Forums: Rockclimbing.com: Announcements:
Forum Post Rating
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Announcements

Premier Sponsor:

 


Partner j_ung


Feb 3, 2009, 10:09 AM
Post #1 of 176 (9640 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Forum Post Rating
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (25 ratings)  
Can't Post

You're about to see something new in the forums: post rating. Mostly, this feature exists to help users and guests gauge the quality of posts, but it has some other advantages, too. Most notably, post rating will in the near future help us sort search results. I think the way it works will be self explanatory, but if you have any questions, feel free to post them here... so the rest of us can rate them. Tongue

Now, heh, I know the temptation to pile the ones onto a person you dislike is great (or in the case of the BET pile them on your friends). Try not to do that, huh? Try to limit your ratings to the content of each individual post.

Thanks,
J


clausti


Feb 3, 2009, 10:29 AM
Post #2 of 176 (9623 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2004
Posts: 5690

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (8 ratings)  
Can't Post

but what if someone is trying to search for a particular idiocy? then won't it be hard to find?


imnotclever


Feb 3, 2009, 10:33 AM
Post #3 of 176 (9620 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 8, 2003
Posts: 10000

Re: [clausti] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (11 ratings)  
Can't Post

clausti wrote:
but what if someone is trying to search for a particular idiocy? then won't it be hard to find?

Then you need to search by username:

Devils_Advocate
Sungam
Caughtinside
Reno
Camhead
Dominic7

etc.


shoo


Feb 3, 2009, 10:47 AM
Post #4 of 176 (9610 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (10 ratings)  
Can't Post

I LOVE this idea.


sungam


Feb 3, 2009, 10:47 AM
Post #5 of 176 (9609 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26597

Re: [imnotclever] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (16 ratings)  
Can't Post

I throwing a turd at yourn post for not including GMburns.


sungam


Feb 3, 2009, 10:52 AM
Post #6 of 176 (9590 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26597

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (10 ratings)  
Can't Post

Make it so that we can see the average vote on our own posts.


justroberto


Feb 3, 2009, 10:53 AM
Post #7 of 176 (9586 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (7 ratings)  
Can't Post

If I cared about what other people thought of a post, I'd just read their responses. Also, it's pretty distracting visually, but that's something we'll probably just get used to.


fxgranite


Feb 3, 2009, 10:53 AM
Post #8 of 176 (9586 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 1, 2007
Posts: 358

Re: [sungam] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'm evening up the score cause I laughed


fxgranite


Feb 3, 2009, 10:54 AM
Post #9 of 176 (9581 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 1, 2007
Posts: 358

Re: [justroberto] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

justroberto wrote:
If I cared about what other people thought of a post, I'd just read their responses. Also, it's pretty distracting visually, but that's something we'll probably just get used to.

Agreed on the visual impact. Maybe just make it smaller and put it off to the side?


imnotclever


Feb 3, 2009, 10:55 AM
Post #10 of 176 (9580 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 8, 2003
Posts: 10000

Re: [sungam] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

jAY you can't let this be active in the community forums though.

That'd bee tooo much.


granite_grrl


Feb 3, 2009, 10:58 AM
Post #11 of 176 (9573 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 25, 2002
Posts: 14800

Re: [imnotclever] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (8 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'm having so much fun voting on posts in this thread!!! How this whole idea pans out should be interesting.


Partner j_ung


Feb 3, 2009, 11:05 AM
Post #12 of 176 (9568 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [granite_grrl] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (10 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'm gonna let go as is for a day or two. But we'll be ironing out the wrinkles as we go along. Visually, however, I actually want it to be very noticeable, so I don't necessarily think that's a wrinkle.


Valarc


Feb 3, 2009, 11:10 AM
Post #13 of 176 (9554 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 19, 2007
Posts: 1473

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (18 ratings)  
Can't Post

Pancakes!


boymeetsrock


Feb 3, 2009, 11:11 AM
Post #14 of 176 (9552 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 11, 2005
Posts: 1709

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

How does the average work? is it n average rating for the particular post? poster? or thread?

Cool to see this back in some form though!


sungam


Feb 3, 2009, 11:12 AM
Post #15 of 176 (9546 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26597

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (15 ratings)  
Can't Post

I threrw a turd at yore post, cuz I wanna see what mine get rated.


carabiner96


Feb 3, 2009, 11:14 AM
Post #16 of 176 (9543 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12549

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (11 ratings)  
Can't Post

is there any way that instead of every single little post having a rating, we could just rate the thread instead? I agree that now it's too crowded looking, and seems to have slowed down load times a bit. Plus, now people can bitch an moan about what they're post has been rated, whereas the quality of a whole thread cannot be affected by poor responses.

I just think that rating a whole thread would be far more effective.


Partner happiegrrrl


Feb 3, 2009, 11:17 AM
Post #17 of 176 (9537 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4615

Re: [sungam] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (11 ratings)  
Can't Post

Can people see how the stars in their own posts are averaging?

I have to say, about these new star wars: It is my opinion that no good can come of this.....

But it ought to be entertaining to see what happens. Smart marketing Jay. Middle of winter blues - toss some gas in the fire to heat things up!


imnotclever


Feb 3, 2009, 11:17 AM
Post #18 of 176 (9536 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 8, 2003
Posts: 10000

Re: [carabiner96] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

The other thing to notice is that I can go back and change my vote.

Im sure you could use a vote change to intentionally draw out the butthuttz.

Can we change our votes on pictures? I'll have to go check.


Partner happiegrrrl


Feb 3, 2009, 11:20 AM
Post #19 of 176 (9528 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4615

Re: [imnotclever] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
Can't Post

Ah...No. One cannot see their own post ratings.

You do understand, I am sure Jay, that all a person has to do is ask what their stars are. Is this another scheme to get post count increases????


edit:
hey! The stars weren't on the post of mine I looked at before??? At least I don't think they were....


(This post was edited by happiegrrrl on Feb 3, 2009, 11:26 AM)


notapplicable


Feb 3, 2009, 11:22 AM
Post #20 of 176 (9524 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [happiegrrrl] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

happiegrrrl wrote:
I have to say, about these new star wars: It is my opinion that no good can come of this.....

This is correct


notapplicable


Feb 3, 2009, 11:23 AM
Post #21 of 176 (9519 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [notapplicable] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

Also, I want to be able to vote on my own posts.


Valarc


Feb 3, 2009, 11:24 AM
Post #22 of 176 (9513 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 19, 2007
Posts: 1473

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
Can't Post

I don't find the current implementation terribly useful. You can't see the ratings of your own posts, and the average doesn't mean much, since you don't know how many votes went into that average. Like others, I also find it pretty visually distracting.

I think a digg or reddit style thumbs up/thumbs down system would be both simpler and more effective. Each thumbs up is a +1, and each thumbs down is a -1 - the post gets an overall score, so posts that were loved by lots of people will get a high score. This would make sorting a lot more intuitive - under the current system, a post with one 5-star vote looks better than a post with five 5-star votes and 1 one-star, depending on how you handle the rounding. Under the +/- system, the first post would have a score of +1, while the second would have a score of +4, more clearly illustrating that the second was enjoyed by more people.


Partner epoch
Moderator

Feb 3, 2009, 11:26 AM
Post #23 of 176 (9496 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 27, 2005
Posts: 32071

Re: [Valarc] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

Everyone, do me a favor and check out your profile.

Do you see an rated average or no?


wjca


Feb 3, 2009, 11:26 AM
Post #24 of 176 (9491 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7535

Re: [Valarc] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

What happened to the stars in community?

I like Valarc's suggestion, but instead have a button for a trophy and a button for a turd. Keep a running tally of each on the post.


wjca


Feb 3, 2009, 11:27 AM
Post #25 of 176 (9487 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7535

Re: [epoch] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

epoch wrote:
Everyone, do me a favor and check out your profile.

Do you see an rated average or no?

No.


fxgranite


Feb 3, 2009, 11:28 AM
Post #26 of 176 (4366 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 1, 2007
Posts: 358

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Just log out to see your posts score...Wink


carabiner96


Feb 3, 2009, 11:28 AM
Post #27 of 176 (4365 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12549

Re: [epoch] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

epoch wrote:
Everyone, do me a favor and check out your profile.

Do you see an rated average or no?


no.


kachoong


Feb 3, 2009, 11:29 AM
Post #28 of 176 (4363 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 15304

Re: [Valarc] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Valarc wrote:
I think a digg or reddit style thumbs up/thumbs down system would be both simpler and more effective. Each thumbs up is a +1, and each thumbs down is a -1 - the post gets an overall score, so posts that were loved by lots of people will get a high score. This would make sorting a lot more intuitive - under the current system, a post with one 5-star vote looks better than a post with five 5-star votes and 1 one-star, depending on how you handle the rounding. Under the +/- system, the first post would have a score of +1, while the second would have a score of +4, more clearly illustrating that the second was enjoyed by more people.

...You obviously weren't here for the poo trophy wars.... Smile


Valarc


Feb 3, 2009, 11:32 AM
Post #29 of 176 (4353 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 19, 2007
Posts: 1473

Re: [epoch] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

epoch wrote:
Everyone, do me a favor and check out your profile.

Do you see an rated average or no?

I see nothing in my profile. However, I do see the average rating on my own posts now.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Feb 3, 2009, 11:41 AM
Post #30 of 176 (4345 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

I find the new feature annoying. At best.

A useless feature that brings nothing to the table. It isn't going to improve "content", eliminate trolls, or help determine which zingers are actually funny.


kachoong


Feb 3, 2009, 11:47 AM
Post #31 of 176 (4336 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 15304

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Jay,

...if you have voted on a post, leave the thread, then come back to it, and then hover the mouse over the stars again the vote disappears.

...a minor glitch perhaps?


Partner j_ung


Feb 3, 2009, 11:58 AM
Post #32 of 176 (4325 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [boymeetsrock] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

boymeetsrock wrote:
How does the average work? is it n average rating for the particular post? poster? or thread?

Cool to see this back in some form though!

Just per post.


Partner j_ung


Feb 3, 2009, 12:00 PM
Post #33 of 176 (4321 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [happiegrrrl] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

happiegrrrl wrote:
Can people see how the stars in their own posts are averaging?

I have to say, about these new star wars: It is my opinion that no good can come of this.....

But it ought to be entertaining to see what happens. Smart marketing Jay. Middle of winter blues - toss some gas in the fire to heat things up!

LaughLaughBusted, I am!

As to your question, though, nope, too much functionality for its own good I think.


Partner j_ung


Feb 3, 2009, 12:01 PM
Post #34 of 176 (4318 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [imnotclever] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

imnotclever wrote:
The other thing to notice is that I can go back and change my vote.

Im sure you could use a vote change to intentionally draw out the butthuttz.

Can we change our votes on pictures? I'll have to go check.

Not sure about pictures, but probably. Here, that's by design, just in case you accidentally hit a star when you mean to hit something else.


Partner j_ung


Feb 3, 2009, 12:02 PM
Post #35 of 176 (4312 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [fxgranite] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

fxgranite wrote:
Just log out to see your posts score...Wink

You shouldn't have to do that anymore.


Partner j_ung


Feb 3, 2009, 12:03 PM
Post #36 of 176 (4308 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
I find the new feature annoying. At best.

A useless feature that brings nothing to the table. It isn't going to improve "content", eliminate trolls, or help determine which zingers are actually funny.

On it's own, no. You're correct. I'm well aware that there's no such thing as a magic bullet.


Partner j_ung


Feb 3, 2009, 12:06 PM
Post #37 of 176 (4305 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [kachoong] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

kachoong wrote:
Jay,

...if you have voted on a post, leave the thread, then come back to it, and then hover the mouse over the stars again the vote disappears.

...a minor glitch perhaps?

But the average stays the same. Glitch, but a minor one.


reno


Feb 3, 2009, 12:06 PM
Post #38 of 176 (4301 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283

Re: [epoch] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

epoch wrote:
Everyone, do me a favor and check out your profile.

Do you see an rated average or no?

No. Where in the profile should it be?


Partner j_ung


Feb 3, 2009, 12:06 PM
Post #39 of 176 (4300 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [imnotclever] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

imnotclever wrote:
jAY you can't let this be active in the community forums though.

That'd bee tooo much.

You're right. --POOF!-- It is done.

Edit: although ratings will remain live in the Ladies Room.


(This post was edited by j_ung on Feb 3, 2009, 12:07 PM)


Gmburns2000


Feb 3, 2009, 12:07 PM
Post #40 of 176 (4295 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15152

Re: [sungam] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

sungam wrote:
I throwing a turd at yourn post for not including GMburns.

I gave you a 5-star for helping me to build my online reputation.


Partner j_ung


Feb 3, 2009, 12:08 PM
Post #41 of 176 (4300 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [reno] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

reno wrote:
epoch wrote:
Everyone, do me a favor and check out your profile.

Do you see an rated average or no?

No. Where in the profile should it be?

It shouldn't be anywhere. Averages should only be viewable by post.


shoo


Feb 3, 2009, 12:11 PM
Post #42 of 176 (4296 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

How about a thread rating?


kachoong


Feb 3, 2009, 12:11 PM
Post #43 of 176 (4296 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 15304

Re: [Gmburns2000] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Gmburns2000 wrote:
sungam wrote:
I throwing a turd at yourn post for not including GMburns.

I gave you a 5-star for helping me to build my online reputation.

Ahhh, but your online reputation is by far grossly out-weighted by our votes of your posts than your votes of our posts. Tongue


Toast_in_the_Machine


Feb 3, 2009, 12:21 PM
Post #44 of 176 (4287 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
I find the new feature annoying. At best.

A useless feature that brings nothing to the table. It isn't going to improve "content", eliminate trolls, or help determine which zingers are actually funny.

On it's own, no. You're correct. I'm well aware that there's no such thing as a magic bullet.

I didn't intend to imply that the stars wouldn't solve everything. I ment to imply they wouldn't solve anything.

I guess I'm stuck on "why the feature" Unless it is one part of an integrated new feature set???.


Partner j_ung


Feb 3, 2009, 12:28 PM
Post #45 of 176 (4281 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
j_ung wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
I find the new feature annoying. At best.

A useless feature that brings nothing to the table. It isn't going to improve "content", eliminate trolls, or help determine which zingers are actually funny.

On it's own, no. You're correct. I'm well aware that there's no such thing as a magic bullet.

I didn't intend to imply that the stars wouldn't solve everything. I ment to imply they wouldn't solve anything.

I guess I'm stuck on "why the feature" Unless it is one part of an integrated new feature set???.

Yes, indeedy. Eventually the search feature will rely heavily on it, and hopefully users will also be able to set filters, much like they used to be able to do with trophies and poo. This is part of the package that includes blue forums and the eventual killfile.


clausti


Feb 3, 2009, 12:34 PM
Post #46 of 176 (4273 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2004
Posts: 5690

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
j_ung wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
I find the new feature annoying. At best.

A useless feature that brings nothing to the table. It isn't going to improve "content", eliminate trolls, or help determine which zingers are actually funny.

On it's own, no. You're correct. I'm well aware that there's no such thing as a magic bullet.

I didn't intend to imply that the stars wouldn't solve everything. I ment to imply they wouldn't solve anything.

I guess I'm stuck on "why the feature" Unless it is one part of an integrated new feature set???.

Yes, indeedy. Eventually the search feature will rely heavily on it, and hopefully users will also be able to set filters, much like they used to be able to do with trophies and poo. This is part of the package that includes blue forums and the eventual killfile.

how is this going to improve the search feature? are you going to classify the posts by topic? because the biggest problem right now with telling people to "do a search" for something (by topic) is that the search feature will only return posts with the search terms in it, rather than returning *thread* ranked by number of times the search terms are included. and the biggest problem with searching for a particular post/phrase, is that you can't sift through results by sorting by multiple criteria (poster, date, thread title) on the fly.

but i do fail to see how this is going to help the search feature.


Valarc


Feb 3, 2009, 12:36 PM
Post #47 of 176 (4272 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 19, 2007
Posts: 1473

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
Eventually the search feature will rely heavily on it, and hopefully users will also be able to set filters, much like they used to be able to do with trophies and poo. This is part of the package that includes blue forums and the eventual killfile.

Even more reason to go to the simpler trophy/poo, or slightly less infantile thums up/thumbs down system, IMHO.

If I set a filter to remove all posts with only one star, that means posts with only a single vote, by someone who doesn't like a certain guy, will get filtered, in addition to those posts that get 50 one-star votes because they are clearly trolls or flamebait.

In the same scenario, one post would have a -1 score, and the other a -50, so if I set my filters to -10 and below, I could more easily control the level of filtering.


qwert


Feb 3, 2009, 12:37 PM
Post #48 of 176 (4271 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 2394

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

I am not shure what to think of the idea.
It could be very usefull to have some way to identify good content, but being able to rate every single post is a bit too much.
Also how does the number of posts get weighted?
For example we have one thread with only one post that is so stupid that noone even clicks on the title, apart from dumbn00b92s buddy, who rates dumbn00b92s post on how to safe money by using hardwear store carabiners a 5. So The only thing on carabiners with a straight five that pops up in the search first will then be this lunacy.

Maybe better to rate threads?
Wait for a minimum amount of votes until the ratings take effect?

And the visual side:
It is too distracting at the moment.
It needs to be much smaller. Maybe place it to the side, sowhere under the avatar?
But first and foremost:
GET RID OF THOSE WHITE BOXES AROUND THE STARS! THAT TOTALLY BUGS ME!
No seriously, give those little grafics a background that is matching the forum color, like this:



qwert


(This post was edited by qwert on Feb 3, 2009, 12:38 PM)
Attachments: postrate1.jpg (17.6 KB)
  postrate2.jpg (16.8 KB)


Gmburns2000


Feb 3, 2009, 12:44 PM
Post #49 of 176 (4262 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15152

Re: [kachoong] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

kachoong wrote:
Gmburns2000 wrote:
sungam wrote:
I throwing a turd at yourn post for not including GMburns.

I gave you a 5-star for helping me to build my online reputation.

Ahhh, but your online reputation is by far grossly out-weighted by our votes of your posts than your votes of our posts. Tongue

I vill vote more!!! Pirate


donald949


Feb 3, 2009, 12:46 PM
Post #50 of 176 (4261 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 24, 2007
Posts: 11374

Re: [happiegrrrl] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

happiegrrrl wrote:
Ah...No. One cannot see their own post ratings.

You do understand, I am sure Jay, that all a person has to do is ask what their stars are. Is this another scheme to get post count increases????


edit:
hey! The stars weren't on the post of mine I looked at before??? At least I don't think they were....

Happie,
That is how I saw it go down.
Don


fxgranite


Feb 3, 2009, 12:52 PM
Post #51 of 176 (3107 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 1, 2007
Posts: 358

Re: [qwert] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

qwert wrote:
But first and foremost:
GET RID OF THOSE WHITE BOXES AROUND THE STARS! THAT TOTALLY BUGS ME!

You totally just got voted a 1 for pointing that outMad


Partner j_ung


Feb 3, 2009, 12:54 PM
Post #52 of 176 (3105 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [qwert] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

qwert wrote:
I am not shure what to think of the idea.
It could be very usefull to have some way to identify good content, but being able to rate every single post is a bit too much.
Also how does the number of posts get weighted?
For example we have one thread with only one post that is so stupid that noone even clicks on the title, apart from dumbn00b92s buddy, who rates dumbn00b92s post on how to safe money by using hardwear store carabiners a 5. So The only thing on carabiners with a straight five that pops up in the search first will then be this lunacy.

Maybe better to rate threads?
Wait for a minimum amount of votes until the ratings take effect?

And the visual side:
It is too distracting at the moment.
It needs to be much smaller. Maybe place it to the side, sowhere under the avatar?
But first and foremost:
GET RID OF THOSE WHITE BOXES AROUND THE STARS! THAT TOTALLY BUGS ME!
No seriously, give those little grafics a background that is matching the forum color, like this:
[image]http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=3195;[/image]
[image]http://www.rockclimbing.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=post_attachment;postatt_id=3196;[/image]

qwert

Gotcha. I hadn't even noticed the white boxes before.


wjca


Feb 3, 2009, 12:56 PM
Post #53 of 176 (3102 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7535

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
imnotclever wrote:
jAY you can't let this be active in the community forums though.

That'd bee tooo much.

You're right. --POOF!-- It is done.

Edit: although ratings will remain live in the Ladies Room.

WTF? That's the place they're needed the most.


Partner j_ung


Feb 3, 2009, 12:59 PM
Post #54 of 176 (3098 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [clausti] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

clausti wrote:
j_ung wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
j_ung wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
I find the new feature annoying. At best.

A useless feature that brings nothing to the table. It isn't going to improve "content", eliminate trolls, or help determine which zingers are actually funny.

On it's own, no. You're correct. I'm well aware that there's no such thing as a magic bullet.

I didn't intend to imply that the stars wouldn't solve everything. I ment to imply they wouldn't solve anything.

I guess I'm stuck on "why the feature" Unless it is one part of an integrated new feature set???.

Yes, indeedy. Eventually the search feature will rely heavily on it, and hopefully users will also be able to set filters, much like they used to be able to do with trophies and poo. This is part of the package that includes blue forums and the eventual killfile.

how is this going to improve the search feature? are you going to classify the posts by topic? because the biggest problem right now with telling people to "do a search" for something (by topic) is that the search feature will only return posts with the search terms in it, rather than returning *thread* ranked by number of times the search terms are included. and the biggest problem with searching for a particular post/phrase, is that you can't sift through results by sorting by multiple criteria (poster, date, thread title) on the fly.

but i do fail to see how this is going to help the search feature.

Again, don't think of this as a stand-alone feature. It works in conjunction with other features. As for the search, my goal is to:

1. Have it return a list of threads, instead of individual posts.
2. Make the advanced, feature-rich search the rule, instead of the exception.
3. Rank results based on both the number of times the search terms appear and the presence of highly rated posts.

Trust me, I understand all the problems with the current search feature, and it's next on the list.


Partner j_ung


Feb 3, 2009, 1:01 PM
Post #55 of 176 (3091 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [donald949] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

donald949 wrote:
happiegrrrl wrote:
Ah...No. One cannot see their own post ratings.

You do understand, I am sure Jay, that all a person has to do is ask what their stars are. Is this another scheme to get post count increases????


edit:
hey! The stars weren't on the post of mine I looked at before??? At least I don't think they were....

Happie,
That is how I saw it go down.
Don

This thread is probably getting hard to follow. You just witnessed a change taking effect. Users can now see their own averages, but they cannot vote on their own posts.


Partner j_ung


Feb 3, 2009, 1:04 PM
Post #56 of 176 (3084 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [wjca] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

wjca wrote:
j_ung wrote:
imnotclever wrote:
jAY you can't let this be active in the community forums though.

That'd bee tooo much.

You're right. --POOF!-- It is done.

Edit: although ratings will remain live in the Ladies Room.

WTF? That's the place they're needed the most.

Angelic


shoo


Feb 3, 2009, 1:04 PM
Post #57 of 176 (3080 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
This thread is probably getting hard to follow. You just witnessed a change taking effect. Users can now see their own averages, but they cannot vote on their own posts.

At least all of my troll accounts can still tell me how awesome I am.


Partner j_ung


Feb 3, 2009, 2:15 PM
Post #58 of 176 (3044 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [shoo] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

FYI, the stars are smaller and their backgrounds are fixed.


Valarc


Feb 3, 2009, 2:16 PM
Post #59 of 176 (3040 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 19, 2007
Posts: 1473

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
FYI, the stars are smaller and their backgrounds are fixed.

MUCH BETTER, visually. I still prefer the up/down idea, though, and will continue harping on it.


shockabuku


Feb 3, 2009, 2:17 PM
Post #60 of 176 (3039 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4861

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
Now, heh, I know the temptation to pile the ones onto a person you dislike is great (or in the case of the BET pile them on your friends). Try not to do that, huh?

I guess I should have read this first.Unimpressed


Partner j_ung


Feb 3, 2009, 2:19 PM
Post #61 of 176 (3041 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [Valarc] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Valarc wrote:
j_ung wrote:
FYI, the stars are smaller and their backgrounds are fixed.

MUCH BETTER, visually. I still prefer the up/down idea, though, and will continue harping on it.

Laugh Deal.


Partner j_ung


Feb 3, 2009, 2:20 PM
Post #62 of 176 (3038 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [shockabuku] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

shockabuku wrote:
j_ung wrote:
Now, heh, I know the temptation to pile the ones onto a person you dislike is great (or in the case of the BET pile them on your friends). Try not to do that, huh?

I guess I should have read this first.Unimpressed

Meh. Don't worry. I don't think anybody expects there to NOT be an immediate explosion in misused ratings. I'm more interested in what happens after the novelty wears off.


clausti


Feb 3, 2009, 2:36 PM
Post #63 of 176 (3026 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2004
Posts: 5690

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:

Again, don't think of this as a stand-alone feature. It works in conjunction with other features. As for the search, my goal is to:

1. Have it return a list of threads, instead of individual posts.
2. Make the advanced, feature-rich search the rule, instead of the exception.
3. Rank results based on both the number of times the search terms appear and the presence of highly rated posts.

Trust me, I understand all the problems with the current search feature, and it's next on the list.

all of those things are good, (are you also going to be able to search by post?), but i still don't see what that has to do with the stars.

and i vote for the simpler up/down voting, as well.


kriso9tails


Feb 3, 2009, 2:51 PM
Post #64 of 176 (3017 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 30, 2001
Posts: 7764

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Ummm... question: What do I win when I collect one hundred stars? A special prize? Some sort of special, one-time-use forum power like the ability to edit and lock one other person's post?


Partner j_ung


Feb 3, 2009, 3:08 PM
Post #65 of 176 (3013 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [kriso9tails] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Every user already has the ability to lock posts, but the button is cleverly hidden. When you reach one hundred stars I personally travel to your home and hand you a kitten.


(This post was edited by j_ung on Feb 3, 2009, 3:09 PM)


kriso9tails


Feb 3, 2009, 3:16 PM
Post #66 of 176 (3005 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 30, 2001
Posts: 7764

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

You're lucky I can't actually count that high or I'd hold you to that.


donald949


Feb 3, 2009, 3:32 PM
Post #67 of 176 (3001 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 24, 2007
Posts: 11374

Re: [Valarc] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Valarc wrote:
j_ung wrote:
FYI, the stars are smaller and their backgrounds are fixed.

MUCH BETTER, visually. I still prefer the up/down idea, though, and will continue harping on it.

Agreed, the stars are better now.


chossmonkey


Feb 3, 2009, 3:41 PM
Post #68 of 176 (3000 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414

Re: [kachoong] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

kachoong wrote:
Jay,

...if you have voted on a post, leave the thread, then come back to it, and then hover the mouse over the stars again the vote disappears.

...a minor glitch perhaps?
I'm finding if I go over the stars and don't click anything it still registers as a one star vote.

Edited to add:
Its not doing it now and the one star disappeared when I left and went back to the page


(This post was edited by chossmonkey on Feb 3, 2009, 3:50 PM)


chossmonkey


Feb 3, 2009, 3:45 PM
Post #69 of 176 (2997 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414

Re: [kachoong] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

kachoong wrote:
Valarc wrote:
I think a digg or reddit style thumbs up/thumbs down system would be both simpler and more effective. Each thumbs up is a +1, and each thumbs down is a -1 - the post gets an overall score, so posts that were loved by lots of people will get a high score. This would make sorting a lot more intuitive - under the current system, a post with one 5-star vote looks better than a post with five 5-star votes and 1 one-star, depending on how you handle the rounding. Under the +/- system, the first post would have a score of +1, while the second would have a score of +4, more clearly illustrating that the second was enjoyed by more people.

...You obviously weren't here for the poo trophy wars.... Smile
And you really think this will be better?

Its unlimited ammo now. At least before people were limited to 5 votes a day and most didn't get to vote everyday.

I also think a plus, minus and nuetral system would be much better.


I'll go hide now. I think I heard j_ung coming down the hall with that supersized hex.Shocked


sungam


Feb 3, 2009, 3:53 PM
Post #70 of 176 (2992 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26597

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
Every user already has the ability to lock posts, but the button is cleverly hidden.
It will be finded.
"check coding"


kriso9tails


Feb 3, 2009, 4:11 PM
Post #71 of 176 (2985 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 30, 2001
Posts: 7764

Re: [sungam] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

sungam wrote:
j_ung wrote:
Every user already has the ability to lock posts, but the button is cleverly hidden.
It will be finded.
"check coding"

Don't think I'll reward you with stars just for that. I know you're gunning for a hundred of them to get that free kitten. Admit it: you're just in it for the puss... um, nevermind.


yokese


Feb 3, 2009, 5:34 PM
Post #72 of 176 (2973 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 17, 2006
Posts: 672

Re: [Valarc] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

I agree with Valarc and others. An average rating is meaningless without knowing how many votes have been cast. A +/- system seems more logical too. How many 2,3 or 4-stars a post is gonna get?. I'd bet that most of the rated post will get either 5-stars or 1-star votes, which might make the average even less meaningful.
Anyways, I'll wait a bit longer to see if the system provides any real advantage or disadvantage. On the bright side, so far it's being fun to play around with the stars... I guess the fuss will fade away in a couple of hours.


clausti


Feb 3, 2009, 5:54 PM
Post #73 of 176 (2966 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2004
Posts: 5690

Re: [yokese] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

is it just me, or do the thread pages load slower now, in particular, when skipping to the last unread post?

maybe i'm noticing it more because i have my posts/page set to 50.


jt512


Feb 3, 2009, 6:25 PM
Post #74 of 176 (2962 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

Jay,

I think that you should show the number of votes next to the average rating. Without that, you don't know how to interpret the rating. If a post has 1 star, for instance, you don't know whether it represents a single pissed off rater or a consensus turd.

Jay


rockie


Feb 3, 2009, 7:12 PM
Post #75 of 176 (2951 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 18, 2007
Posts: 1113

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

I think it's nuts..


rockie


Feb 3, 2009, 7:12 PM
Post #76 of 176 (3449 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 18, 2007
Posts: 1113

Re: [fxgranite] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

J ung, were you bored or what?


Partner robdotcalm


Feb 3, 2009, 7:45 PM
Post #77 of 176 (3442 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1023

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
donald949 wrote:
happiegrrrl wrote:
Ah...No. One cannot see their own post ratings.

You do understand, I am sure Jay, that all a person has to do is ask what their stars are. Is this another scheme to get post count increases????


edit:
hey! The stars weren't on the post of mine I looked at before??? At least I don't think they were....

Happie,
That is how I saw it go down.
Don

This thread is probably getting hard to follow. You just witnessed a change taking effect. Users can now see their own averages, but they cannot vote on their own posts.

Sure they can. Just set up a second account for yourself. This is really silly.

Cheers,
Rob.calm


htotsu


Feb 3, 2009, 9:29 PM
Post #78 of 176 (3431 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 10, 2005
Posts: 673

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
Now, heh, I know the temptation to pile the ones onto a person you dislike is great (or in the case of the BET pile them on your friends). Try not to do that, huh? Try to limit your ratings to the content of each individual post.

J, you cannot possibly believe that people will approach this that way. Seriously. If that kind of respect isn't shown in actual replies, which are not anonymous, how much less will it be shown in anonymous ratings? When there were ratings before in the form of trophies and turds, do you really believe that people did it for the greater good? If not, why would anyone start now?

I must admit some curiousity about what you mean by "the quality of posts." Does it refer to climbing safety/technique? If so, shouldn't only those who know what good climbing safety and technique are be able to rate it in other people's posts? Otherwise the rating is useless. Is it regarding tone? If so, can't anyone simply read a post to gauge that for him or herself? Whatever "quality" represents, shouldn't the rating votes of those with low-ratings figure less prominently in the average to make room for the presumably higher-quality/more useful votes of the higher-rated users?

In reality, this kind of post rating is far more likely to be approached as an "I agree/I disagree" and an "I like/don't like this person" rating than a "I support/do not support the quality of this content" or an "objectively speaking, this is a member whose judgment should/should not be trusted" rating. Also, all this time after the demise of trophies and poo, there are people who never dropped the subject, so your suggestion that something will change "when the novelty wears off" can't hold water. People used those ratings the way they used them when the feature had been on the site for quite a while.

But you are very, very smart, and you have always come across as reasonable, so of course you know all of this. This is why I'm not even sure why you'd attempt to sell this as a legitimate way to gauge quality on this site. If you'd said it was just for fun and not to be taken very seriously, then at least it would have seemed more honest.

And, for the record, I don't think the Ladies Room is a good place for these ratings at all.


(This post was edited by htotsu on Feb 3, 2009, 9:30 PM)


htotsu


Feb 3, 2009, 9:43 PM
Post #79 of 176 (3424 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 10, 2005
Posts: 673

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
Most notably, post rating will in the near future help us sort search results.

One other thing. Many people have brought up really good reasons why the current rating system could actually be detrimental to searches. If you must have the rating feature available to users at large, but you genuinely want the ratings to be meaningful for better and more useful searches, maybe you consider creating a subgroup of users (perhaps made up of all or select Mods plus a bunch of other users you trust), and the search feature only uses their ratings. That way people get to fling all the poo (aka 1-star ratings) they want on people they just don't like, and award 5-star trophies to people they just think are funny, but the search picks up what is hopefully a more balanced assessment of the users' "quality" with regard to climbing expertise or whatever you mean by it.


snoopy138


Feb 3, 2009, 11:20 PM
Post #80 of 176 (3414 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28790

Re: [shoo] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

shoo wrote:
j_ung wrote:
This thread is probably getting hard to follow. You just witnessed a change taking effect. Users can now see their own averages, but they cannot vote on their own posts.

At least all of my troll accounts can still tell me how awesome I am.

CI?


Partner j_ung


Feb 4, 2009, 5:11 AM
Post #81 of 176 (3424 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [rockie] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

rockie wrote:
J ung, were you bored or what?

Laugh Hardly.

For the naysayers, you might actually want to take some time and look around. Users, the vast majority of whom want this to work, are already using this for what it's intended. I'm listening to all the feedback, but I don't agree with much of it. Ergo, this feature is not going away anytime soon.

And for the record, I fully expect some people to misuse this on a regular basis ongoing. I think the aforementioned folks will outweigh them in the end.


Partner j_ung


Feb 4, 2009, 5:11 AM
Post #82 of 176 (3421 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [jt512] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
Jay,

I think that you should show the number of votes next to the average rating. Without that, you don't know how to interpret the rating. If a post has 1 star, for instance, you don't know whether it represents a single pissed off rater or a consensus turd.

Jay

I do, however, agree with that one. Lemme see what I can do about that.


Partner j_ung


Feb 4, 2009, 5:21 AM
Post #83 of 176 (3413 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [clausti] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

clausti wrote:
is it just me, or do the thread pages load slower now, in particular, when skipping to the last unread post?

maybe i'm noticing it more because i have my posts/page set to 50.

This shouldn't be affecting page load time at all. My understanding is that it's just a template addition. And actually, I'm noticing very fast page-load times (but I'm not set to 50).


kachoong


Feb 4, 2009, 6:11 AM
Post #84 of 176 (3400 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 15304

Re: [chossmonkey] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

chossmonkey wrote:
kachoong wrote:
Valarc wrote:
I think a digg or reddit style thumbs up/thumbs down system would be both simpler and more effective. Each thumbs up is a +1, and each thumbs down is a -1 - the post gets an overall score, so posts that were loved by lots of people will get a high score. This would make sorting a lot more intuitive - under the current system, a post with one 5-star vote looks better than a post with five 5-star votes and 1 one-star, depending on how you handle the rounding. Under the +/- system, the first post would have a score of +1, while the second would have a score of +4, more clearly illustrating that the second was enjoyed by more people.

...You obviously weren't here for the poo trophy wars.... Smile
And you really think this will be better?

I'm still on the fence.... it needs to play out for a while to see any perceivable benefits. I liked the poo/trophies but, agreed, the daily limit was a pain.


fresh


Feb 4, 2009, 7:51 AM
Post #85 of 176 (3388 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 6, 2007
Posts: 1199

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

I'm pretty neutral to this I guess, but it will probably be used 95% for shenanigans. my main issue with regard to the search function is that people will find different amounts of usefulness in certain posts, so many an insightful post will get buried. but then they'd be buried anyway.

I do like the egalitarian principle of it, though. it's better than the kings of the forum determining what posts are worthwhile.


Partner j_ung


Feb 4, 2009, 8:10 AM
Post #86 of 176 (3379 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [fresh] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

fresh wrote:
I'm pretty neutral to this I guess, but it will probably be used 95% for shenanigans.


I think that ratio will be reversed, and signs of it are already in existence.


Partner j_ung


Feb 4, 2009, 10:39 AM
Post #87 of 176 (3349 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
jt512 wrote:
Jay,

I think that you should show the number of votes next to the average rating. Without that, you don't know how to interpret the rating. If a post has 1 star, for instance, you don't know whether it represents a single pissed off rater or a consensus turd.

Jay

I do, however, agree with that one. Lemme see what I can do about that.

Working on this, but it's buggy. Hang on.


jt512


Feb 4, 2009, 10:51 AM
Post #88 of 176 (3344 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
j_ung wrote:
jt512 wrote:
Jay,

I think that you should show the number of votes next to the average rating. Without that, you don't know how to interpret the rating. If a post has 1 star, for instance, you don't know whether it represents a single pissed off rater or a consensus turd.

Jay

I do, however, agree with that one. Lemme see what I can do about that.

Working on this, but it's buggy. Hang on.

Looking at what you've got now, the phrase "out of" doesn't make sense: "3 stars out of 59 ratings"? I would simply put "59 votes" in parentheses after the rating, and reduce the font size a little.

Jay


Partner j_ung


Feb 4, 2009, 10:56 AM
Post #89 of 176 (3339 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [jt512] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

Yup, I know. Not finished.


Partner j_ung


Feb 4, 2009, 11:37 AM
Post #90 of 176 (3326 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

Okay, now it should be working.


rockie


Feb 4, 2009, 12:00 PM
Post #91 of 176 (3322 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 18, 2007
Posts: 1113

Re: [fxgranite] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

fxgranite wrote:
justroberto wrote:
If I cared about what other people thought of a post, I'd just read their responses. Also, it's pretty distracting visually, but that's something we'll probably just get used to.

Agreed on the visual impact. Maybe just make it smaller and put it off to the side?

Agreed. Or maybe just put it off to the side so it goes over and off the site altogether Tongue

What do you mean by this exactly?
Most notably, post rating will in the near future help us sort search results.

So all the 5 star search results will mean what???


rockie


Feb 4, 2009, 12:02 PM
Post #92 of 176 (3320 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 18, 2007
Posts: 1113

Re: [carabiner96] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

carabiner96 wrote:
epoch wrote:
Everyone, do me a favor and check out your profile.

Do you see an rated average or no?


no.

I don't care about this nonsense, I just want to come on here to read, interact about climbing etc, and with friends, and with no hassle. This is hassle.


rockie


Feb 4, 2009, 12:03 PM
Post #93 of 176 (3320 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 18, 2007
Posts: 1113

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
I find the new feature annoying. At best.

A useless feature that brings nothing to the table. It isn't going to improve "content", eliminate trolls, or help determine which zingers are actually funny.

I agree. Totally and utterly pointless.

It's a rock climbing forum. Not a rating forum.


yokese


Feb 4, 2009, 12:04 PM
Post #94 of 176 (3320 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 17, 2006
Posts: 672

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Jay,
just to satisfy my curiosity. May you post the distribution of the voting so far?. I'd be surprised to see a gaussian distribution. I bet that it's a bimodal distribution, with lots of 1-star or 5-star. I think people will tend to vote for those posts that they consider exceptionally good or exceptionally bad, but not the posts they consider "average".
In this sense, I still believe the "trophy/turd" system was better, perhaps with a limit of 5 votes per day per user, to avoid limit turd wars.


rockie


Feb 4, 2009, 12:05 PM
Post #95 of 176 (3318 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 18, 2007
Posts: 1113

Re: [yokese] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

I bet some of us are not even playing this game.

I'm not in.

Count me out Smile


Valarc


Feb 4, 2009, 12:17 PM
Post #96 of 176 (3313 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 19, 2007
Posts: 1473

Re: [rockie] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Man, you are really adamantly against this rating thing, aren't you rockie? Perhaps you've realized how much crappy advice you give and are afraid you'll be rated down all the time?


Me? I'm an obnoxious prick, and fully expect the occasional rating beatdown to let me know when people have had enough of my attitude. At least I don't go around spouting off stupid advice though. I'd rather be rated down for being a jerk than for being an idiot.


clausti


Feb 4, 2009, 12:20 PM
Post #97 of 176 (3310 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2004
Posts: 5690

Re: [rockie] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

rockie wrote:
I bet some of us are not even playing this game.

I'm not in.

Count me out Smile

hm, count me in.Angelic


k.l.k


Feb 4, 2009, 1:11 PM
Post #98 of 176 (3297 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
Users, the vast majority of whom want this to work, are already using this for what it's intended. I'm listening to all the feedback, but I don't agree with much of it. Ergo, this feature is not going away anytime soon.

You don't offer the option I need for this post, i.e., stars in the negative range.


suilenroc


Feb 4, 2009, 1:38 PM
Post #99 of 176 (3283 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 13, 2006
Posts: 581

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

silly feature to add... especially since RC.com could use many other more important features...

Get rid of it!


Partner robdotcalm


Feb 4, 2009, 1:47 PM
Post #100 of 176 (3274 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1023

Re: [Valarc] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Valarc wrote:
I'd rather be rated down for being a jerk than for being an idiot.

Uh, they are not mutually exclusive.

Gratias et valete bene!
RobertusPunctumPacificus


rockie


Feb 4, 2009, 1:50 PM
Post #101 of 176 (3142 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 18, 2007
Posts: 1113

Re: [Valarc] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (7 ratings)  
Can't Post

Valarc wrote:
At least I don't go around spouting off stupid advice though. I'd rather be rated down for being a jerk than for being an idiot.

Are you sure??? Again, spraying off your own humble opinions, and all because you want to be so right, though are not always from all I've seen on here. To each their own though.

Personally as I say, I don't give two hoots about the stupid voting stars rubbish. As I said already, it's stupid and annoying and I don't care for it, neither do some others on here I've noticed..


(This post was edited by rockie on Feb 4, 2009, 1:53 PM)


rockie


Feb 4, 2009, 1:51 PM
Post #102 of 176 (3137 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 18, 2007
Posts: 1113

Re: [suilenroc] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (8 ratings)  
Can't Post

suilenroc wrote:
silly feature to add... especially since RC.com could use many other more important features...

Get rid of it!

Precisely! Smile


rockie


Feb 4, 2009, 1:51 PM
Post #103 of 176 (3137 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 18, 2007
Posts: 1113

Re: [robdotcalm] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (7 ratings)  
Can't Post

robdotcalm wrote:
Valarc wrote:
I'd rather be rated down for being a jerk than for being an idiot.

Uh, they are not mutually exclusive.

Gratias et valete bene!
RobertusPunctumPacificus

Lol! Laugh


yokese


Feb 4, 2009, 2:12 PM
Post #104 of 176 (3130 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 17, 2006
Posts: 672

Re: [rockie] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

rockie wrote:
Personally as I say, I don't give two hoots about the stupid voting stars rubbish. As I said already, it's stupid and annoying and I don't care for it,

Seems to me that you care more than you care to admit.


Partner j_ung


Feb 4, 2009, 2:34 PM
Post #105 of 176 (3126 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [yokese] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

Rockie and Valarc, I posted about this in the A&IA thread you two were in, also, but just to make sure you see it... I'm interested in your opinions about this, as always. I am definitely not interested in watching you two slug it out. If you want to keep going that's your business, please take it to email and off this site.


suilenroc


Feb 4, 2009, 10:19 PM
Post #106 of 176 (3087 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 13, 2006
Posts: 581

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

I change my mind, i am starting to dig this... I read a few threads, and you know what? THEY SUCKED, so i gave them 1 stars.... I think i can get into this rating bizznass after all. Cool


suilenroc


Feb 4, 2009, 10:19 PM
Post #107 of 176 (3085 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 13, 2006
Posts: 581

Re: [suilenroc] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

PLUS, it allows those that view the site, that do not comment, a way to chime in on particular topics. Yup, i'm a fan.


shoo


Feb 5, 2009, 8:38 AM
Post #108 of 176 (3061 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501

Re: [rockie] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

rockie wrote:

Lol! Laugh

Please note: I will be deducting all of my ratings by one star for all uses of smiley faces and LOLs past one.


caughtinside


Feb 5, 2009, 10:39 AM
Post #109 of 176 (3047 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30411

Re: [robdotcalm] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

jay, I've asked donny7 to go ahead and script me some crypto that will automatically vote every post I read one star.

I just wanted to let you know in advance, in the hopes that you won't BANZ me.


Partner j_ung


Feb 5, 2009, 11:52 AM
Post #110 of 176 (3035 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [caughtinside] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

caughtinside wrote:
jay, I've asked donny7 to go ahead and script me some crypto that will automatically vote every post I read one star.

I just wanted to let you know in advance, in the hopes that you won't BANZ me.

Laugh See if he'll write me a script that delivers three hot bi-curious chicks who lead 5.12 trad to my door, each with a sixer of good beer, every evening at 5.


sungam


Feb 5, 2009, 12:12 PM
Post #111 of 176 (3025 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26597

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
caughtinside wrote:
jay, I've asked donny7 to go ahead and script me some crypto that will automatically vote every post I read one star.

I just wanted to let you know in advance, in the hopes that you won't BANZ me.

Laugh See if he'll write me a script that delivers three hot bi-curious chicks who lead 5.12 trad to my door, each with a sixer of good beer, every evening at 5.
funky cold medina?


caleb_danner


Feb 5, 2009, 3:34 PM
Post #112 of 176 (3005 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 17, 2007
Posts: 226

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Coould you put the avg of the rating of the post next to the post list that way you could see what it is rated before you clicked the forum that would be sweet


snoopy138


Feb 5, 2009, 7:21 PM
Post #113 of 176 (2991 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28790

Re: [clausti] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

clausti wrote:
rockie wrote:
I bet some of us are not even playing this game.

I'm not in.

Count me out Smile

hm, count me in.Angelic

heh.


caughtinside


Feb 5, 2009, 8:27 PM
Post #114 of 176 (2982 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30411

Re: [snoopy138] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

snoopy138 wrote:
clausti wrote:
rockie wrote:
I bet some of us are not even playing this game.

I'm not in.

Count me out Smile

hm, count me in.Angelic

heh.

Hi Snoopy! *waves, votes snoopy a 1*

Bye Snoopy!


snoopy138


Feb 5, 2009, 9:56 PM
Post #115 of 176 (2971 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28790

Re: [caughtinside] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

caughtinside wrote:
snoopy138 wrote:
clausti wrote:
rockie wrote:
I bet some of us are not even playing this game.

I'm not in.

Count me out Smile

hm, count me in.Angelic

heh.

Hi Snoopy! *waves, votes snoopy a 1*

Bye Snoopy!

exactly the sort of immaturity I expect from you.


notapplicable


Feb 5, 2009, 11:54 PM
Post #116 of 176 (2967 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Quick question.

As the rating system seems largely intended to augment the search function, how will the pre-star system posts and threads be represented in the search results? I'm thinking most of the really important and interesting topics concerning the physics, methods, gear, personalities and history of climbing have already been covered in much greater detail than they will ever be in future threads. I'd hate to see new threads prioritized in the search results simply because they have been voted on.


jt512


Feb 6, 2009, 12:58 AM
Post #117 of 176 (2962 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [caleb_danner] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

caleb_danner wrote:
Coould you put the avg of the rating of the post next to the post list that way you could see what it is rated before you clicked the forum that would be sweet

Can you put periods between your sentences? If you could do that, then maybe somebody could figure out what the fuck you're asking.

Jay


Partner j_ung


Feb 6, 2009, 5:48 AM
Post #118 of 176 (2950 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [jt512] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Thanks, but I've got it. Probably not Caleb. The biggest reason is that when a post shows on one of those lists, it's by definition new, so it'll have no stars -- everything on the list, with few exceptions will say "0".


Partner j_ung


Feb 6, 2009, 5:54 AM
Post #119 of 176 (2947 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [notapplicable] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

notapplicable wrote:
Quick question.

As the rating system seems largely intended to augment the search function, how will the pre-star system posts and threads be represented in the search results? I'm thinking most of the really important and interesting topics concerning the physics, methods, gear, personalities and history of climbing have already been covered in much greater detail than they will ever be in future threads. I'd hate to see new threads prioritized in the search results simply because they have been voted on.

The advanced search will become the rule, rather than the exception, and although searching by stars will probably be the default, you'll have the option not to. The goal will be a more customizable search.


Partner j_ung


Feb 6, 2009, 7:21 AM
Post #120 of 176 (2936 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [yokese] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

yokese wrote:
Jay,
just to satisfy my curiosity. May you post the distribution of the voting so far?. I'd be surprised to see a gaussian distribution. I bet that it's a bimodal distribution, with lots of 1-star or 5-star. I think people will tend to vote for those posts that they consider exceptionally good or exceptionally bad, but not the posts they consider "average".
In this sense, I still believe the "trophy/turd" system was better, perhaps with a limit of 5 votes per day per user, to avoid limit turd wars.


You're probably right, but this system, while it's less funny than trophies and turds, certainly offers more fine tuning. I don't have the distribution, because we aren't tracking it. But, the presence of 2 and 4-star ratings (and 3-star with odd numbers of ratings), of which there are plenty around, seem to dispute any assertion that people only use 1 and 5 stars. I'm basing this solely on my impressions, but it seems as though people are, in fact using twos, threes and fours, though probably not as much as ones and fives.

PS: Sorry, I meant to respond to this days ago, but somehow spaced it.


notapplicable


Feb 6, 2009, 8:40 AM
Post #121 of 176 (2969 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
Quick question.

As the rating system seems largely intended to augment the search function, how will the pre-star system posts and threads be represented in the search results? I'm thinking most of the really important and interesting topics concerning the physics, methods, gear, personalities and history of climbing have already been covered in much greater detail than they will ever be in future threads. I'd hate to see new threads prioritized in the search results simply because they have been voted on.

The advanced search will become the rule, rather than the exception, and although searching by stars will probably be the default, you'll have the option not to. The goal will be a more customizable search.

Sounds good.


Valarc


Feb 6, 2009, 8:41 AM
Post #122 of 176 (2967 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 19, 2007
Posts: 1473

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Just a thought, but maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to remove ratings from the "in memory of" forum as well. I see no reason for folks to be rating posts in there.


kachoong


Feb 6, 2009, 8:56 AM
Post #123 of 176 (2961 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 15304

Re: [Valarc] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Valarc wrote:
Just a thought, but maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to remove ratings from the "in memory of" forum as well. I see no reason for folks to be rating posts in there.

Seconded.


Partner j_ung


Feb 6, 2009, 9:18 AM
Post #124 of 176 (2957 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [kachoong] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

kachoong wrote:
Valarc wrote:
Just a thought, but maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to remove ratings from the "in memory of" forum as well. I see no reason for folks to be rating posts in there.

Seconded.

Thirded. I'm on it.


jt512


Feb 6, 2009, 4:24 PM
Post #125 of 176 (2914 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [yokese] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

yokese wrote:
Jay,
just to satisfy my curiosity. May you post the distribution of the voting so far?. I'd be surprised to see a gaussian distribution.

I don't think that means what you think it means. ;)

Jay


yokese


Feb 6, 2009, 7:43 PM
Post #126 of 176 (3277 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 17, 2006
Posts: 672

Re: [jt512] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
yokese wrote:
Jay,
just to satisfy my curiosity. May you post the distribution of the voting so far?. I'd be surprised to see a gaussian distribution.

I don't think that means what you think it means. ;)

Jay

I'm sure you've correctly guessed what I was thinking, but I can't see where my misconception lies... unless it's related to the fact that the star voting system is not continuous. Am I getting close? Crazy
Cheers


jt512


Feb 6, 2009, 11:05 PM
Post #127 of 176 (3264 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [yokese] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

yokese wrote:
jt512 wrote:
yokese wrote:
Jay,
just to satisfy my curiosity. May you post the distribution of the voting so far?. I'd be surprised to see a gaussian distribution.

I don't think that means what you think it means. ;)

Jay

I'm sure you've correctly guessed what I was thinking, but I can't see where my misconception lies... unless it's related to the fact that the star voting system is not continuous. Am I getting close? Crazy
Cheers

Yes, you're definitely getting close. The Gaussian (aka normal) distribution is continuous, so there's no way that ratings on a 5-category scale could be distributed even approximately Gaussian. Moreover, the Gaussian distribution has the specific mathematical form

.

It's not just any symmetric continuous distribution.

Jay
Attachments: normal.png (1.88 KB)


iamthewallress


Feb 8, 2009, 9:53 AM
Post #128 of 176 (3227 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 1, 2003
Posts: 2463

Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (5 ratings)  
Can't Post

So I just went into the safe place for women like me to share our experiences and get empowered in a supportive environment and noticed that it's now a safe place to get scored (in a supportive manner, of course). Solid upgrade.


(This post was edited by iamthewallress on Feb 8, 2009, 9:54 AM)


Partner j_ung


Feb 8, 2009, 4:04 PM
Post #129 of 176 (3210 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [iamthewallress] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

iamthewallress wrote:
So I just went into the safe place for women like me to share our experiences and get empowered in a supportive environment and noticed that it's now a safe place to get scored (in a supportive manner, of course). Solid upgrade.

If I'm anything, it's open to feedback. I think I've proven at least that time and again. I'll happily look past the sarcasm. Point noted, and thank you.


caughtinside


Feb 8, 2009, 7:35 PM
Post #130 of 176 (3195 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30411

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
iamthewallress wrote:
So I just went into the safe place for women like me to share our experiences and get empowered in a supportive environment and noticed that it's now a safe place to get scored (in a supportive manner, of course). Solid upgrade.

If I'm anything, it's open to feedback. I think I've proven at least that time and again. I'll happily look past the sarcasm. Point noted, and thank you.

I have to admit, I enjoyed the sarcasm. I am now going to score 5 for the wallress.Angelic


jt512


Feb 8, 2009, 7:54 PM
Post #131 of 176 (3189 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [caughtinside] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

caughtinside wrote:
j_ung wrote:
iamthewallress wrote:
So I just went into the safe place for women like me to share our experiences and get empowered in a supportive environment and noticed that it's now a safe place to get scored (in a supportive manner, of course). Solid upgrade.

If I'm anything, it's open to feedback. I think I've proven at least that time and again. I'll happily look past the sarcasm. Point noted, and thank you.

I have to admit, I enjoyed the sarcasm. I am now going to score 5 for the wallress.Angelic

And I'm giving you 5 stars for giving her 5 stars.

Jay


yokese


Feb 8, 2009, 8:16 PM
Post #132 of 176 (3183 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 17, 2006
Posts: 672

Re: [jt512] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
caughtinside wrote:
j_ung wrote:
iamthewallress wrote:
So I just went into the safe place for women like me to share our experiences and get empowered in a supportive environment and noticed that it's now a safe place to get scored (in a supportive manner, of course). Solid upgrade.

If I'm anything, it's open to feedback. I think I've proven at least that time and again. I'll happily look past the sarcasm. Point noted, and thank you.

I have to admit, I enjoyed the sarcasm. I am now going to score 5 for the wallress.Angelic

And I'm giving you 5 stars for giving her 5 stars.

Jay

And I'm giving you and him 1 star just to screw the voting distribution.


jt512


Feb 8, 2009, 9:01 PM
Post #133 of 176 (3176 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [yokese] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

yokese wrote:
jt512 wrote:
caughtinside wrote:
j_ung wrote:
iamthewallress wrote:
So I just went into the safe place for women like me to share our experiences and get empowered in a supportive environment and noticed that it's now a safe place to get scored (in a supportive manner, of course). Solid upgrade.

If I'm anything, it's open to feedback. I think I've proven at least that time and again. I'll happily look past the sarcasm. Point noted, and thank you.

I have to admit, I enjoyed the sarcasm. I am now going to score 5 for the wallress.Angelic

And I'm giving you 5 stars for giving her 5 stars.

Jay

And I'm giving you and him 1 star just to screw the voting distribution.

That does it. I'm giving all your posts 1 star in perpetuity.

Jay


Partner j_ung


Feb 9, 2009, 7:21 AM
Post #134 of 176 (3162 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [jt512] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

One vote from me is worth 100 from you peons, and I've voted all my own posts 5.


Partner angry


Feb 9, 2009, 10:11 AM
Post #135 of 176 (3147 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 21, 2003
Posts: 8405

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

A one star rating implies a better than zero quality.

A one star climb is better than not climbing, in other words.

You should tweak it Maybe -3 up to 3. Too many negatives and the post actually disappears. The author should also be sent the equivalent of a flaming poop bag, whatever that might be.


mojomonkey


Feb 9, 2009, 12:39 PM
Post #136 of 176 (3126 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 843

Re: [angry] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

angry wrote:
A one star rating implies a better than zero quality.

This, and a previous question on how it will be used on sorts for non-voted on items are what I wondered.

How is this supposed to work? People likely vote a post they think is flat out wrong/stupid/dangerous as a 1. Say there is a post right above that was a post with the "right" answer that nobody bothers to vote for. Is the post with 1 star better? Favored in search results?

If so, it would seem that posts should default to a neutral "3 stars". Or at least treated as neutral in the advanced search.


clausti


Feb 9, 2009, 1:10 PM
Post #137 of 176 (3122 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2004
Posts: 5690

Re: [angry] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

angry wrote:
A one star rating implies a better than zero quality.

A one star climb is better than not climbing, in other words.

You should tweak it Maybe -3 up to 3. Too many negatives and the post actually disappears. The author should also be sent the equivalent of a flaming poop bag, whatever that might be.

this is why a system like on digg where you can rate things both up and down is best. it's easier to set threshholds and the ranking is straightforward.


chossmonkey


Feb 9, 2009, 3:09 PM
Post #138 of 176 (3107 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 1, 2003
Posts: 28414

Re: [clausti] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

clausti wrote:
angry wrote:
A one star rating implies a better than zero quality.

A one star climb is better than not climbing, in other words.

You should tweak it Maybe -3 up to 3. Too many negatives and the post actually disappears. The author should also be sent the equivalent of a flaming poop bag, whatever that might be.

this is why a system like on digg where you can rate things both up and down is best. it's easier to set threshholds and the ranking is straightforward.
Sounds pretty similar to the old poo and trophy system.


As it is the current system doesn't seem like it really means anything. Are the unrated posts less than one star or equal to 3 or 5? There are a lot of unrated posts.


sungam


Feb 9, 2009, 3:15 PM
Post #139 of 176 (3104 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26597

Re: [chossmonkey] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

I view it as 3 = nuetral, 2 = sucks, 1 = eat mah ass, and 4 or 5 = gud.


notapplicable


Feb 9, 2009, 3:28 PM
Post #140 of 176 (3102 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [sungam] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

sungam wrote:
I view it as 3 = nuetral, 2 = sucks, 1 = eat mah ass, and 4 or 5 = gud.

Yeah but people have to vote on every single post for that to be an accurate gauge.


notapplicable


Feb 9, 2009, 3:29 PM
Post #141 of 176 (3100 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
One vote from me is worth 100 from you peons, and I've voted all my own posts 5.

Quoted to preserve evidence for future corruption trials.


sungam


Feb 9, 2009, 3:38 PM
Post #142 of 176 (3096 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26597

Re: [notapplicable] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

notapplicable wrote:
sungam wrote:
I view it as 3 = nuetral, 2 = sucks, 1 = eat mah ass, and 4 or 5 = gud.

Yeah but people have to vote on every single post for that to be an accurate gauge.
0 votes = nuetral.


Partner j_ung


Feb 10, 2009, 8:07 AM
Post #143 of 176 (3066 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [notapplicable] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

notapplicable wrote:
sungam wrote:
I view it as 3 = nuetral, 2 = sucks, 1 = eat mah ass, and 4 or 5 = gud.

Yeah but people have to vote on every single post for that to be an accurate gauge.

Which is also true of a thumb-up-thumbs-down system.

I don't have all the details mapped out on this, but I'm envisioning a highly-customizable search feature, in which you'll be allowed to sort by stars, by date, by poster, etc... or not. In other words, if you don't get the results you want by a search of starred posts, you'll be able to turn that off.


Valarc


Feb 10, 2009, 8:55 AM
Post #144 of 176 (3058 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 19, 2007
Posts: 1473

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
sungam wrote:
I view it as 3 = nuetral, 2 = sucks, 1 = eat mah ass, and 4 or 5 = gud.

Yeah but people have to vote on every single post for that to be an accurate gauge.

Which is also true of a thumb-up-thumbs-down system.

I don't have all the details mapped out on this, but I'm envisioning a highly-customizable search feature, in which you'll be allowed to sort by stars, by date, by poster, etc... or not. In other words, if you don't get the results you want by a search of starred posts, you'll be able to turn that off.

I would think the obvious solution would be to default to a rating of three stars, but still show zero votes. That way, things that haven't been rated up or down would be ranked higher than those that were voted down.


mojomonkey


Feb 10, 2009, 9:05 AM
Post #145 of 176 (3056 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 843

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
sungam wrote:
I view it as 3 = nuetral, 2 = sucks, 1 = eat mah ass, and 4 or 5 = gud.

Yeah but people have to vote on every single post for that to be an accurate gauge.

Which is also true of a thumb-up-thumbs-down system.

Sort of. Inaction in the thumbs up/down one means no rating, which is clearly neutral. Here, the default is 0 stars which seems to be equivalent to 3 stars which is neutral. Not quite as clear.

j_ung wrote:
I don't have all the details mapped out on this, but I'm envisioning a highly-customizable search feature, in which you'll be allowed to sort by stars, by date, by poster, etc... or not. In other words, if you don't get the results you want by a search of starred posts, you'll be able to turn that off.

In an advanced search, I'd like to have the option to control the number of stars allocated to non-rated posts. I would default it to 3 (and think that should be the default behavior for regular searches), so that allocating penalty stars is actually a penalty. Otherwise the penalized ones would show up in "star-only" searches while the non-voted ones (either recently or from years before there were stars) would really be the penalized ones.


notapplicable


Feb 10, 2009, 9:12 AM
Post #146 of 176 (3051 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [Valarc] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Valarc wrote:
j_ung wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
sungam wrote:
I view it as 3 = nuetral, 2 = sucks, 1 = eat mah ass, and 4 or 5 = gud.

Yeah but people have to vote on every single post for that to be an accurate gauge.

Which is also true of a thumb-up-thumbs-down system.

I don't have all the details mapped out on this, but I'm envisioning a highly-customizable search feature, in which you'll be allowed to sort by stars, by date, by poster, etc... or not. In other words, if you don't get the results you want by a search of starred posts, you'll be able to turn that off.

I would think the obvious solution would be to default to a rating of three stars, but still show zero votes. That way, things that haven't been rated up or down would be ranked higher than those that were voted down.

Unless there is a downside I'm not thinking of at the moment, I support this^ change as well.


sungam


Feb 10, 2009, 1:59 PM
Post #147 of 176 (3030 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26597

Re: [notapplicable] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

notapplicable wrote:
Valarc wrote:
j_ung wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
sungam wrote:
I view it as 3 = nuetral, 2 = sucks, 1 = eat mah ass, and 4 or 5 = gud.

Yeah but people have to vote on every single post for that to be an accurate gauge.

Which is also true of a thumb-up-thumbs-down system.

I don't have all the details mapped out on this, but I'm envisioning a highly-customizable search feature, in which you'll be allowed to sort by stars, by date, by poster, etc... or not. In other words, if you don't get the results you want by a search of starred posts, you'll be able to turn that off.

I would think the obvious solution would be to default to a rating of three stars, but still show zero votes. That way, things that haven't been rated up or down would be ranked higher than those that were voted down.

Unless there is a downside I'm not thinking of at the moment, I support this^ change as well.
Thirded.


Valarc


Feb 10, 2009, 5:49 PM
Post #148 of 176 (3006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 19, 2007
Posts: 1473

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

I have noticed a definite slowdown on the loading of pages. Originally, I thought it was my DSL connection, which has been wonky lately, but now the DSL is fixed, and things are still crawling.

It seems to be an issue with the rendering of the CSS, rather than the actual downloading of the data. The style sheet seems to take a lot longer to load/interpret/draw than previously.

This is under firefox on a PPC mac running leopard, for what it's worth.


justroberto


Feb 11, 2009, 7:08 AM
Post #149 of 176 (2988 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 21, 2006
Posts: 1876

Re: [Valarc] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I gave you one star 'cause I don't know what any of that stuff means.Wink


Partner j_ung


Feb 11, 2009, 7:14 AM
Post #150 of 176 (2983 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [Valarc] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Might also be okay to just have the search give equal to posts with zero stars and three. I dunno. We'll make it work.


Partner j_ung


Feb 11, 2009, 7:17 AM
Post #151 of 176 (2985 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [Valarc] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Valarc wrote:
I have noticed a definite slowdown on the loading of pages. Originally, I thought it was my DSL connection, which has been wonky lately, but now the DSL is fixed, and things are still crawling.

It seems to be an issue with the rendering of the CSS, rather than the actual downloading of the data. The style sheet seems to take a lot longer to load/interpret/draw than previously.

This is under firefox on a PPC mac running leopard, for what it's worth.

Thanks Valarc, I'll bring this directly to the developers.


clausti


Feb 11, 2009, 7:44 AM
Post #152 of 176 (2979 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 4, 2004
Posts: 5690

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
Valarc wrote:
I have noticed a definite slowdown on the loading of pages. Originally, I thought it was my DSL connection, which has been wonky lately, but now the DSL is fixed, and things are still crawling.

It seems to be an issue with the rendering of the CSS, rather than the actual downloading of the data. The style sheet seems to take a lot longer to load/interpret/draw than previously.

This is under firefox on a PPC mac running leopard, for what it's worth.

Thanks Valarc, I'll bring this directly to the developers.

my situation is the same as Valarc's- mac, firefox, leapoard. and i told you it was slow on day 1 or two Tongue

and the threads in campground with no stars load fine, so....


Partner j_ung


Feb 11, 2009, 7:58 AM
Post #153 of 176 (2975 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [clausti] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

clausti wrote:
j_ung wrote:
Valarc wrote:
I have noticed a definite slowdown on the loading of pages. Originally, I thought it was my DSL connection, which has been wonky lately, but now the DSL is fixed, and things are still crawling.

It seems to be an issue with the rendering of the CSS, rather than the actual downloading of the data. The style sheet seems to take a lot longer to load/interpret/draw than previously.

This is under firefox on a PPC mac running leopard, for what it's worth.

Thanks Valarc, I'll bring this directly to the developers.

my situation is the same as Valarc's- mac, firefox, leapoard. and i told you it was slow on day 1 or two Tongue

and the threads in campground with no stars load fine, so....

Ergo... gotcha. Blush

Valarc, question: do you also load 50 posts at a time?


(This post was edited by j_ung on Feb 11, 2009, 7:59 AM)


Valarc


Feb 11, 2009, 8:14 AM
Post #154 of 176 (2969 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 19, 2007
Posts: 1473

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Nah, I've got it set to whatever the default is.

When a page loads, I can actually watch it render the individual posts - you can see each new post being added to the end of the list.


yokese


Feb 11, 2009, 10:06 AM
Post #155 of 176 (2956 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 17, 2006
Posts: 672

Re: [Valarc] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Valarc wrote:
Nah, I've got it set to whatever the default is.

When a page loads, I can actually watch it render the individual posts - you can see each new post being added to the end of the list.

Same thing here in any of my computers (single 1.42 GHz PowerPC G4, Dual 1.42 GHz PowerPC G4 and 2.2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo), OS X 10.4, Firefox and default number of post/page.
In Safari, however, the rendering is noticeably faster.


Partner j_ung


Feb 11, 2009, 12:04 PM
Post #156 of 176 (2946 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [yokese] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Gotcha. Thanks for the info, folks.
J


qwert


Feb 12, 2009, 1:10 AM
Post #157 of 176 (2916 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 2394

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I also have the feeling that posts load noticably slower. I am also on a ppc mac and firefox. Tried it on opera on my linux box and it seemed faster, but maybe still a tad slower than before?
IF you need more feedback on this, i could test it on a variaty on browsers on OSX, Linux and windows.

And another vote on setting the no vote rating on 3. That seems to be more neutral than 0, as it is now, expecially considering that it will be mingled with the search funktion.

qwert


adatesman


Feb 12, 2009, 7:34 AM
Post #158 of 176 (2907 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 13, 2005
Posts: 3479

Post deleted by adatesman [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  

 


Partner j_ung


Feb 12, 2009, 9:20 AM
Post #159 of 176 (2898 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [adatesman] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Don't know, but it sure bears thinking about before we upgrade the search.


sungam


Feb 12, 2009, 11:23 AM
Post #160 of 176 (2887 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26597

Re: [adatesman] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

adatesman wrote:
Doesn't setting it to 3 really just bring us back around to a turd/trophy model? If neutral is 3 and good is 5, who's going to give a 4?
I give lots of 4s, but then I'm assuming 3 is nuetral.
If it's funny as fuck, or very informative, I give 5. If it's a fair point, I give 4.
Is there a constant tally going? I think NA would be winning right now if the SPCI had votes.


mojomonkey


Feb 12, 2009, 12:01 PM
Post #161 of 176 (2886 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 843

Re: [sungam] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

sungam wrote:
adatesman wrote:
Doesn't setting it to 3 really just bring us back around to a turd/trophy model? If neutral is 3 and good is 5, who's going to give a 4?
I give lots of 4s, but then I'm assuming 3 is nuetral.
If it's funny as fuck, or very informative, I give 5. If it's a fair point, I give 4.
Is there a constant tally going? I think NA would be winning right now if the SPCI had votes.

Setting unrated to a neutral score doesn't make the two voting methods the same. Both would have to deal with non-voted items.

But polling systems are really interesting, and I started looking into them because I wondered how the number of choices impacts the result. Will thumbs up/down (or turd/trophy) give equivalent scores as one with 5 options? 10?

Seems to be no. And from the little digging so far, it seems that people are less likely to give the extremes as there are more voting options. "That was good, but I'll leave some room to allow that there could be something better".


Toast_in_the_Machine


Feb 12, 2009, 2:35 PM
Post #162 of 176 (2869 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Still haven't rated a post. Am I the only one?


Partner j_ung


Feb 12, 2009, 2:53 PM
Post #163 of 176 (2867 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Maybe the only one in this thread. It's certainly not a requirement for you to do so, nor is it a necessity. But you will. One day. When you see something so amazingly awesome or so completely shit filled... you will. Devil


Partner j_ung


Feb 12, 2009, 2:54 PM
Post #164 of 176 (2865 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
Maybe the only one in this thread. It's certainly not a requirement for you to do so, nor is it a necessity. But you will. One day. When you see something so amazingly awesome or so completely shit filled... you will. Devil

Aaaaannnnd, just in case: Tongue


Partner robdotcalm


Feb 12, 2009, 3:02 PM
Post #165 of 176 (2860 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 1023

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
Still haven't rated a post. Am I the only one?

You're not the only one. Real posters don't rate things. Only anonymous cowards do. Real posters use words to say they like or don't like something.

Cheers,
Rob.calm


Toast_in_the_Machine


Feb 12, 2009, 3:03 PM
Post #166 of 176 (2860 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5184

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
j_ung wrote:
Maybe the only one in this thread. It's certainly not a requirement for you to do so, nor is it a necessity. But you will. One day. When you see something so amazingly awesome or so completely shit filled... you will. Devil

Aaaaannnnd, just in case: Tongue

I did get the humor. I still didn't rate that post. So there.


jt512


Feb 12, 2009, 4:36 PM
Post #167 of 176 (2852 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21892

Re: [j_ung] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
Don't know, but it sure bears thinking about before we upgrade the search.

This is pretty simple. If a user chooses to sort results by rating, then either the unrated posts show up last, or they don't show up at all. If the user wants to see unrated posts, then he should choose a different sort criterion.

Jay


notapplicable


Feb 12, 2009, 7:48 PM
Post #168 of 176 (2834 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17766

Re: [mojomonkey] Forum Post Rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

mojomonkey wrote:
sungam wrote:
adatesman wrote:
Doesn't setting it to 3 really just bring us back around to a turd/trophy model? If neutral is 3 and good is 5, who's going to give a 4?
I give lots of 4s, but then I'm assuming 3 is nuetral.
If it's funny as fuck, or very informative, I give 5. If it's a fair point, I give 4.
Is there a constant tally going? I think NA would be winning right now if the SPCI had votes.

Setting unrated to a neutral score doesn't make the two voting methods the same. Both would have to deal with non-voted items.

Thats a good point. If for the purposes of the search function a rating of 3 stars is considered neutral but the people doing the voting in the forums are not voting based on that assumption, then the search results will not reflect the intent of those voting in the forums.