 | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Thomas Main writes:
> The rating system has seriously made me (and perhaps others?) consider
> returning my LUGNET membership card. It seems to me that a few people enjoy
> rating the "newsworthiness" of others' thoughts and opinions...perhaps out of
> some false sense of ego or power...and the rest of us sit awaiting their
> judgment :(
I admit I do a lot of rating, I've switched over to the web interface for the
most part, partly because I had to and partly because I want to rate and see
ratings.
Despite that, I share some of Thomas's misgivings. I know that there are people
out there who do strategic rating, I am sure of it. (I expect that if a certain
person sees this reply, they will give it an 0) I know that I've seen things
rated low and seen people get upset about it. I know that I myself have asked
for guidance about an article I posted that got low ratings and didn't get any
useful feedback, rather I got stubbed for asking.
Todd can say "they don't mean anything, 30 isn't bad it isn't good, it's just
a number higher than 20 and lower than 40" till he's blue in the face but
people still are going to take them as value judgements.
That's not bad, mind you. Rating is here now, and probably is here to stay. But
part of me wishes it wasn't. So far it hasn't been all that great, although I
do see the promise
So that's my 2 cents. I find it particularly ironic that Thomas's article is
currently (as of this reading) rated 80.
However, there is one thing to consider. If you use the NNTP interface you will
not see ratings and will not know what things are rated (except when people
mention it) which might be a way to go.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Thomas Main writes:
>
> > The rating system has seriously made me (and perhaps others?) consider
> > returning my LUGNET membership card. It seems to me that a few people enjoy
> > rating the "newsworthiness" of others' thoughts and opinions...perhaps out of
> > some false sense of ego or power...and the rest of us sit awaiting their
> > judgment :(
For a few days I was thinking that too. But then I realized "I don't care,"
and also "I have no idea who rated this" -- they could be out to lunch for all
I know, either for the duration of rating my article, or permanently. Or they
could be interested in some other facet of Lego of which I care less than a
fig.
While Lugnet is a great resource, I still find what postings interest me,
either by their title or by who posted it, as in, "let's see what Sproat does
with this," "let's see what Lindsay Braun has built now", or "red 4x4 cones
found where?"
> I admit I do a lot of rating, I've switched over to the web interface for the
> most part, partly because I had to and partly because I want to rate and see
> ratings.
I see it a lot like a newspaper, where the editor feels that all the important
stuff, according to him, goes in the front of the paper, while other things
fall where they fit. But that doesn't stop me from reading the comics first,
or even exclusively (which is most of the time).
> Despite that, I share some of Thomas's misgivings. I know that there are • people
> out there who do strategic rating, I am sure of it. (I expect that if a • certain
> person sees this reply, they will give it an 0) I know that I've seen things
> rated low and seen people get upset about it. I know that I myself have asked
> for guidance about an article I posted that got low ratings and didn't get any
> useful feedback, rather I got stubbed for asking.
Does the rating system really serve regular readers and posters in a positive
way? For the drive-by reader, I can understand the logic behind "show me
what's hot/being talked about". From http://www.lugnet.com/announce/?
n=533 : "This feature is designed to benefit all, but particularly to benefit
casual readers who cannot devote time."
Personally I see it as benefiting only casual readers. I've noticed that many
builders derive "personal or creative validation" from displaying their MOC's
or opinions in a public forum. To knock such validation down in another
(albeit sometimes harsh) article is one thing, for there's a chance to rebutt.
But to just give it a number seems like an impersonal system that stamps a
arbitrarily subjective value judgement on something. The casual reader
therefore doesn't have all the facts regarding how that rating really came to
be (esp. where Larry's above "0 rating" is concerned.. and who wants to print
on a public web page that the reason could be a personal one?).
If a rating is designed to attract readers, here, as a small aside, is another
method that can do it: multiple group posting. When someone posts something
that can benefit/entertain many people in many ways, they often should do it
to as many applicable groups as possible thereby receiving greater visibility.
If I build an MOC spaceship using some obvious Star Wars parts with custom
minifig pilot that I want everyone to see, I could post to space, starwars,
build, build.minifigs, my loc group (if I really want to), and of course to
general. These are six groups read by a lot of folks. Some share crossover
readers, others don't. And I realize that I'm not talking to idiots, but
sometimes I see stuff that can be cross-posted to other groups and yet isn't,
even by "veterans".
> Todd can say "they don't mean anything, 30 isn't bad it isn't good, it's just
> a number higher than 20 and lower than 40" till he's blue in the face but
> people still are going to take them as value judgements.
Yes.
> That's not bad, mind you.
And Larry can say "that's not bad, mind you" till he's blue in the face but
people still are going to take them as value judgements. ;-) (I'm not beating
up on you Lar.. you said just about everything I was thinking)
> Rating is here now, and probably is here to stay. But
> part of me wishes it wasn't. So far it hasn't been all that great, although I
> do see the promise
And now to contradict just about all that I've said, I see it too. But.. could
there be a way to have the ratings not appear with the article itself, or in a
group's index? (Small message to Todd: while I don't totally disagree with
implementing/using a rating system, I didn't ask for one or particularly want
to see one. So could there be another way to access it upon demand, or toggle
it on and off?)
> So that's my 2 cents. I find it particularly ironic that Thomas's article is
> currently (as of this reading) rated 80.
And.. it's a subject actually having very little to do with Lego or its
products. If such a rating system is intended as its heart to display/help us
find "really good" or "important" postings about Lego stuff, then Thomas'
article shows that such a system can be used to highlight other subjects too.
While this in and of itself isn't bad, I must say that I care less about
the "feelings" and any "politics" that are associated between two people
and/or Lugnet than I do about Lego.. Lego stuff is why I'm here, firstly and
foremostly. And I can't thank Todd and Suz and all who continue to contribute
toward that end enough.
> However, there is one thing to consider. If you use the NNTP interface you • will
> not see ratings and will not know what things are rated (except when people
> mention it) which might be a way to go.
True.. yet I find that after using Todd's web interface, I don't use my
newsreader anymore for Lugnet. I use the traffic page which I find extremely
handy for locating this week's new stuff. And I've never had to deal with the
problems that are associated with newsreader bugs.
-Tom McD.
when replying, please rate the spamcake as "0".
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Tom McDonald writes:
> > So that's my 2 cents. I find it particularly ironic that Thomas's article is
> > currently (as of this reading) rated 80.
>
> And.. it's a subject actually having very little to do with Lego or its
> products. If such a rating system is intended as its heart to display/help us
> find "really good" or "important" postings about Lego stuff, then Thomas'
> article shows that such a system can be used to highlight other subjects too.
Short note: in the temporary "top 40" page Todd put up, at least 50% (if not
more, I didn't count) of the posts were related to the discussion about the
rating. That's too bad, because it shouldn't be (AFAI gathered from Todd's POV
on what ratings should tell us).
-Shiri
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.admin.general, Shiri Dori writes:
> Short note: in the temporary "top 40" page Todd put up, at least 50% (if not
> more, I didn't count) of the posts were related to the discussion about the
> rating. That's too bad, because it shouldn't be (AFAI gathered from Todd's
> POV on what ratings should tell us).
Except for the fact that the message-group filter isn't applied there, it's
actually working perfectly well, IMHO. The ratings are, in the final analysis,
recommendations-to-read. If the original message and its replies are getting
high ratings, then it's a clear indication that the community feels it is an
important issue to discuss. Higher ratings raise the visibility of things --
that's their purpose. A secondary purpose (for way down the road) is having
the system collate your input with the input of others to make predictions to
your about what you might most want to read -- but that's secondary.
--Todd
| | | | | | |
