Forums: Rockclimbing.com: Suggestions & Feedback:
Post rating
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Suggestions & Feedback

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All


ddt


Jan 9, 2011, 2:03 AM
Post #1 of 58 (5073 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 20, 2005
Posts: 2304

Post rating
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
Can't Post

Hi everyone,

Just a quick note to say that we're currently considering the entire post rating system and its implementation. We anticipate making some changes based on the feedback we've received. In the mean time the current system will remain in place.

The original idea was that post ratings could enhance the search functionality in the forums, and this remains a goal that we would ultimately like to implement, even though it could take some time. Additionally we're considering the type of rating system (5-star vs thumbs up/down), anonymity of votes, visibility into average ratings for users, and the calculation of these averages.

On the last point I'd like to disclose that moderator votes are currently weighed more than other votes in the calculation of averages. This would explain calculation "anomalies" that a few of you have noticed.

We will review existing threads with feedback, suggestions and ideas. Feel free to share any additional thoughts or suggestions you may have.

DDT


jt512


Jan 23, 2011, 8:21 PM
Post #2 of 58 (4967 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21887

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

ddt wrote:
On the last point I'd like to disclose that moderator votes are currently weighed more than other votes in the calculation of averages. This would explain calculation "anomalies" that a few of you have noticed.

That's about as understated an announcement of this finding as possible. Let's make clear what happened: the moderators (or administrators) secretly (without even ddt's knowledge) implemented a system whereby their votes count more than those of ordinary users. This is why when you vote on a post that, based on the total number of votes, should change the average, your vote sometimes does not change the average.

DDT, how much did the moderators decide their votes should count compared to ours?

Jay


curt


Jan 23, 2011, 8:38 PM
Post #3 of 58 (4960 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18226

Re: [jt512] 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:
ddt wrote:
On the last point I'd like to disclose that moderator votes are currently weighed more than other votes in the calculation of averages. This would explain calculation "anomalies" that a few of you have noticed.

That's about as understated an announcement of this finding as possible...

While I'm not opposed to weighting votes in proportion to their actual value, automatically assigning greater weight to RC.com moderator votes is absolutely hysterical. I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry. Did the rest of us get at least 3/5 representation like black people in the 18th century US?

Curt


jt512


Jan 24, 2011, 9:14 AM
Post #4 of 58 (4927 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21887

Re: [TonyB3] Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (9 ratings)  
Can't Post

TonyB3 wrote:
I used to check this site daily, but until today never wanted to register because of the atmosphere created by some of the users, particularly you, Jay.

Uh huh. Riiiight.

Jay


billcoe_


Jan 24, 2011, 1:05 PM
Post #5 of 58 (4900 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4658

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

ddt wrote:
Hi everyone,

Just a quick note to say that we're currently considering the entire post rating system and its implementation. We anticipate making some changes based on the feedback we've received. In the mean time the current system will remain in place.

The original idea was that post ratings could enhance the search functionality in the forums, and this remains a goal that we would ultimately like to implement, even though it could take some time. Additionally we're considering the type of rating system (5-star vs thumbs up/down), anonymity of votes, visibility into average ratings for users, and the calculation of these averages.

On the last point I'd like to disclose that moderator votes are currently weighed more than other votes in the calculation of averages. This would explain calculation "anomalies" that a few of you have noticed.

We will review existing threads with feedback, suggestions and ideas. Feel free to share any additional thoughts or suggestions you may have.

DDT

I'd like to see the rating system more predominantly utilized. Old crusty guys like Rgold, Curt and Healyje would have higher votes, and if a new person could find those people, the signal to noise ratio that they need (which is different and much higher than what a dipstick like moi needs) would be improved. In fact on that matter, having a dual rating (humor as separated from facts?) would let a bunch of dikweeds like me laugh our butts off at Curts factual looking foot belay post (complete with photos of the practice), with out getting a new person killed.

I understand now why how JT keeps getting low stars. Even when he has a great post, some moderator must have a hardon for him and continually 1 stars everything he posts. Have them stop doing that will ya/, then I can quit giving him 5 stars even when he doesn't deserve it.

At the end of the day, what you are selling here is community and entertainment. Only users get that for you, and encouraging them to post up those kinds of posts should first and foremost, be your mission. A starred system will help you achieve that.

Thanks for the site and for listening.


wiki


Jan 28, 2011, 12:28 AM
Post #6 of 58 (4854 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 9, 2007
Posts: 243

Re: [ddt] 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 think I have said this before but a rating system where the users average ratings shows up under their avatar/name would be ideal.

Make it a positive/negative system... you can have a choice of + or -. No options either way.

The better your own rating i.e. other users respect you... the more weight your rating opinion counts when you rate other users. this helps eliminate fake accounts etc... just to boost ratings.

Call iot karma, reputation points, poo + trophies or whatever you want.


Partner j_ung


Jan 29, 2011, 7:06 AM
Post #7 of 58 (4824 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

Re: [jt512] 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:
ddt wrote:
On the last point I'd like to disclose that moderator votes are currently weighed more than other votes in the calculation of averages. This would explain calculation "anomalies" that a few of you have noticed.

That's about as understated an announcement of this finding as possible. Let's make clear what happened: the moderators (or administrators) secretly (without even ddt's knowledge) implemented a system whereby their votes count more than those of ordinary users. This is why when you vote on a post that, based on the total number of votes, should change the average, your vote sometimes does not change the average.

DDT, how much did the moderators decide their votes should count compared to ours?

Jay

The moderators decided no such thing. I decided moderator votes would be worth five, specifically to give them the power to combat malicious voting. Unfortunately, I overestimated the communal maturity level and underestimated how much people hate you. Sorry about that.


Partner j_ung


Jan 29, 2011, 7:27 AM
Post #8 of 58 (4818 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

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

The system as it stands is mostly working. It's obvious, as I poke around the site that a lot of posts are rated, I think, accurately. That's not to say it doesn't have problems. It breaks down utterly in some cases, for example in regard to jt512. Perhaps more unfortunately, it looks like post bombing is on the rise, not the decline. And I've wondered if a moderator is doing it, which would be a pretty big disappointment to me on a personal level. It also breaks down when quality posts go unrated and when crap gets rated highly. Thankfully, the latter appears to be much rarer than the former.

I think I mentioned in another thread that if I could do it over, I would make it a binary system and eliminate the anonymity in it. I would still do it, though, and I would still make moderator votes heavier than regular votes, too. I still believe the idea has positive implications for the search function, which was, and should continue to be, the primary consideration in all this.


Partner j_ung


Jan 29, 2011, 7:35 AM
Post #9 of 58 (4816 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18687

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

curt wrote:
jt512 wrote:
ddt wrote:
On the last point I'd like to disclose that moderator votes are currently weighed more than other votes in the calculation of averages. This would explain calculation "anomalies" that a few of you have noticed.

That's about as understated an announcement of this finding as possible...

While I'm not opposed to weighting votes in proportion to their actual value, automatically assigning greater weight to RC.com moderator votes is absolutely hysterical. I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry. Did the rest of us get at least 3/5 representation like black people in the 18th century US?

Curt

I know which one I'll do.

LaughLaugh You got one fifth!


jt512


Jan 29, 2011, 9:55 AM
Post #10 of 58 (4805 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21887

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

j_ung wrote:
jt512 wrote:
ddt wrote:
On the last point I'd like to disclose that moderator votes are currently weighed more than other votes in the calculation of averages. This would explain calculation "anomalies" that a few of you have noticed.

That's about as understated an announcement of this finding as possible. Let's make clear what happened: the moderators (or administrators) secretly (without even ddt's knowledge) implemented a system whereby their votes count more than those of ordinary users. This is why when you vote on a post that, based on the total number of votes, should change the average, your vote sometimes does not change the average.

DDT, how much did the moderators decide their votes should count compared to ours?

Jay

The moderators decided no such thing. I decided moderator votes would be worth five, specifically to give them the power to combat malicious voting.

You made a moderator's vote worth five times a user's? That's bat-shit crazy. I figured at the most maybe 1.5 or double. But five times?

And of course it was done in secret.

In reply to:
I overestimated the communal maturity level . . .

The moderators' maturity level? Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke. Half of them only rarely visit the site. And of the half who visit often enough to be able to moderate (if they actually had any inclination to), half hide their online status. So the question "where's a moderator when you need one?" has the answer "probably hiding."

Jay


jt512


Jan 29, 2011, 10:05 AM
Post #11 of 58 (4801 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21887

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

j_ung wrote:
The system as it stands is mostly working. It's obvious, as I poke around the site that a lot of posts are rated, I think, accurately.

At best, all that "proves" is that some posts are accurately rated. As I poke around the site I find a multitude of posts other than mine that mysteriously have one star.

In reply to:
. . . and I would still make moderator votes heavier than regular votes, too.

Then you haven't learned from your mistake. The average moderator on this site has no more knowledgeablility about climbing than the average ordinary user, and their ability to judge the quality of a post is no better. There is no basis for their votes to be counted more. In fact, I think they should have no vote at all They're supposed to be neutral.

In reply to:
I still believe the idea has positive implications for the search function, which was, and should continue to be, the primary consideration in all this.

The search function doesn't even work properly as it is, and the voting system has, so far, proved to be to be an unreliable indicator of post quality (the opposite of what you claim). If you were to filter posts on post rating at the present time, the quality of searches would actually decrease.

Jay


Partner macherry


Jan 29, 2011, 6:16 PM
Post #12 of 58 (4787 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15774

Re: [jt512] 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:
j_ung wrote:
jt512 wrote:
ddt wrote:
On the last point I'd like to disclose that moderator votes are currently weighed more than other votes in the calculation of averages. This would explain calculation "anomalies" that a few of you have noticed.

That's about as understated an announcement of this finding as possible. Let's make clear what happened: the moderators (or administrators) secretly (without even ddt's knowledge) implemented a system whereby their votes count more than those of ordinary users. This is why when you vote on a post that, based on the total number of votes, should change the average, your vote sometimes does not change the average.

DDT, how much did the moderators decide their votes should count compared to ours?

Jay

The moderators decided no such thing. I decided moderator votes would be worth five, specifically to give them the power to combat malicious voting.

You made a moderator's vote worth five times a user's? That's bat-shit crazy. I figured at the most maybe 1.5 or double. But five times?

And of course it was done in secret.

In reply to:
I overestimated the communal maturity level . . .

The moderators' maturity level? Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke. Half of them only rarely visit the site. And of the half who visit often enough to be able to moderate (if they actually had any inclination to), half hide their online status. So the question "where's a moderator when you need one?" has the answer "probably hiding."

Jay

wow, thanks for the ringing endorsement


blondgecko
Moderator

Jan 29, 2011, 6:28 PM
Post #13 of 58 (4783 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

Re: [jt512] 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:
j_ung wrote:
jt512 wrote:
ddt wrote:
On the last point I'd like to disclose that moderator votes are currently weighed more than other votes in the calculation of averages. This would explain calculation "anomalies" that a few of you have noticed.

That's about as understated an announcement of this finding as possible. Let's make clear what happened: the moderators (or administrators) secretly (without even ddt's knowledge) implemented a system whereby their votes count more than those of ordinary users. This is why when you vote on a post that, based on the total number of votes, should change the average, your vote sometimes does not change the average.

DDT, how much did the moderators decide their votes should count compared to ours?

Jay

The moderators decided no such thing. I decided moderator votes would be worth five, specifically to give them the power to combat malicious voting.

You made a moderator's vote worth five times a user's? That's bat-shit crazy. I figured at the most maybe 1.5 or double. But five times?

And of course it was done in secret.

In reply to:
I overestimated the communal maturity level . . .

The moderators' maturity level? Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke. Half of them only rarely visit the site. And of the half who visit often enough to be able to moderate (if they actually had any inclination to), half hide their online status. So the question "where's a moderator when you need one?" has the answer "probably hiding."

Jay

OK, you've got the "feedback" covered - now how about some suggestions? How do we fix this problem of the moderators being "a total joke"?

In answering, keep a few things in mind:

1. Rockclimbing.com makes very little income. This should be obvious from the frequency at which it changes hands, if nothing else. Daniel (ddt) only makes it work at all by running it as part of a larger portfolio of websites. So paying moderators - hell, even paying a moderator - is pretty much out of the question. So we're stuck with volunteer moderators.

2. If you're going with volunteer moderators, well... they still have to support themselves. So their moderating is pretty much limited to their free time. You could consider trying to recruit moderators from those with more free time - the unemployed, stay-at-home parents, etc., but let's face it. The sort of person who'd be willing to spend more than the occasional hour on moderating a web forum? For free? That's the sort of person you don't want to let anywhere near the moderator buttons.

So, what's the answer?


jt512


Jan 29, 2011, 8:15 PM
Post #14 of 58 (4771 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21887

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

macherry wrote:
jt512 wrote:
j_ung wrote:
jt512 wrote:
ddt wrote:
On the last point I'd like to disclose that moderator votes are currently weighed more than other votes in the calculation of averages. This would explain calculation "anomalies" that a few of you have noticed.

That's about as understated an announcement of this finding as possible. Let's make clear what happened: the moderators (or administrators) secretly (without even ddt's knowledge) implemented a system whereby their votes count more than those of ordinary users. This is why when you vote on a post that, based on the total number of votes, should change the average, your vote sometimes does not change the average.

DDT, how much did the moderators decide their votes should count compared to ours?

Jay

The moderators decided no such thing. I decided moderator votes would be worth five, specifically to give them the power to combat malicious voting.

You made a moderator's vote worth five times a user's? That's bat-shit crazy. I figured at the most maybe 1.5 or double. But five times?

And of course it was done in secret.

In reply to:
I overestimated the communal maturity level . . .

The moderators' maturity level? Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke. Half of them only rarely visit the site. And of the half who visit often enough to be able to moderate (if they actually had any inclination to), half hide their online status. So the question "where's a moderator when you need one?" has the answer "probably hiding."

Jay

wow, thanks for the ringing endorsement

My critique leaves 25% of the moderators unscathed. I'd say you're in that group.

Jay


jt512


Jan 29, 2011, 8:33 PM
Post #15 of 58 (4766 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21887

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

blondgecko wrote:
jt512 wrote:
j_ung wrote:
jt512 wrote:
ddt wrote:
On the last point I'd like to disclose that moderator votes are currently weighed more than other votes in the calculation of averages. This would explain calculation "anomalies" that a few of you have noticed.

That's about as understated an announcement of this finding as possible. Let's make clear what happened: the moderators (or administrators) secretly (without even ddt's knowledge) implemented a system whereby their votes count more than those of ordinary users. This is why when you vote on a post that, based on the total number of votes, should change the average, your vote sometimes does not change the average.

DDT, how much did the moderators decide their votes should count compared to ours?

Jay

The moderators decided no such thing. I decided moderator votes would be worth five, specifically to give them the power to combat malicious voting.

You made a moderator's vote worth five times a user's? That's bat-shit crazy. I figured at the most maybe 1.5 or double. But five times?

And of course it was done in secret.

In reply to:
I overestimated the communal maturity level . . .

The moderators' maturity level? Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke. Half of them only rarely visit the site. And of the half who visit often enough to be able to moderate (if they actually had any inclination to), half hide their online status. So the question "where's a moderator when you need one?" has the answer "probably hiding."

Jay

OK, you've got the "feedback" covered - now how about some suggestions? How do we fix this problem of the moderators being "a total joke"?

In answering, keep a few things in mind:

1. Rockclimbing.com makes very little income. This should be obvious from the frequency at which it changes hands, if nothing else.

I don't believe that for a second. Look at all the ads; the place is basically a climbing goods store with a forum.

In reply to:
Daniel (ddt) only makes it work at all by running it as part of a larger portfolio of websites. So paying moderators - hell, even paying a moderator - is pretty much out of the question. So we're stuck with volunteer moderators.

I've suggested the solution many times: the website should have been organized as a co-op, with profit sharing. And by the way, mountainproject.com does just fine with volunteer moderators. I wonder why that is.

In reply to:
2. If you're going with volunteer moderators, well... they still have to support themselves. So their moderating is pretty much limited to their free time. You could consider trying to recruit moderators from those with more free time - the unemployed, stay-at-home parents, etc., but let's face it. The sort of person who'd be willing to spend more than the occasional hour on moderating a web forum? For free? That's the sort of person you don't want to let anywhere near the moderator buttons.

You make up for the lack of time per moderator by bringing on board more moderators. The site used to have many more, and it would be rare not to be able to find one online when you needed one. Mike Reardon drastically cut the number of moderators when he took charge, and ddt cut the staff down even more, leaving some of the least effective moderators in place.

In reply to:
So, what's the answer?

Start by firing the slackers and miscreants: the ones who rarely check the website, the ones who make a mockery of the job by hiding their online status, the ones who have abused their power, and the ones who are just clueless. Then bring on some new people. If the site can't find new people who are interested, then management should be taking a look at why that is, when mountainproject has more volunteers than they know what to do with.

Jay


atg200


Jan 31, 2011, 1:32 PM
Post #16 of 58 (4714 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317

Post deleted by atg200 [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  

 


jt512


Jan 31, 2011, 2:24 PM
Post #17 of 58 (4701 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21887

Re: [atg200] Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

atg200 wrote:
Aside from what Jay suggests, no one should be a moderator for more than 6 months at a time. People lose all perspective, and start to believe that what they are doing is important and couldn't easily be done by someone else.

I never thought about it before, but I like the idea of term limits for moderators, at least in principle, to prevent the formation of an entrenched pseudo-elite moderator class.

Jay


caughtinside


Jan 31, 2011, 7:26 PM
Post #18 of 58 (4670 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30323

Re: [jt512] 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:
elite moderator class.

snerk!


guangzhou


Jan 31, 2011, 10:08 PM
Post #19 of 58 (4663 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3388

Re: [jt512] Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (7 ratings)  
Can't Post

JT512, if you're so unhappy with this site, feel free to leave. I doubt any of us will be begging you to return.


jt512


Jan 31, 2011, 10:12 PM
Post #20 of 58 (4660 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21887

Re: [guangzhou] Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (9 ratings)  
Can't Post

guangzhou wrote:
JT512, if you're so unhappy with this site, feel free to leave. I doubt any of us will be begging you to return.

Fuck you, too.

BTW, you know what's weird? You used to give me a hard time for supposedly being abusive toward users; but lately, you've become far more abusive than I. I've really been shocked by some of your recent posts. I find myself repeatedly thinking, "That is something that even I wouldn't say." Sorry to inform you, but a little introspection on your part is in order.

Jay


guangzhou


Jan 31, 2011, 10:22 PM
Post #21 of 58 (4657 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3388

Re: [jt512] 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 do speak my mind, but would love some examples. Here or PM would be fine.


jt512


Jan 31, 2011, 11:05 PM
Post #22 of 58 (4651 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21887

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

guangzhou wrote:
I do speak my mind, but would love some examples. Here or PM would be fine.

First of all, let me say that in spite of your previous rancorous remark(s) toward me (which I think were excessively harsh), I think it is commendable that you are open to criticism. Although I am not predisposed to going out of my way to find the posts of yours that I thought were undeservedly harsh*, if I run across them again in the normal course of perusing the forums, I'll let you know.

*Note that the phrase "undeservedly harsh" implies that there could be posts (made by either of us) that are deservedly harsh.

Jay


guangzhou


Jan 31, 2011, 11:22 PM
Post #23 of 58 (4647 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3388

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

jt512 wrote:
guangzhou wrote:
I do speak my mind, but would love some examples. Here or PM would be fine.

First of all, let me say that in spite of your previous rancorous remark(s) toward me (which I think were excessively harsh), I think it is commendable that you are open to criticism. Although I am not predisposed to going out of my way to find the posts of yours that I thought were undeservedly harsh*, if I run across them again in the normal course of perusing the forums, I'll let you know.

*Note that the phrase "undeservedly harsh" implies that there could be posts (made by either of us) that are deservedly harsh.

Jay

I am open to critic in every area of my life, but I don't really care for criticism. Like everyone, I have room for improvement.

Thanks for replying to my question. You had a nice way of posting a response without every answering the question I posted with a specific example. (which should be numerous from what you said about me.)


jt512


Jan 31, 2011, 11:53 PM
Post #24 of 58 (4640 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21887

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

guangzhou wrote:
jt512 wrote:
guangzhou wrote:
I do speak my mind, but would love some examples. Here or PM would be fine.

First of all, let me say that in spite of your previous rancorous remark(s) toward me (which I think were excessively harsh), I think it is commendable that you are open to criticism. Although I am not predisposed to going out of my way to find the posts of yours that I thought were undeservedly harsh*, if I run across them again in the normal course of perusing the forums, I'll let you know.

*Note that the phrase "undeservedly harsh" implies that there could be posts (made by either of us) that are deservedly harsh.

Jay

I am open to critic in every area of my life, but I don't really care for criticism. Like everyone, I have room for improvement.

Thanks for replying to my question. You had a nice way of posting a response without every answering the question I posted with a specific example. (which should be numerous from what you said about me.)

Okay, you want an example? Then this post is one.

Look, I'm neither obliged nor predisposed to going out of my way to search your recent posts to find examples that I thought were over the top; nevertheless, I said that I'd inform you of them if I came across them in the normal course of participating in the forums—and I even commended you for your openness. And look at your response, which insinuates, without cause, that I was insincere.

For the record, I formally withdraw my offer to provide you with further examples of unduly harsh posts that you have made (though I might anyway, if it suits me).

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Feb 1, 2011, 12:02 AM)


markc


Feb 1, 2011, 7:06 AM
Post #25 of 58 (4615 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2474

Re: [atg200] Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

atg200 wrote:
Moderators probably shouldn't be allowed to assign star ratings at all, and certainly not in any thread that they are participating in.

Volunteer moderators are users of the site. I think they should be held to a higher standard regarding their conduct, but that they shouldn't be limited from participating. If ratings are kept, allow mods an equally-weighted vote.

As it is now, I don't know that I'm in favor of keeping the rating system. There are too many people handing out low ratings based upon personalities rather than content. At least in the days of trophies and shit, you had a limited number of votes (thus limited impact).

If a system is maintained, showing a total number of thumbs up v. thumbs down (with equal voting for all) would be the most transparent. As it is now, opinion is only clear if it's overwhelmingly negative or favorable. If you see a post has 3 stars based upon 6 votes it doesn't really tell you much.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Rockclimbing.com : Suggestions & Feedback

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook