! One description of the rank value from the FAQ is... Quote: I have heard several mods tell me that they do not care about what people think of them or of one another, but that's hard to believe when they support a site that is crazy enough about it to stick a counter on every member like we are the cast of an uneventful remake of Logan's Run. I just don't understand why other approaches to isolating problem users weren't taken like searches in posts for foul language or poor grammar/spelling, or to at least hide the ratings for the moderators own use, where it can be better trusted. The GDNet is unusual for having a system that gauges integrity of developers old and new with ambiguous standards, which makes little sense to me other than to make mods lives a little easier. This is fine, but it still chances putting potentially useful information into a dark corner when people may need to hear about it. Why implicitly discourage that information to be here? Sure, you get small bumps down every now and then, but there are occasions I have logged on and I have seen a large drop and I have not made a post for long enough to know something isn't right. It's easy trolling, really. I won't name names, but you can click on random profiles and check some posts of low rated users and see perfectly fine and intelligent conversation coming from them, but some of it may be going to waste. Although I did put a lot of thought into this, I don't care enough to lose sleep over it. I just feel that if we have to entrust our integrity to an effectively volatile unsigned integer while we are here, it would be a good move to take a "You-scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours" approach to members. The idea in short is you allow your scripts to bump up the ratings of members in exchange for new content for people to benefit from, and keep some consistency with what's already there by fueling the system by votes. It's really the exact same system you have, only with the line between the "write for us" section and the forums blurred! Hell, you can even let the members come up with the topics or just add the system to the "Write for us" submissions! The 3 goals are to encourage users to help out GDNet, motivate them to keep doing so and to make the most impressive members more apparent. Even though I am unhappy with the rating system, I keep coming back because the people here are remarkably intelligent and I want to know what they have to say, and be recognized for it fairly! I myself certainly want to get my own rating up because I have stuff I want to share and to be recognized for. This has been a long post, but I hope you find my suggestion to be worth considering. Don't forget the little people. Thanks for reading, and cheers! -Zyro [Edited by - zyrolasting on November 12, 2009 10:16:12 AM] |
||||
|
||||
|
Wolfdog Member since: 5/6/2003 From: Phoenix, AZ, United States |
|||
 Posted - 11/12/2009 1:37:33 AM |
||||
Quote:So I am confused here. Maybe I missed something. How would answering this question relate to your integrity when posting in the forums? Just because you know the answer you might still be an unpleasant person. IIRC, even mentioning your rating can have some very undesirable consequences. |
||||
|
||||
|
Atrix256 Member since: 4/28/2009 From: Seattle, WA, United States |
|||
|
Posted - 11/12/2009 1:57:27 AM |
||||
| I dont get how the rating system is bureaucratic and unbalanced. If people like you they rate you up, if they don't they rate you down. you can PAY for a rating boost but otherwise it seems fully democratic. the rating is a neat feature of this site i think. Like i dunno, i feel myself shooting for the high score hehe. A little while ago i got above 1100 and then got bumped down to 1093 and there i remain. its fun like a lil minigame i dunno why anyhow... i think things are fine as is. it's simple and works (: |
||||
|
||||
|
zyrolasting Member since: 9/26/2008 |
|||
|
Posted - 11/12/2009 2:34:31 AM |
||||
Quote: That's the theory, but that's not how some people use it. It was my experience to be voted down for no reason at all, and this would repeat several times until I had some serious work to do to recover. It's unbalanced because I could also in theory make several accounts just to vote a guy down, and then this person is isolated and ignored by people who choose to hide posts by users under a certain rating. I would effectively get to decide who posts and who doesn't in the worst case scenario. It is all too easy to abuse. It's also a little confusing why GDNet implements it while I can think of no other forums that do. The only reason I can come up with is to ease workload, but other mods have communities just as large to maintain without the system. I can't be the only guy that has questioned it. Quote: It would be the same rating, so what I'm asking for wouldn't protect you from anything. IT's just that the FAQ makes it clear that users with low rankings can be easily isolated and ignored, while higher ratings are.. not. With people abusing the feature (I also can't be the only target!) it amazes me how people get above 1100 at all. I'm just asking for whatever code is behind the site to recognize the positive aspects of users as well with a very slow growing algorithm only triggered by actually contributing to the site. Quote: See what I mean? That's a huge problem, don't you think? Has anyone been banned on ratings alone before? If so... I just don't know what to say to that that won't get me banned now. = Now that you mention it, why not take note of my rating now and see where it ends up later. |
||||
|
||||
|
Wan Member since: 9/8/2004 From: Amsterdam, Netherlands |
|||
 Posted - 11/12/2009 2:42:58 AM |
||||
Quote: As far as I can tell, hardly anyone uses the rating filter. Missing posts makes threads confusing to read, and I think most people here are smart enough to judge a contribution on its contents rather than on the number displayed below it. By using contests, even though perhaps the 'scores' would be more fair, I think you're putting even more emphasis on ratings. I don't visit the technical forums that much anymore, I mostly tend to rate people up for making stuff nowadays. I can really appreciate it when someone posts his work in the announcement forum, regardless whether it's a well polished, professional looking game, or his first Pong clone. Anyway, I think it's all about to change with that new software version anyway. Quote: Nah, it's more like when you're starting thread in the Lounge complaining why your rating is so low. I haven't seen one of these threads in a long time, and I think the days of rating wars are pretty much over. |
||||
|
||||
|
zyrolasting Member since: 9/26/2008 |
|||
|
Posted - 11/12/2009 2:46:33 AM |
||||
Quote: Sure didn't feel that way for me before. That's a relief if that's the case for many folks. Quote: What new software version? GDNet updating? Quote: Well, I'm certainly not here to shove everyone's face in the number to the point I'm the next thorn in one's side. It's just my own experience has felt rather random. ( Except when I first joined, when I was much more ignorant. =P ) So... am I just a choice target that might be left alone one day? You guys had moments your rating dropped around 150+ for no logical reason too, right? |
||||
|
||||
|
Wan Member since: 9/8/2004 From: Amsterdam, Netherlands |
|||
|
Posted - 11/12/2009 2:51:44 AM |
||||
Quote: They're rewriting/redesigning the forum software. I can't find a thread about it, but there might find some information in Gaiiden's or Superpig's journal. |
||||
|
||||
|
Hodgman Member since: 2/14/2007 From: Melbourne, Australia |
||||
|
Posted - 11/12/2009 3:39:21 AM |
|||||
Quote:More likely, someone read a post from 2 weeks ago and decided you were unhelpful/rude. It happens, and you can't find out which post it was for... It would be nice if you could see which posts of yours caused you to be rated down so there was a bit of a feed-back cycle. I often notice my rating has dropped 5 points, even when I haven't posted anything for days -- must be that something I said last week offended someone... Could even be that someone used google to find a post from 2 years ago where I was too blunt, or making a joke that was misinterpreted. I've actually had mine drop several hundred points before for making a joke that apparently people didn't get in the way I did... Quote:New accounts can only affect ratings by a small amount, plus the staff are pretty good at detecting duplicate accounts (it's against the rules) and banning people who do that. Quote:Most major forum software includes a similar system (or has a plug-in to add it), but most forum-operators don't enable it. GDNet decided to add it because there were a lot of rude/obnoxious bastards who would troll the place and treat people like crap. The introduction of ratings actually helped make it a bit more professional around here (although a lot of people are still very blunt, which makes them come off as jerks sometimes!). Quote:No, but sometimes people who have not understood why they were being rated down (a side effect of having poor social skills is that you don't realise when you're being obnoxious...) have then gone and posted rants on here about how unfair it is that people don't like them. People usually find such behaviour unfriendly, and rate them down more... Sometimes even when the mods lock the topic, they just post another rant about how closing their topics is unfair (which is against the rules: if you've got a problem with moderation you're supposed to take it to another mod or to the staff, not post rants) which gets the rated lower again. Sometimes these people get banned because they keep breaking rules, but their rating going down is only a reflection of the every-day user's opinion, not anything to do with the moderators/staff. Luckily I don't think people would view your analysis of the system as one of these "omg my rating" rants ;) For the record, there's a lot of people on here with ratings > 1500 who IMO are patronising/contemptuous/rude, but obviously must be helpful in greater amounts! They've probably got themselves rated down 1000 points, but also rated up 2000 points for helping people solve problems ;) [Edited by - Hodgman on November 12, 2009 5:39:05 AM] |
|||||
|
|||||
|
Fenrisulvur Member since: 8/31/2009 From: Sydney, Australia |
|||
|
Posted - 11/12/2009 9:01:26 AM |
||||
| For some perspective on this one, I've seen forums in absolute worship of their rating/reputation systems. I table the following as evidence:      And you're worried about GameDev's rating system? By-the-by, from my perspective my rating has flailed up and down ever since I noticed it's existence. That may have something to do with me getting swept into the language zealotry in some of the programming language sections, though, that sort of thing comes with the territory. I haven't actually rated anyone (positive or negative) since joining, btw - mainly because I couldn't be bothered, but it may have something to do with ratings being presented as such a minor textual footnote, with so little indication of significance or magnitude (starting with 1000?), and no symbolic or graphical representation whatsoever. So in conclusion, people worship symbols. The ratings system needs symbols. >_> |
||||
|
||||
|
zyrolasting Member since: 9/26/2008 |
|||
|
Posted - 11/12/2009 11:12:47 AM |
||||
| Curses! OP foiled again! (Thanks for the info, though!) Well, do you think the suggestion of using choice topics to inspire contributions on the front page are still a good idea? I think they'd be fun, no to mention be good practice for the "bookworm" side of us. Edit made in OP to discourage my "omg my rating" reasoning. ;) |
||||
|
||||
 |
Kylotan Moderator - Scripting Languages and Game Mods Member since: 3/8/2000 From: Nottingham, United Kingdom |
|||
 Posted - 11/12/2009 11:22:01 AM |
||||
If you're concerned about the implications of your rating, then it implies that both the rating carries some semantic value and that you consider the effects upon your rating when you post. This means the system works exactly as planned.Quote: I've never seen this watch list. But the number of people with low ratings who are generally positive contributors numbers in the single digit area. Hardly anybody gets a low rating by doing 'nothing wrong'. Possible exceptions come along if you decide to go into the lounge and come out with extreme views, but using the lounge is always at your discretion. Quote: Because it's to let the community decide rather than a small number of moderators. The more people that get a say, the more fair and accurate the ratings become. And the value is there for all so that each person can decide how reputable a poster is based on the experience of peers who've already read that poster's history. It's a useful system for propagating information around. |
||||
|
||||
|
zyrolasting Member since: 9/26/2008 |
|||
|
Posted - 11/12/2009 11:39:31 AM |
||||
Quote: That carries almost evil-council-like weight!  It IS true that I care about it to some degree. I joined the site and found I had a number on me that says how reputable I am! My immediate thought is, "well, I better get this thing as high as possible!" More below.Quote: I feel the opposite. You and select others became moderators for being so experienced and trustworthy that you have higher authority over tens of thousands of users a day. It's certainly courteous of you to get the community involved like many web developers encourage, but key words I mentioned before are ambiguous standards. What I don't agree with is the assumption that the good will of posters will prevail all of the time. Even the anonymous ones! (Link added for dramatic effect.  )It seems like it would at least be feasible to have good reason for rating a user up or down. Speaking of giving a reason, you see we also have a "Report to Moderator" anchor that is also available to everyone! I always understood why this was around. I just see no reason to go further than that feature! It takes care of the same job of getting the community involved, more reports means a bigger asshole needs to be virtually tasered (*bzzt*), isolating problem users! We've also had ignore lists by username! May as well take that more refined route other than cutting out potentially useful posts with the "hide under certain rating" feature. The rating system is at best an easy reference, but it's purpose is redundant. As I said before, I know it's not going away. It just has no need to be standardized as tools to more finely control how good a user is. This includes the forms allowing others to explain why they feel the way they do. Now that makes sense to me! Anyway, that's where my thoughts on it stand. Just take it as the next "omg my rating" rant if really necessary. |
||||
|
||||
|
dmail Member since: 5/2/2006 From: UK |
|||
|
Posted - 11/23/2009 5:55:19 AM |
||||
Quote: Pffff read my signature :) Don't rate me up, I am more than just a number! OOLua cross platform Lua and C++ binding. |
||||
|
||||
| All times are ET (US) |
Last Thread Next Thread |
|
