I guess my area of concern about this comes to, what makes a classic post? Now, I realize you stated about it's current rating.
But a post on STL in the General Programming forum is going to get a lot more traffic than a post about some obscure problem in the Software Engineering forum. So the STL question becomes a classic post, whereas the Software Engineering post gets marked as trash, even though it might actually be helpful elsewhere, or maybe even answers a common question in that forum.
There have been many times when the search feature has resolved a question I was going to ask that was more than 180 days old, and from what I understand, those posts would be gone. Maybe that's what you intended. I don't necessarily agree, because I tend to search for more obscure questions which probably would not be marked up enough for it to be saved.
I'm sort of torn, because I don't think the majority of technical posts hold no long term merit. Granted, there are followups such as ++ratings or lol posts which can easily be gotten rid of, or the how do pointers work posts which are abundent, but I tend to believe in the silent majority that will let many great posts disappear into obscurity.
Proposed ratings mechanism modifications
I'm going to throw another spanner in the works and say what about if we some how restrict a users access depending on their rating, percentage or otherwise. For example:
<800 - 10 posts per day.
<500 - Only allowed in the lounge.
etc etc
Just things that would be annoying to them, eventually they wouldn't be allow to post at all if they get to <100 or 0 or something. It's a self moderation system governed by the users of the site.
Dave
<800 - 10 posts per day.
<500 - Only allowed in the lounge.
etc etc
Just things that would be annoying to them, eventually they wouldn't be allow to post at all if they get to <100 or 0 or something. It's a self moderation system governed by the users of the site.
Dave
Quote:Original post by Dave
I'm going to throw another spanner in the works and say what about if we some how restrict a users access depending on their rating, percentage or otherwise. For example:
<800 - 10 posts per day.
<500 - Only allowed in the lounge.
etc etc
Just things that would be annoying to them, eventually they wouldn't be allow to post at all if they get to <100 or 0 or something. It's a self moderation system governed by the users of the site.
Dave
That's stupid. Sometimes, on a rare basis, people with ratings less than 100 make it back up. And forcing someone with a rating less than 500 to ONLY post in the lounge WILL reduce them to a rating of 0. The ratings, as they stand have NO bearing on the moderation of a user. It will always be that way. However, the proposed changes the Oluseyi has mentioned would enable us to easily identify users who are helpful, and content that is useful.
I'm a fan of the classic posts idea.
I dont really care about how the ratings are implemented (either per post or per user or whatever) just as long as I can get an idea of how helpful I am and how knowledgeable other posters are so that I can focus on their posts. If this means that rating per post is a better idea, go for it.
I dont really care about how the ratings are implemented (either per post or per user or whatever) just as long as I can get an idea of how helpful I am and how knowledgeable other posters are so that I can focus on their posts. If this means that rating per post is a better idea, go for it.
Well would my post rating affect my user rating? I mean if I make 10 posts (assume this is a total of all my posting on GDnet) and they get high ratings, but I'm still at 1000, then that would seem strange to me. In a way, I think it would be unfair. Anyway, I would like to vote on thread, then on individual posts, but it seems like everyone else is leaning towards posts.
Also, will the ratings (for posts, threads, and articles) be numerical, labelled (ie. trash, bad, average, good, excellent), and/or some sort of colored graph/chart?
Also, will the ratings (for posts, threads, and articles) be numerical, labelled (ie. trash, bad, average, good, excellent), and/or some sort of colored graph/chart?
Quote:Original post by Alpha_ProgDesQuote:Original post by LessBread
#3 My understanding was that the current upper bound was somewhere above 2000. For example, Myopic Rhino has a rating of 2088.
If the switch to a percentage rating is made, existing members should start out with a rating based on their current rating, perhaps the percentage of their current rating relative to Myopic Rhino. As an example, that would give you a 95% rating (1987/2088) to start with.
Let's say for instance, iMalc suddenly gets a rating of 2634 and I stay at 1626. My rating would go down because of it. At first glance, it would be misleading because one would think I was being disruptive, unhelpful, or just a plain ass and got rated down. It's also misleading to myself if I or no one else has an actual rating to manipulate or base the percentage on.
...to start with
If the switch was made at this time, your percentage would start at 1626/2088. I chose Myopic Rhino for that example because (afaik) he has the highest rating. If iMalc's rating shot up to 2634 before that time giving him the highest rating, then his score would become the upper bound and your percentage would start at 1626/2634.
Unidimensional ratings are limited in their explanatory power. Using the President as an example, he's rated low by people on the left because of Iraq and he's rated low by people on the right because of profligate government spending and a wishy washy immigration policy. His popularity number doesn't reflect the reasons it is what it is. To do that requires comparing responses to other polling questions. This is a problem similar to that of using left-right ideological distinctions when we here know from experience that a compass offers a superior means of identifying a persons ideological location.
From this perspective it seems that two ratings might be better as it would allow for a more precise coordination of members relative to other members. It might not be though because it might complicate the matter beyond usefulness.
I think users should be rated on different aspects, instead of just one number...
Friendliness and Technical Knowledge being two. So you can tell someone who is popular, from someone who is smart.
Friendliness and Technical Knowledge being two. So you can tell someone who is popular, from someone who is smart.
Quote:Original post by Colin Jeanne
I'm a fan of the classic posts idea.
I dont really care about how the ratings are implemented (either per post or per user or whatever) just as long as I can get an idea of how helpful I am and how knowledgeable other posters are so that I can focus on their posts. If this means that rating per post is a better idea, go for it.
Seconded.
I like Alpha_ProgDes's idea of copying classic posts to a different server, and I would like to suggest that maybe having the ability to search classic posts on that server directly would be helpful in quickly finding useful information.
Also, I've noticed the google search here rarely turns up the old threads, so I don't think their removal would be missed much beyond outside links to them. Give it some time for the classic posts to sift to the top and then removing the rest should be fine.
Quote:Original post by LessBreadQuote:Original post by Alpha_ProgDesQuote:Original post by LessBread
#3 My understanding was that the current upper bound was somewhere above 2000. For example, Myopic Rhino has a rating of 2088.
If the switch to a percentage rating is made, existing members should start out with a rating based on their current rating, perhaps the percentage of their current rating relative to Myopic Rhino. As an example, that would give you a 95% rating (1987/2088) to start with.
Let's say for instance, iMalc suddenly gets a rating of 2634 and I stay at 1626. My rating would go down because of it. At first glance, it would be misleading because one would think I was being disruptive, unhelpful, or just a plain ass and got rated down. It's also misleading to myself if I or no one else has an actual rating to manipulate or base the percentage on.
...to start with
If the switch was made at this time, your percentage would start at 1626/2088. I chose Myopic Rhino for that example because (afaik) he has the highest rating. If iMalc's rating shot up to 2634 before that time giving him the highest rating, then his score would become the upper bound and your percentage would start at 1626/2634.
Well see my example was based on the fact, that the switch was done now and then iMalc shot up to 2634. Hence, my conclusion above.
Quote:Unidimensional ratings are limited in their explanatory power. Using the President as an example, he's rated low by people on the left because of Iraq and he's rated low by people on the right because of profligate government spending and a wishy washy immigration policy. His popularity number doesn't reflect the reasons it is what it is. To do that requires comparing responses to other polling questions. This is a problem similar to that of using left-right ideological distinctions when we here know from experience that a compass offers a superior means of identifying a persons ideological location.
From this perspective it seems that two ratings might be better as it would allow for a more precise coordination of members relative to other members. It might not be though because it might complicate the matter beyond usefulness.
I'll admit that my vocabulary overall is severely lacking. But that explanation was more confusing than explanatory to be honest.
But I will say this (because I believe I got the gist of what you said), the current system allows us to correctly assume the following: 1) the user rated based on what he/she said, 2) the user rating shows if the user has been helpful to the community, 3) if there's a high rating that user must be a valuable asset. Now this doesn't determine whether the user is extrememly funny, logical, or technical. It only determines that whatever that person does he/she are good at it and the community rewarded them for it.
The percentage system as you put it takes away hard numbers and instead has your rating as a ratio against the highest rating. Now your rating may go up if the user with the highest rating begins to be rated badly or you begin to be rated well. But no one knows because there's no numbers, just ratios. It just seems like another layer which hides needed information.
Quote:Original post by skittleoQuote:Original post by Colin Jeanne
I'm a fan of the classic posts idea.
I dont really care about how the ratings are implemented (either per post or per user or whatever) just as long as I can get an idea of how helpful I am and how knowledgeable other posters are so that I can focus on their posts. If this means that rating per post is a better idea, go for it.
Seconded.
I like Alpha_ProgDes's idea of moving classic old posts to a different server, and I would like to suggest that maybe having the ability to search classic old posts on that server directly would be helpful in quickly finding useful information.
Also, I've noticed the google search here rarely turns up the old threads, so I don't think their removal would be missed much beyond outside links to them. Give it some time for the classic posts to sift to the top and then moving the rest to another server should be fine.
Corrected [smile]
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
