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


yokese


Feb 6, 2009, 7:43 PM
Post #126 of 176 (3145 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 (3132 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 (3095 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 (3078 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 (3063 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30406

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 (3057 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 (3051 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 (3044 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 (3030 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 (3015 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 (2994 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 842

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 (2990 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 (2975 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 (2972 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26585

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 (2970 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 (2968 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 (2964 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26585

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 (2934 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 (2926 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 (2924 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 842

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 (2919 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 (2898 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26585

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 (2874 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 (2856 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 (2851 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.

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?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook