Subject:
|
Re: Opinions wanted: article rating harmful? (was: New feature: Article rating)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Apr 2000 05:28:26 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
2041 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> All,
>
> It seems at this point that the article rating feature -- intended to help --
> is actually causing more harm than good to the community. It's difficult to
> gauge how much harm is being done when opinions are so varied, but it's clear
> that something needs to be changed.
I think that your rating concept has potential, but is incurring "issues in
interprtation and implementation"
> Technically, the rating system is working extremely well and, from an admin
> point of view, the composite ratings being produced seem very well consistent
> with the rating system's main goal of being able to highlight recommended
> reading to those short on time.
I browse Lugnet liesurely and often ( I have more time than most-I work out
of my home) I can sympathize w/ those who are time-constrained, accessing
Lugnet on their lunch hour, etc. I can see where a "highlighting system" or
"USA Today style headlines" may appeal to those seeking specific discussion
or content.
>
> However, it seems that the high visibility of both the raw and composite
> numbers are having an overall negative effect on the community's morale.
The rating system has affected my moral...
> Some of the deeper concerns are raised in this message and its replies:
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=6130
>
> 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.
I hesitate to judge it as a fiasco....I speak purely as an individual on
this point. However, I don't think that my mindset differs greatly from others.
> Clearly, these are very strong feelings being expressed by people.
I participate in these philosophical discussions on a rare basis, but I am
interested in their outcomes more often, nowadays. I can not accurately
describe my feelings, but I do have a strong emotional response. I
sometimes feel slighted, and I don't wish to participate in any system that
may impact others in a similar way.
How many
> others feel this way? What would you like to see happen? Post your thoughts
> as a reply to this message (or reply privately if you prefer not to post your
> thoughts publicly).
I do not wish you to construe my comments as being critical of your effort
or in any way imply that Lugnet is "out of control". I admire what you
created and only wish to maintain Lugnet as my Lego cyber shangrila, so to
speak. I would like to see ratings removed from certain groups (like
auction, B-S-T, etc.) I think any "highlighting" system should have a
"gentleman's agreement" or "code of conduct" that is more concise and
commonly understood. I think people should rate posts on relevance to
group, topic etc. NOT THE CONTENTS OF THE WEBPAGE, PICTURE, WHATEVER. I
think the way the ratings are presented now degenerates multiple individual
posts to a beauty contest.
> As to possible "fixes," there have been many suggestions over the past few
> weeks, most of which center around making the rating numbers less obvious or
> gone altogether. If you're curious, you can find most of these in the group
> lugnet.admin.general -- but it's a lot to wade through.
I tried to wade throgh it and got lost and blurry eyed quickly...If you are
going to keep the rating system, I think it should be employed
selectively...not in .local, .market, .people, for instance.
> The first, original purpose for having ratings was to be able to lay the
> foundation for the later creation of variety of "what's hot" or "top X of
> group Y" listings for quick browsing -- something akin to the current
> Spotlight pages, only fully automated, instantly updating, and much more
> representative of collective opinion. The second original purpose was to
> lay the foundation for so-called "collaborative filtering" possibilities --
> the server learns (could learn) what types of things you prefer to read,
> and gives (could give) higher priority to you personally for messages rated
> higher by people with similar interests. These two main purposes become
> increasingly relevant as message traffic increases.
I respect your mindset and vision....this is akin to systems of analysis
employed by Amazon.com and music sites...this I would be interested in, but
I guess there are alot of growing pains getting to the end result.
> It was never a purpose of the ratings system to make anyone ever feel bad
> or unwanted or unwelcome. It's core purpose is simply to highlight "neat or
> noteworthy stuff" but not to downgrade "un-neat or un-noteworthy stuff"
The intent is different from the defacto result...I only have 250,ooo bricks
which "precludes me from competing" for "praise" from people who only like
big MOCs or I focus on themes (Ninja, Wild West, et. al) that are commonly
reviled or discounted by others in the community. The rating system was not
intended to create this, but in implementation it is happening. Possibly
some individuals misinterpret the idea of rating, thus "judging" the quality
of the creation. The person who originally posted their masterpiece in the
interest of communal participation may then be discouraged or intimidated.
Essentially the inent of the rating system is victimized by interpretation.
PERCEPTION = REALITY A person may perceive that his contribution is unwothy
and n longer participate, or worse become antagonistic. This rating system
can also be used to setle scores between rivals. (again not the goal, but in
reality I think it happens in debates)
or
> regular "fluff" (which there's nothing wrong with).
I used to be annoyed by gratuitous fluff, now I miss it...fluff adds to the
poitive spirit here.
> It seem that no amount of education about what the numbers mean will be able
> to make a meaningful dent in the natural inclination to view, say, a 40 as
> having been "marked down" from its default of 50. Even if the default were
> changed from 50 to 0 (so that numbers tended almost always to climb rather
> than to climb half of the time and fall half of the time), it seems likely
> that feelings will still be hurt, because it seems that some people are hurt
> by the fact that others are getting 80's and 90's while they are getting 40's
> or 50's or 60's.
For me it is purely personal...I have been a salesman for a long
time...numbers going down is rarely a ood thing = ) i have a VERY thick
skin, but I often see clique-like behavior similar to that in
highschool...so+so does/says something, so automatically it is
prophetic...another person (outside the clique) says/does something equally
profound and is blown off, low-balled, gnored, etc. That is the nature of
human behavior; there are some people that I follow more than others, BUT
now the rating system can skew some individauls higher and "newbies" much lower.
Going with a scale 0 to 100, in retrospect, hasn't been any
> better from an overall morale point of view than if a scale -100 to +100 had
> been used.
>
> 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?
I would feel better, but then I would always know they are lurking in the
server somewhere. So I guess I would be tempted (on a low-self-esteem-day)
to go looking for validation...lol
> 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?
I would support and generaly prefer this most of all...again the amazon.com
analogy
> 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 think that "once done...thi thing can not be undone" (you can't unspill
milk-you can only clean it up and try to avoid future occurences)
I would like limited destruction of the feature...essentially removal of a
VISIBLE rating from all groups except dear lego (or othr Brad read / TLG
read groups)
> 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?
Yes. I may be overly sensitive on this, may be not. I can think of at least
6-12 occurences in a week...(if people don't want to listen to me or thnk
I'm a nut, cry-baby etc., then I don't want to know from some
anomolous/anonymous rating...share your reasoning and discuss it...If people
think my posts are vacuous or devoid of useful content, give me a chance to
improve. Tell me my grammar is lacking, my typos are annoying, or my
comments are off topic. As it stands right now, I consider my opinion no
less or more valid than anyone else's, but rating views on politics, MOCS,
and building "lower" than others is like sniping from cover instead of
meeting in the open on level ground.
> 5. Have you ever felt victimized indirectly by seeing someone else's post
> get a high rating? How often?
Yes. More frequently now that I have been paying attention to ratings.
> 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?
I am now intimidated, on occasion, to share my ideas. Sometimes I am low on
"profound" words and building epiphanies. I still want to participate, but
unless I am giving away free Guarded Inns or reinventing the wheel, I
hesitate. I feel like I am back in Catholic grade school (20 some years in
the past) being graded on my class participation and how much trivia I can
spout.
I was never overly hung up on my reputation or impression here til a
number was tagged on my butt everytime I posted a message. Now I feel like
I am trying to live up to some amorphous standard. For instance, what if a
Lugnet "newbie" saw posts from person "x" always rated highly while ALL of
person "y"s posts are continually marked lower; consequently never reading
"y"'s comments. What if this "newbie always skips reading posts from
"y"....both individuals miss out on the value of each others intellect and
experience; person "y" may have some useful/interesting contributons. By
extension what would happen if this happened on a large scale, if a whole
community no longer paid attention to "y".
> 7. How does your initial reaction to the announcement of the article rating
> system compare to your current opinion of it?
I missed the original announcement, but I was willing to try anything new on
Lugnet = ) Now I am at the least disinterested, at the most disenfranchised,
ignored, and discouraged.
> 8. Do you feel that it is too early, too late, or the right time to address
> these issues?
I think I have some issues of my own to deal with = ) <memo to self, seek
psychiatric help+ buy more guiness>
> 9. What other areas (besides news articles) can you imagine that a
> collaborative ratings system would be most helpful to you? LEGO sets?
I love popular opinions of sets...that I support.
> Websites? Individual web pages? etc...
If you are going to rate websites, then you also take o the burden of
determining a standard to judge by, AND a responsibility to uggest improvments.
<insert paraphrased quote from Merlin to Arthur in Boorman's Excalibur
"there can be no good w/ out evil...you can not have one w/ out the other"
> Thanks for your time,
> --Todd
Thank you for being proactive and listening
>
> [followups to .admin.general]
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
309 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
