| |
Before I start this message is a response to
http://www.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=6221.
I have very rarely used the Lugnet News web-interface so I did a little
research on the rating system. After twiddling around in the web-based
version I discovered that some fundamental issues need to be addressed to
achieve a meaningful rating system.
Firstly, what is being rated? Is it the relevancy of the post to the
message commencing the thread? Is it the quality of the ideas contained in
the post? Is it the post in general - e.g. style, humour, etc? It would
appear that the rating system is too vague and wide to achieve anything at
present. For example, if ratings are based on the relevancy of an article
to the message commencing the thread than the starting message cannot in
itself be rated. It also leads to problems when a conversation goes
off-topic; the mind boggles to think of the problems relevancy ratings would
cause.
Secondly, as I understand Lugnet Members can only rate posts; i.e. only
those that have coughed up the necessary wonga can rate messages. It would
appear that to have to pay to have the privilege of rating messages is
absurd. There are thousands of users but only hundreds of members. If I as
a non-member (not sure how long that'll last :) ) want to alert fellow
Lugnet users to Jimmy Crankies' article on Lego bricks being pretty
impressive/relevant I am unable. It is better that anyone can alert
everyone else to a great article than only a select few.
However, I will not simply state that the ratings system is unhelpful or
hurtful. I myself do believe that the ratings system can be made to work
but only with the following fundamental changes:
1 - That the ratings system criteria are clarified. The ratings must have
meaning to be useful. Relevancy to the message commencing the the thread is
wrong as it ultimately achieves nothing. Instead ratings should be based on
the quality of ideas expressed; for example, I want to say to fellow
Lugnet.Trains users that James Mathis post for a link to his latest train
creation is 'Great' so I simply select 'Alert users that message is 'Great'
'.
2 - The current 1-100 system is abolished. Instead a message can be rated
as 'Great' or just left alone as an average message. This would be very
much like the e-mail priority system; an exclamation mark could appear in
the web-interface to alert users to a 'Great' post. Rather than turning a
user away from posts it simply draws them to particularly brilliant
articles. As I said in point two, it alerts fellow users to something
especially interesting. It also prevents others from being hurt at their
messages being 'down-rated'.
3 - Rating privileges are extended to non-members. It appears that voting
is only for a select few; imagine being told, 'You have to pay £100 to vote
at the next general election'. It is undemocratic!
To summarise; the current ratings system is vague, undefined and
undemocratic. It needs clarification, simplification and opening to all
users to achieve the degree of effectiveness that Lugnet wants and requires.
If anyone has any views, comments and opinions than please reply; this issue
must be dealt with swiftly to prevent the current problem turning into a
crisis.
Thank-you,
Nicholas Allan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Nicholas Allan writes:
> Firstly, what is being rated?
Good point. I see a growing need for a "ratings HOW-TO" page.
> Secondly, as I understand Lugnet Members can only rate posts;
If just anyone can rate a message, what's to keep me from creating 100
accounts and rating my posts up to "100" for whatever reason? Todd's taking
steps to verify existance of people to keep this from happening.
> only those that have coughed up the necessary wonga
I assume you mean money. ;) The cost for lifetime membership is only $10.
That's not a lot of money by any account. I pay that in a single month for
Internet access, and I get a lot more VALUE out of Lugnet. :)
> but only with the following fundamental changes:
>
> 1 - That the ratings system criteria are clarified.
I don't agree with your suggested implementation, but the idea is right on
the money.
> 2 - The current 1-100 system is abolished. Instead a message can be rated
> as 'Great' or just left alone as an average message.
After about 100 messages got rated 'Great', those ratings would be,
for the most part, useless.
> 3 - Rating privileges are extended to non-members.
Well, other than asking "Why become a member", there's the problem of
control of how often each person rate messages.
> It is undemocratic!
If everyone has to pay the same fee to vote (anywhere), is it still
undemocratic?
Just some thoughts,
Ben Roller
|
|
| |
"Ben Roller" <broller@mail.clemson.edu> wrote in message
news:FtC0nK.AGL@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Nicholas Allan writes:
>
> > Firstly, what is being rated?
> Good point. I see a growing need for a "ratings HOW-TO" page.
Perhaps rating can be done in two completely seperate ways. First one rates
the quality of the content of the post and second one rates the relevancy.
For messages commencing a thread one could only apply the first point;
otherwise one ends up rating the relevancy of a post to itself :)
> > Secondly, as I understand Lugnet Members can only rate posts;
> If just anyone can rate a message, what's to keep me from creating 100
> accounts and rating my posts up to "100" for whatever reason? Todd's • taking
> steps to verify existance of people to keep this from happening.
I understand completely. I was simply pointing out that not everybody is
going to be happy about not being able to rate posts and draw others'
attention to them.
> > only those that have coughed up the necessary wonga
> I assume you mean money. ;) The cost for lifetime membership is only • $10.
> That's not a lot of money by any account. I pay that in a single month • for
> Internet access, and I get a lot more VALUE out of Lugnet. :)
I hope to apply for Lugnet membership very soon, and yes, I certainly get
more value than that per month. Again I was simply illustrating the
principle involved. Obviously one does need to get benefits from one's
membership or some people (not myself) will question the point of
membership.
> > but only with the following fundamental changes:
> >
> > 1 - That the ratings system criteria are clarified.
> I don't agree with your suggested implementation, but the idea is right • on
> the money.
I just popping off to start a new thread in lugnet.admin.general titled
'Creating Lugent Ratins Criteria'. I hope by doing this I can draw
everyone's attention to the current problem.
> > 2 - The current 1-100 system is abolished. Instead a message can be • rated
> > as 'Great' or just left alone as an average message.
> After about 100 messages got rated 'Great', those ratings would be,
> for the most part, useless.
Very true, but if the criteria explained why and how a message was rated
'Great' then it may work. After posting last night (British time) I had
some more thoughts about the rating system and realised that the reason some
are getting hurt is that messages start off at a midpoint value of 50%.
This means that people can have their messages 'down-rated' so-to-speak,
which can be very demoralising. An alternative would be to start at zero
and then work up but that would result in many posts that don't get
'up-rated' just disappearing in the web-interface behind all the rated
messages.
> > 3 - Rating privileges are extended to non-members.
> Well, other than asking "Why become a member", there's the problem of
> control of how often each person rate messages.
I have since changed my mind on the privilege of rating as it is quite
honestly very petty in reality; I apologise, I just demonstrating one of my
principles.
> Just some thoughts,
> Ben Roller
Thanks for replying Ben, hopefully this debate in general will result in
meaningful criteria to rate posts.
Nicholas Allan
|
|
|
