| |
Todd Lehman wrote a bunch of worthy stuff about the rating system.
Lugnet hosts an amazing variety of visitors. From my background, the rating
system is fine. If I want to rate, I will (which I generally don't). If I
want to pay attention to other people's ratings I will (which I generally
don't).
Sure the system can be misused by mean spirited people, and ego trippers,
but they're out there anyway, and if they don't use this vehicle they'll
just use another, and the damage will be the same.
> I also received a private e-mail last night describing the rating
> system as "a fiasco and an embarrassment to LUGNET" and
> calling for its removal.
See - mean spirited people. Lugnet on the whole is a fine contribution to
the sum of the universe. Even where it has its drawbacks (and there are
some, but my list is very short), its net is a major contribution. Some
people focus only on the negatives, and these assume overwhelming
proportions in their minds. Its a mistake, but its very common.
On the attempts at helpful suggestions side (and conscious that those taking
this considerably more seriously than I have probably already suggested
these):
- it would seem that the aims could be achieved by not allowing mark downs.
Let every post have no rating at all, and allow 'noteworthy', 'especially
noteworthy', and 'golly gee, everyone has gotta read this' to be ratings
which can be assigned. Without going into all the detail, it seems to hit
all the marks and prevent most of the damage. Using text strings rather
than numeric ratings might help out the numerically challenged :-)
- and list raters names and email addresses too. People tend to behave much
more sensibly when they're acountable for their actions. If the raters knew
their ratings would be obviously traceable to them, you'd get a few less
ratings, but the ones you'd lose would be the scurrilous ones. I for one
have no problem with being held publicly accountable for anything I say or
do. This would banish the cloak and dagger naysayers too (the ones
complaining about being rated by the shadowy elite).
> Specific personal questions:
>
> 1. How would you feel (better or worse) if the numeric values of
> the ratings were not displayed to you unless you specifically
> requested (via some simple setting) that they be displayed to
> you?
Hmmm. Hard to imagine people would not turn this on, even if it pained
them. This is not a close your eyes kind of medium. (Then again, I'm not a
close your eyes kind of guy)
> 2. How would you feel (better or worse) if the numeric values of
> the ratings were not displayed ever to anyone but collected and
> used by the server only for internal calculations, hotlist
> generation, and personal recommendations to you?
This sounds like a good idea. I still prefer my suggestions up top, but
this would appear to be an improvement.
> 3. How would you feel (better or worse) if the ratings were not
> even collected and collated in the first place? (i.e. the
> destruction of the feature altogether)
I'd feel worse. I'd feel like the holier than thou types and naysayers had
won again. You're shooting for a worthy goal Todd. Press on regardless.
> 4. Have you ever felt victimized by the rating system? Have you posted
> something which has obtained a low rating and felt uncomfortable or unhappy
> about yourself or about LUGNET because of the low rating? How often?
I don't check ratings of what I post. I was told I got a low rating on a
post (10). Like I said, mean spirited people about. I can understand
though how first time posters might be discouraged if they got pasted.
> 5. Have you ever felt victimized indirectly by seeing someone else's post
> get a high rating? How often?
Good grief no. I can't understand how I could feel that. What, jealous of
someone else's apparent success? Surely if I did feel that way, i'd be
qualifying myself as someone you shouldn't listen to!
> 6. Do you feel that the article rating system makes it easier for you or
> harder for you to share your ideas? And does this bother you?
Its an interesting sideline, not critical for me, but important to me that
Lugnet should go on developing.
> 7. How does your initial reaction to the announcement of the article • rating
> system compare to your current opinion of it?
No change. It has worked out pretty much as I would have expected.
> 8. Do you feel that it is too early, too late, or the right time to • address
> these issues?
Any time's a good time to think.
> 9. What other areas (besides news articles) can you imagine that a
> collaborative ratings system would be most helpful to you? LEGO sets?
> Websites? Individual web pages? etc...
Yup all sounds fine to me.
> Thanks for your time,
No problem, least I can do.
And those of you with a fine sense of history might recall that I left
.general some time ago, after I copped a dose of abuse over my potty mouth.
Rest assured I have not become soft and resigned in my old age. I'm only
here because Todd seems to be wearing more than a fair share of abuse, and
because he asked me (like he asked everyone) to.
I reckon this is about the biggest post I have ever sent to Lugnet -
apologies to those with traffic issues.
Regards
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Richard Parsons writes:
> [...]
> Sure the system can be misused by mean spirited people, and ego trippers,
> but they're out there anyway, and if they don't use this vehicle they'll
> just use another, and the damage will be the same.
I wish I could mark that statment an "11". :) Very good point. (!!!!)
--Todd
|
|
| |
Richard Parsons skrev i meddelandet ...
> Todd Lehman wrote a bunch of worthy stuff about the rating system.
>
> > 5. Have you ever felt victimized indirectly by seeing someone else's post
> > get a high rating? How often?
>
> Good grief no. I can't understand how I could feel that. What, jealous of
> someone else's apparent success?
If that's how you see the ratings ("someone else's success"), I think the
system should be turned off at once. I thought the ratings were supposed to
help find readworthy (is that a word?) posts, not signaling 'success' or
'failure' to individuals!
[Side remark]
The lugnet traffic seems heavily skewed into .admin right now, in this
download I found only one group with more than 10 messages since my last
download (about 16 hours ago) - guess which one!
(Of course, this observation is based on the 19 groups I read, not all of
lugnet)
--
Anders Isaksson, Sweden
BlockCAD: http://user.tninet.se/~hbh828t/proglego.htm
Gallery: http://user.tninet.se/~hbh828t/gallery.htm
|
|
| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Anders Isaksson writes:
> Richard Parsons skrev i meddelandet ...
> > > 5. Have you ever felt victimized indirectly by seeing someone else's post
> > > get a high rating? How often?
> >
> > Good grief no. I can't understand how I could feel that. What, jealous of
> > someone else's apparent success?
>
> If that's how you see the ratings ("someone else's success"),
I think Richard was trying to guess what I meant by my question. My question
was meant to "amplify" and address the worst possible imaginary concern.
> I think the
> system should be turned off at once. I thought the ratings were supposed to
> help find readworthy (is that a word?) posts, not signaling 'success' or
> 'failure' to individuals!
That's correct. It's being changed to reflect that more closely.
> [Side remark]
> The lugnet traffic seems heavily skewed into .admin right now, in this
> download I found only one group with more than 10 messages since my last
> download (about 16 hours ago) - guess which one!
> (Of course, this observation is based on the 19 groups I read, not all of
> lugnet)
Yes, this is an active thread. Every group goes through bursts of activity
at one time or another.
--Todd
|
|
|
