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

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page Last page  View All


rockie


Feb 3, 2009, 7:12 PM
Post #76 of 176 (3688 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 (3681 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 (3670 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 (3663 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 (3653 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 7, 2004
Posts: 28811

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 (3663 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18689

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 (3660 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18689

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 (3652 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18689

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 (3639 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 (3627 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 (3618 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18689

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 (3588 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18689

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 (3583 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 (3578 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18689

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 (3565 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18689

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 (3561 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 (3559 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 (3559 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 (3559 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 (3557 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 (3552 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 (3549 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 (3536 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 (3522 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 (3513 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

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Rockclimbing.com : Announcements

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$8.55 (10% off)
$193.46 (10% off)
$77.36 (10% off)
$8.96 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook