Topic: [applaud]/[smite] system? - page 3. (Read 18765 times)
If theymos could somehow get -3, it's proof that the ratings are broken.
Indeed. This "rating" system needs to be removed ASAP as it is not a useful feedback system.
I pay 10 BTC for a Greasemonkey or Firefox plugin that hides the ratings completely.
Here you go:
http://pastebin.com/5aTU768g
So I have received my first rateing and it is a -1 
So I gather I have no way of knowing who or why? Haven't a clue what this is about?
Don't worry about it. We're all getting mystery negatives. No-one is going to think bad of you for it. So I gather I have no way of knowing who or why? Haven't a clue what this is about?
So I have received my first rateing and it is a -1 So I gather I have no way of knowing who or why? Haven't a clue what this is about?
So I gather I have no way of knowing who or why? Haven't a clue what this is about? In my opinion a childish group-think game system has no place on a serious forum like this.
I pay 10 BTC for a Greasemonkey or Firefox plugin that hides the ratings completely.
I pay 10 BTC for a Greasemonkey or Firefox plugin that hides the ratings completely.
Seconded! And I have 7+/1-.
NO matter how good my reputation is, I just think it's a bad idea.
In my opinion a childish group-think game system has no place on a serious forum like this.
I pay 10 BTC for a Greasemonkey or Firefox plugin that hides the ratings completely.
I pay 10 BTC for a Greasemonkey or Firefox plugin that hides the ratings completely.
I think either the advanced system or karmalog would be good so that abuse of the system can be identified. Has anyone used a forum where this feature worked particularly well? How was it configured and what was the social convention around it?
Edit: Leapfrogged you there, SgtSpike. Sounds like a vote for the ARS!
Edit: Leapfrogged you there, SgtSpike. Sounds like a vote for the ARS!
All I can say is; great, now bobR is going to troll AND smite on everyone.
I agree. abuse is fairly simple.
But how would other users know whether a minus is unjust? I don't see that the plus/minus is related to any particular post/activity/transaction. If it was then it would seem it could balance itself out as some may find a post useful and others not. From what I see it is applied to the member and I believe new users will not necessarily understand right away its purpose.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for a rating system. I think it is extremely useful for new and old members both. I just worry that it will be abused the way it operates at the moment.
If instead of the title "Reputation:" it was listed as "Helpful:" or something similar I would feel a little more at ease.
Don't get me wrong, I am all for a rating system. I think it is extremely useful for new and old members both. I just worry that it will be abused the way it operates at the moment.
If instead of the title "Reputation:" it was listed as "Helpful:" or something similar I would feel a little more at ease.
It will be difficult to determine whether a + or - was unjust, and especially in cases of one or more users using a greasemonkey script as linked above, it may be fairly difficult or spammalicious to moderate if too many users start noticeably abusing it, or even providing a not so noticeable form of abuse such as by modifying the script to include randomness in whether or not to + or - or skip altogether.
It makes sense that for such actions, there should be some sort of cost or expense.
Only admins can see the ratings in-depth, and only by downloading the database. There's no web interface that I can see.
Wow! I bow to my powerful great overlords. Great power yields great respect. The people cheer!
It's pretty simple:
Only admins can see the ratings in-depth, and only by downloading the database. There's no web interface that I can see.
Only admins can see the ratings in-depth, and only by downloading the database. There's no web interface that I can see.
how about instead of a post requirement, a rep requirement? you need net +5 to rep other people.
That would be an improvement. Can it be easily implemented?Does anyone know what functionality this rating system facilitates? I haven't been able to find any documentation on what it can do.
ByteCoin
how about instead of a post requirement, a rep requirement? you need net +5 to rep other people.
I surprised myself with how upset I was when I saw someone had given me a negative vote. I can't really think what I've done to deserve it.
Then I saw that theymos had -2 and instantly felt a lot better!
The temptation for the mods to see who's rated them negatively must be overwhelming.
ByteCoin
Then I saw that theymos had -2 and instantly felt a lot better!
The temptation for the mods to see who's rated them negatively must be overwhelming.
ByteCoin
I hate this system.... I have haterz on me and I got -1s 
I want the minus button removed, but I want bobR removed as well and no luck so far
I want the minus button removed, but I want bobR removed as well and no luck so far
I don't think that the sheer number of posts that someone makes is a good indicator of their contribution. There are a large number of "me too" and uninformative posts which make the forum less rewarding to follow. There was already an incentive to post indiscriminately via the "Newbie", "Junior Member", "Full Member" thing and this will just make it worse as people race to make 250 posts.
Post counts do indicate that a person has been able to survive for a while on the forum without being banned, which has some value. I agree that it's useless for measuring someone's contributions.
Quote from: ByteCoin
Gavin was throwing around the idea of switching to a mailing list, presumably because he too was having similar problems with the forum.
I was not particularly keen on a mailing list at that point but I'm much more equivocal now.
I was not particularly keen on a mailing list at that point but I'm much more equivocal now.
I find mailing lists difficult to deal with, but I would love to see a Bitcoin NNTP sever.
Quote
Is it Sirius who makes these forum decisions? Sirius alone or an ad-hoc committee?
Mods and admins act mostly independently. I'm not going to change the limit, since I want the reputation system to be completely removed.
Are we going to use this thread just to increase our post counts until each of us reach 250? Maybe someone can start a weather topic.
Nice bright sun-shinny day here
Nice bright sun-shinny day here
I don't think that the sheer number of posts that someone makes is a good indicator of their contribution. There are a large number of "me too" and uninformative posts which make the forum less rewarding to follow. There was already an incentive to post indiscriminately via the "Newbie", "Junior Member", "Full Member" thing and this will just make it worse as people race to make 250 posts.
+1
You apparently need 250 posts to rate people.
Thanks for the info theymos.
I don't think that the sheer number of posts that someone makes is a good indicator of their contribution. There are a large number of "me too" and uninformative posts which make the forum less rewarding to follow. There was already an incentive to post indiscriminately via the "Newbie", "Junior Member", "Full Member" thing and this will just make it worse as people race to make 250 posts.
Others have similar concerns.
Gavin was throwing around the idea of switching to a mailing list, presumably because he too was having similar problems with the forum.
I was not particularly keen on a mailing list at that point but I'm much more equivocal now.
The value of ratings depends greatly on who's doing the rating. Given the fact that ratings are taken fairly seriously nowadays (seriously enough to exclude a large proportion of users from changing them), it needs to be more nuanced and transparent. It's at an unhappy half-way stage at the moment.
Is it Sirius who makes these forum decisions? Sirius alone or an ad-hoc committee?
ByteCoin
First thing I'm going to do when I get to 250 is give -1 rep to Sirius for putting this restriction.
+1and one closer =)
First thing I'm going to do when I get to 250 is give -1 rep to Sirius for putting this restriction.
Jump to: