Rating Topics

[MM 6,562]

While we are currently on the subject of ratings, I want to point out another rating feature that is available and seldom used on the board.

 

In several of the forums (not all presently), there is a series of 5 stars at the top of the topic's first post. You can click on these stars (1 to 5, 5 being the best) to vote your rating for the topic.

 

As with reputation votes, I cannot say what should be going through your mind (sorry, Bazle) when you do this, so you'll just have to use your judgement and common sense.

 

 

[papillon 695]

I just rated the topic 1 star just for the hell of it.

[MM 6,562]

[CheshireTom 1,377]

While we are currently on the subject of ratings, I want to point out another rating feature that is available and seldom used on the board.

 

In several of the forums (not all presently), there is a series of 5 stars at the top of the topic's first post. You can click on these stars (1 to 5, 5 being the best) to vote your rating for the topic.

 

As with reputation votes, I cannot say what should be going through your mind (sorry, Bazle) when you do this, so you'll just have to use your judgement and common sense.

 

Aren't the ratings then assigned to the thread starter. If not, what do these "rating" stars mean?

[papillon 695]

There's gratitude for you

[MM 6,562]

Aren't the ratings then assigned to the thread starter. If not, what do these "rating" stars mean?

 

It looks like it.

 

Few people rate topics, probably due to lack of awareness of the feature. Most topics are unrated, and the ones that are, have 1 or 2 votes.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

What makes it even better is that you can rate your own thread. I always wondered why Gabor's and Evil's threads always seemed to have 5 stars.

[MM 6,562]

What makes it even better is that you can rate your own thread. I always wondered why Gabor's and Evil's threads always seemed to have 5 stars.

 

I figured you'd like that

 

And, you are correct. Those posters who know about this feature sometimes give themselves the only vote.

[CheshireTom 1,377]

And, you are correct. Those posters who know about this feature sometimes give themselves the only vote.

 

Only until such time as I spotted it. Then they got the second vote. I didn't know it was connected to the personal ratings thingy until you started this thread - I always wondered what the stars were all about.

 

On a serious note ... the rating of posts and/or threads is all very well but I think it should be visible as to who is doing the voting, irrespective if it's positive or negative.

Edited January 1, 2012 by CheshireTom

[villayouth 37]

so whats happened to the reputation thing

 

Is my mate still banned for speaking his mind

[MM 6,562]

so whats happened to the reputation thing

 

Is my mate still banned for speaking his mind

 

It's still there just as it was before last week.

 

Your mate is banned for being an asshole on the chat and via email.

[jimmac 66]

so whats happened to the reputation thing

 

Is my mate still banned for speaking his mind

 

You have a mate?

[villayouth 37]

You have a mate?

 

Yes

[Evil Penevil 7,628]

To me, the plus button means, "I liked this post" and the negative button means the opposite. Since English is a flexible language, you can call that a reputation system, but it's a bit counter-intuitive. Reputation is more what you think of a person, not just their posts.

 

What would really be interesting would be to know the voting pattern behind the reputation points. If a BM has a reputation of plus 200 and those votes have come from 100 or more different BMs over a long period of time, then it's a sign, for whatever it's worth, that there's broad appreciation of at least some of his posts. But if another BM has the same rep level based solely on one or two people using all five (or whatever it is) plus votes a day to vote up a friend, then that speaks of collusion. The same is true if A votes five times a day for B and B does the same for A. And if BMs take part in manipulation of the system, that doesn't speak well of their reputations in the real sense of the word.

 

The difficulty with anonymous rating systems is that they require a lot of action by the mods to stop them from being abused. The biggest problem on some boards (and I'm not referring only to punter boards) is the creation of fake handles to vote BMs up or down. There's a fix, but it causes a lot more work for the mods. In the case of Pattaya Talk, that means more work for MM.

 

Public voting (everyone sees who has voted a post up or down) is probably the best way to curb abuses, but it tends to cause tit-for-tat voting.

 

Bottom line: a reputation system is a good idea, but is open to abuse. Too much time and effort is needed to prevent it from being manipulated to the point of absurdity.

 

Two suggestions: Keeping plus and minus votes at the same level (two of each a day or whatever) helps make manipulation harder and prevents rapid swings. Don't allow BMs to vote on reputation until they have 50 posts or so. Only the most dedicated troll will invest that much effort into establishing multiple handles.

 

Evil

Edited January 1, 2012 by Evil Penevil

[Fondles 94]

What is the point of ratings/reputations ?