Subject:
|
Re: Feelings (was: Re: Ratings?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 26 Mar 2000 05:28:51 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lar@+Spamless+voyager.net
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
526 times
|
| |
|
|
This is very true.
For example... consider this article:
http://www.lugnet.com/off-topic/fun/?n=4903
Were I thinskinned, I'd think that someone was pretty amused by my being
ripped on, they gave it a 90, (net 70) and gave my own a what, 60 (net
55)? probably at this point with just one rating on both of them, it was
the same person).
Were I even more boastful than I actually am, on the other hand, I'd be
rather proud of this one:
http://www.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=5167 ... as of this writing,
it got a 90 and a 100 (and the 50 from the autorate) giving 80.
But that's not the point. It's not about egos or popularity, if people
start writing articles solely to get high ratings that would be bad.
I want to see a list of articles no older than what I specify, sorted by
rating. That will be interesting to see.
The power is out here right now in my fancy new house, and the rest of
the street, and typing in total darkness is quite hard... especially
finding the backspace key! Guess I should have got a generator instead
of 20 5561s... but what can you build with a generator?
Richard Franks wrote:
>
> I think it is important (or soon will be) to create a culture where
> rating != status - that is, if you have a message that's been marked down.. you
> don't feel rejected _at_all_. I feel kinda silly admitting this, but for the
> purposes of the argument I have to say that when I saw one of my posts had been
> put down to 43 (shock!), I did feel a little bit bad. Of course, a few seconds
> later I felt better because it was the *first* negative score (the
> interpretation I felt, as opposed to logical conclusion) that I'd seen :)
>
> I hope Alan doesn't feel bad because the post I'm replying to has been rated
> low - he just had the misfortune to ask a *good* question a minute too late!
> That doesn't mean that those people who have marked it down should change their
> votes - Alan's post was made redundant by the announcement, and so probably
> deserves low-scoring.. but I'm not sure how we can minimize the emotional
> feelings you get from getting a low-score, and maximise the logical (how
> relevant, useful, etc) is the post.
>
> Richard
--
Larry Pieniazek - lpieniazek@mercator.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Feelings (was: Re: Ratings?)
|
| I think it is important (or soon will be) to create a culture where rating != status - that is, if you have a message that's been marked down.. you don't feel rejected _at_all_. I feel kinda silly admitting this, but for the purposes of the (...) (25 years ago, 26-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
