The User Rating System
Author
Hey there, I just wanted to talk about the user rating system. I don't want to open up a can of worms or anything, but rather just discuss the benefits and the pitfalls of it.
I agree with the user rating system ideal, in respect to "who knows you better than the people that surrond you." That's one benefit to it. But nothing is beneficial if it doesn't have checks-and-balances working with it. I am most certainly not in the position to provide any checks, or balances, to the system.
Now, in my own experience, I have found that the user rating system only works a select few of the times. In most other situations, after I look at the users post history, I find that they don't deserve the low rating that they have received.
At first I found this odd, but, after thinking about it, it made sense. It appears as though most people are prone to rating users down, and not up. For one simple sarcastic comment one day, when you were having a bad day, a user chooses to rate you down and tarnish your rating. Well what about all those other helpful days that you didn't get rated up for?
Even I, myself, have experienced this as over the past two months I have chosen to be nothing but helpful, and absolutely no one has rated me up.
In fact, I don't really agree with the rating system at all. What is stopping someone from rating you down just because you don't agree with what they said when they started the topic?
Overall, I guess my main point is that I believe the user rating sysetm should be removed, or checks and balances should be put into place. Otherwise it is not a fair representation at all, and in essence synonymous with basing your opinion of a user off of their post count (if they were present on this forum.)
Also, just curious, but why are the names, of the people that rate down, hidden, while the others that rate up, are not?
That's just my $0.02, take it as you want it, but I don't find the system helpful at all.
Quote:Original post by Halifax2
At first I found this odd, but, after thinking about it, it made sense. It appears as though most people are prone to rating users down, and not up.
Actually, last time I checked, positive ratings outnumbered negative ratings by about two to one.
Quote:Also, just curious, but why are the names, of the people that rate down, hidden, while the others that rate up, are not?
To prevent revenge rating.
I like it, and I think it works.
The only thing I think is slightly odd is that Moderators and Admins start with a much higher rating than the average user. A rating should be earned by being helpful in posts, not simply a bonus because of your position. I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove.
EDIT: Just to give an extra £0.02, I recently reached 1100. To me, I think it means my posts in some topics have proven helpful and useful to some people. It also makes me happy to be here.
The only thing I think is slightly odd is that Moderators and Admins start with a much higher rating than the average user. A rating should be earned by being helpful in posts, not simply a bonus because of your position. I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove.
EDIT: Just to give an extra £0.02, I recently reached 1100. To me, I think it means my posts in some topics have proven helpful and useful to some people. It also makes me happy to be here.
1. Mods and staff nowadays don't start with a higher rating. When the rating system was introduced this was the case in order to seed the system (you need someone with a higher level in order to get things moving), but these days that isn't the case. Most mods are simply highly rated.
2. You may think you're being helpful, but if another user either knows you're not or thinks you're not, he won't rate you up.
3. There's nothing to stop someone from rating you down for no reason at all. At the same time, there's nothing to stop someone from rating you up for no reason, although I don't think you'd object to that. The rating system is designed to show long-term standing, and is therefore prone to short-term fluctuations, especially for new users.
4. There are literally dozens of posts that all discuss this exact same thing, start the same way, and end the same way. A simple search would have shown you that. So far you've been rather civil so you may escape the worst of it, but many others like yourself have suffered a massive hit for starting threads like this and making it escalate out of control. Don't be one of those people.
5. As deadstar has said, some people find it uplifting to reach certain plateaus in their rating. If you find that you don't like the system, simply ignore it and let others continue to make use of it.
2. You may think you're being helpful, but if another user either knows you're not or thinks you're not, he won't rate you up.
3. There's nothing to stop someone from rating you down for no reason at all. At the same time, there's nothing to stop someone from rating you up for no reason, although I don't think you'd object to that. The rating system is designed to show long-term standing, and is therefore prone to short-term fluctuations, especially for new users.
4. There are literally dozens of posts that all discuss this exact same thing, start the same way, and end the same way. A simple search would have shown you that. So far you've been rather civil so you may escape the worst of it, but many others like yourself have suffered a massive hit for starting threads like this and making it escalate out of control. Don't be one of those people.
5. As deadstar has said, some people find it uplifting to reach certain plateaus in their rating. If you find that you don't like the system, simply ignore it and let others continue to make use of it.
Quote:Original post by deadstar
The only thing I think is slightly odd is that Moderators and Admins start with a much higher rating than the average user. A rating should be earned by being helpful in posts, not simply a bonus because of your position. I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove.
If I remember my GameDev.net lore, that was done to help create the system when it was started.
When you rate someone, the rating change is weighted based on your own rating. When ratings were introduced, they needed a way to quickly give people boosts to their rating based on their experience. So they decided to give people in positions of trust a boosted rating so these trusted people could in turn rate up the members who were valued members of the community. Hence why staff members started at 2000 and moderators at 1500.
I don't think these days there's a rating boost for when someone gets promoted to moderator or staff member. Usually though those who are selected for the job are members in very good standing regardless.
Edit: Ninja'd [grin]
Quote:Original post by Halifax2
Otherwise it is not a fair representation at all, and in essence synonymous with basing your opinion of a user off of their post count (if they were present on this forum.)
I think the User Rating System is a pretty accurate representation of it all because of how it seems to be a model of reputation. Consider first impression in life, if you are having a bad day and say something that rubs a potential employer the wrong way, then your reputation may be tarnished by word of mouth just for that one single incident and your chances of getting in might be lost. If you are having a bad day and snap at a friend, they might be hurt and decide not to talk to you anymore (this does happen). If you say the wrong thing to a girl, she might think one way of you and there goes your chances. I could go on, but I think the point is made.
The system promotes responsibility of ones actions at all times. You do not have to comment on any posts on the forum, you choose the ones you reply to. For each reply you make, your are immediately held accountable for them. If you find yourself declining in rating, it should raise some warning bells that perhaps the things you are saying to people aren't coming off the right way.
So, general advice is to don't just reply to everything that "bothers you" online for starters. if someone says something that really ticks you off, most commonly done in the Lounge, you don't have to say anything (not saying this applies to you, but this is general advice). Post less in the Lounge and more in the technical forums. However, if you aren't certain about something, don't post at all. Choosing not to post something because you don't know is much better than posting something that is totally wrong or inaccurate just because you want to try to help. There is such thing as "destructive help", and that's when people start rate-bombing you, just as in real life people would say you aren't credible.
The last thing to consider is the presentation of your posts. Spelling, grammar, and word choice all play an important part in how your posts are read. More spelling errors or grammar issues make your look bad. When you post, take the time to read over your text to make sure it makes sense and nothing just seems out of place. Whether you post now or in 10 minutes after correcting your post does not matter; if you want to help, you will help, not try to be the first person to answer a post (just an example).
Anyways, your rating will fluctuate over time. So don't give up hope or give in to despair just because it's below 1000. A lot of people that have high ratings now at one time did have low ratings. Dave for example used to have an average rating of 800 a few years ago. He made a post once to beginners explaining how he started to spend less time in the lounge and more time being positive, constructive, and more careful and look where he's at now [smile] When I started, I was under 1000 for a bit, sometimes there is nothing you can do but work harder and keep true to your original purpose, which would be to post to help people. If you are doing your best, then that's your best. No number will ever take that away from you.
Well, the moderators generally come from those who are frequent and helpful posters, so it makes sense that their ratings begin at 1500. It also prevents them from falling below a user's viewing threshold, so that they will not be inadvertently ignored.
The rating system isn't perfect. Yes, people will really put down the hurt if you're just "having a bad day", however, if you're having such a day, its probably not the best idea to come take it out on the forums, especially if the rating means something to you. Yes, people will occasionally down-rate you for nothing more than disagreeing with you, its happened to me too.
Ultimately though, its simply meant to be a suggestion for those who are not yet familiar with you, perhaps because they are new to the forums, so that they might have some clue about who knows what they're talking about and who's talking out of their ass. It really doesn't say anything about your value as a poster/person, so chill out. Once you've been here long enough, you'll become a name rather than a number, and the amount of respect you'll hold will likely be higher than your number suggests.
Also, keep in mind that the effect of a rating is a function of both the reviewer and reviewee's current score. Someone with a much higher rating than you will have a greater affect than someone equal to or much lower than yourself. Build up your rating, and the childish little peons who would rate you down over a difference of opinion won't be able to knock off more than a couple points. If I go rate you very helpful right now, I can probably bump you up 15-20 points; If you rate me very unhelpful I'd probably get knocked down only 2-3 points. Generally speaking, those who are more well-established and higher-rated are more judicious in their rating, which is what helps the system police itself.
The rating system isn't perfect. Yes, people will really put down the hurt if you're just "having a bad day", however, if you're having such a day, its probably not the best idea to come take it out on the forums, especially if the rating means something to you. Yes, people will occasionally down-rate you for nothing more than disagreeing with you, its happened to me too.
Ultimately though, its simply meant to be a suggestion for those who are not yet familiar with you, perhaps because they are new to the forums, so that they might have some clue about who knows what they're talking about and who's talking out of their ass. It really doesn't say anything about your value as a poster/person, so chill out. Once you've been here long enough, you'll become a name rather than a number, and the amount of respect you'll hold will likely be higher than your number suggests.
Also, keep in mind that the effect of a rating is a function of both the reviewer and reviewee's current score. Someone with a much higher rating than you will have a greater affect than someone equal to or much lower than yourself. Build up your rating, and the childish little peons who would rate you down over a difference of opinion won't be able to knock off more than a couple points. If I go rate you very helpful right now, I can probably bump you up 15-20 points; If you rate me very unhelpful I'd probably get knocked down only 2-3 points. Generally speaking, those who are more well-established and higher-rated are more judicious in their rating, which is what helps the system police itself.
The rating itself more or less represents the aggregate opinion of the community about a person. It's always been debatable how useful that number actually is, it's always been debated and will continue to be I'm sure.
A person's rating doesn't necessarily say how helpful they would be to you if they replied to a question of yours. For example, if a person stays active on the forums for a long time making marginally helpful posts then they might acquire the same rating as someone who's made fewer posts each of which are massively helpful and rated highly.
In order to know how helpful someone might be to you then you could measure it as their average rating per post: (rating - 1000) / post_count
A person's rating doesn't necessarily say how helpful they would be to you if they replied to a question of yours. For example, if a person stays active on the forums for a long time making marginally helpful posts then they might acquire the same rating as someone who's made fewer posts each of which are massively helpful and rated highly.
In order to know how helpful someone might be to you then you could measure it as their average rating per post: (rating - 1000) / post_count
Author
Well I like the outlook that I have received from other users because I definitely didn't think of it in those terms.
@Mike.Popoloski:
#3: That is true, I doubt that anyone would object to that.
#4: Yes, that is my fault for not searching. And I was originally hesistant to start this topic for that specfic reason.
@Drew_Benton: Yeah, I never looked at it that way. It is a model of sorts based off of the real world. And thanks for that uplifting piece of advice.
@Mike.Popoloski:
#3: That is true, I doubt that anyone would object to that.
#4: Yes, that is my fault for not searching. And I was originally hesistant to start this topic for that specfic reason.
@Drew_Benton: Yeah, I never looked at it that way. It is a model of sorts based off of the real world. And thanks for that uplifting piece of advice.
Quote:Original post by Halifax2
Even I, myself, have experienced this as over the past two months I have chosen to be nothing but helpful, and absolutely no one has rated me up.
Halifax2's rating (I think?*)
That's not exactly 'absolutely no one'. [wink]
I just checked my rating of you, and I see I've already rated you up once in the past (I'm not sure for what). I typically don't rate down much, mostly just up, and usually only when people are helpful. Whether they are helpful to me, or helpful to other posters is irrelevant, I still rate them if they were really helpful and/or polite.
If you are truly worried about your rating, avoiding the lounge for two or three months helps, and try to help other people in For Beginners or General DoZ Topics (which you probably do already).
I wont re-iterate what everyone else has already said, except to clarify that moderators and staff do not start out with a higher rating. Only those staff and mods that were here when the system was introduced. The website itself inaccurately states otherwise in some places (but I can't seem to find those places at the moment...), which explains why people are misinformed
Also, I believe the staff plan to change the rating system in the next version of the site, so there's no point asking them to change it, when I think they are intending to change it anyway. (See here, and the link in the OP of that thread)
*That might not be your actual ratings, but I think it is, seeing as it's not mine.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
