 |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
Add Forum to Favorites | Send Topic To a Friend | View Forum FAQ | Track this topic |
Last Thread Next Thread |
| Rate post not users |
|
 |
Shannon Barber Moderator Member since: 6/23/2000 From: Westland, MI, United States |
|||
 Posted - 11/24/2009 1:36:55 PM |
||||
| My apologizes if this has been suggested a million times already, but it would be nice to rate a particular post +/- as opposed to the user. |
||||
|
||||
 |
stonemetal Member since: 4/13/2004 |
|||
 Posted - 11/24/2009 1:59:35 PM |
||||
| I believe the typical rationalization given for not doing it is to avoid petty people going around and down rating every post by a particular person as revenge for an ugly comment or down rate. |
||||
|
||||
 |
evolutional Moderator - Alternative Game Libraries Member since: 1/25/2002 From: Leeds, United Kingdom |
|||
|
Posted - 11/24/2009 2:02:22 PM |
||||
| Kittah approves |
||||
|
||||
|
swiftcoder Member since: 7/3/2003 From: Boston, MA, United States |
|||
|
Posted - 11/24/2009 2:06:43 PM |
||||
Quote:Maybe not a million times, but it does show up at least once in every ratings thread  Aside from the standard justifications, I am not sure how useful post rating would be without a rating-aware forum search (and all the work that custom search implementation requires). User rating, on the other hand, is universally useful, and thread length (i.e. popularity) can be used as a decent metric to determine thread worth (at least outside of the lounge). Tristam MacDonald - swiftcoding |
||||
|
||||
 |
rip-off GDNet+ Member since: 3/16/2005 From: Ireland |
|||
 Posted - 11/24/2009 2:20:15 PM |
||||
| My understanding was that the reason for the rating system was that the forums had no real repercussions for someone acting badly, but not bad enough to get disciplined by moderators. In this respect, the ratings tend to work well. Most users dislike it when their rating drops, so you tend to find they change their ways or leave the community. There are downsides. Its hard (but not unprecedented) to recover from a low rating. New users with an difficult (but easily-correctible, particularly for users unfamiliar with netiquette) attitude are often put off by a large negative backlash. This is related to how a single mistake can take a large chunk off the average rated user. The final problem is high ratings. Due to the imbalanced scoring system, where high rated users confer lots more points (which is grand) but low rated users remove very few points, once someone reaches a high rating they become near invulnerable to down ratings by average users. In this way, the feedback system is lost and some high rated users lose the friendly and helpful attitude that earned them the rating to begin with. This is a tricky problem. You want to reward community members who are net positive contributers, without putting them on an untouchable pedestal where they are above the rule system which put them there. blog |
||||
|
||||
 |
Kylotan Moderator - Scripting Languages and Game Mods Member since: 3/8/2000 From: Nottingham, United Kingdom |
|||
|
Posted - 11/25/2009 8:33:55 AM |
||||
| Interesting to compare with Stack Overflow, where you effectively rate the user via rating the posts. |
||||
|
||||
|
zyrolasting Member since: 9/26/2008 |
|||
|
Posted - 12/8/2009 4:58:38 PM |
||||
Quote: Well said. I also don't understand why the redundancy and ambiguity of the system is brought into question. Quote: Sounds good in theory, but the "Report Post to Moderator" anchor takes care of everything in that regard. The moderators are normally very logical about which posts to remove. I'm tempted to go into why certain others seem a little too nit-picky, but let's not dwell on that. It just seems to tie into that "indestructible pedastal" bit rip-off mentioned. To cover my butt, I'm not talking about anyone here.  The "Report" anchor seems to have always been the standard way to get the community involved in voting if a user should stop posting, which is really the only point I have in "redundancy". Nevertheless, I feel it's a good one. As for "ambiguity", this is a web site, and obviously the world has access to it. All sorts of different cultures and standards are floating around, and some are offended by things others pay no mind to. I once ripped on Jagex due to my bad experience with Runescape once upon a time, and I got knocked down some pegs, even though the entire post answered someone's question and I was thanked. What I ended up doing was editing my post to remove that tidbit, because if the system is here, I AM interested in getting my rating as high as possible. The cost was this obligation to tend to people's feelings across the world. I'm sorry, but... I sincerely hope I'm not the only one who feels repressed. (No, I'm not encouraging folks to be asses.) Coupled with the fact you can hide posts from users below a certain rating, I don't want sensitivity from people I never met to make my potentially useful input mysteriously vanish across the board to some users. The rating system is awesome IN THEORY due to the community involvement it sparks, but like everything else that can be programmed, it's a trade off. I think having a forum with millions of users is involved enough, don't you? [Edited by - zyrolasting on December 8, 2009 4:58:07 PM] |
||||
|
||||
 |
Gaiiden GDNet Content Lead Member since: 8/30/2000 From: Lincroft, NJ, United States |
|||
 Posted - 12/9/2009 9:11:32 PM |
||||
Quote: When user requests consistently fall in line with our plans for V5 I tend to get a nice warm feeling ________________ Drew Sikora President, Programmer - Blade Edge Software Executive Producer, Newsletter Editor - GameDev.net Community Relations, Live Events Mngr - Game Institute IGDA Chapter Advisor - New Jersey |
||||
|
||||
| All times are ET (US) |
Last Thread Next Thread |
|
