Subject:
|
Re: What should be done about ratings
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 21 Apr 2000 07:56:41 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
2254 times
|
| |
|
|
"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
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: What should be done about ratings
|
| (...) Good point. I see a growing need for a "ratings HOW-TO" page. (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 20-Apr-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
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
|
|
|
|
