Flatlander Fox
Armed Cultural Consultant
Bad idea.
I would like to reserve an avatar though! But which one? OMG the possibilities?
I would like to reserve an avatar though! But which one? OMG the possibilities?
Suggestion to forward to Jelsoft
- Thread starter cracker
- Start date
cracker
Gil Favor's Sidekick
I think what is key in any of these rating systems is that the ratings cannot be an open thing that basically encourages cliques, fanboys, other dysfunctional behaviors.
For the general populace, the rating giving process is almost always corrupted by losing sight of why the ratings exist in the first place.
The primary use for the ratings would be a sort of quality control assessment on the efficacy of the posts from the user. Since the ratings would be given out by the moderators or a very limited group, they would be fairly rare things. 95% of the posts would probably never get rated at all and thats great.
When you would see a post from a user who had earned a high content rating that would tend to carry a bit more weigh than teh 32 chat posts from some user with no content rating.
The same process would apply to the diplomacy rating. SInce it would only come from moderators it would just reflect how the user had developed a report with the forums. Some users with lots of posts are fairly negative contributors, while there are some infrequent posters that always seem to have good information and present it in a contributory fashion.
Likewise there are some posters that only hijack or spam other threads while there are other posters that alway seem to start the valuable and interesting discussion topics.
The QP rating example that Tfall posted is just one example where the rating system encourages positive contribution. Without making it a game of tag or a competition.
Witness the current CF spamathon in the General forums if you want an example of an ongoing free-for-all with users behaving as if there was no cost associated with posting the same thing over and over ad naseum.
I agree an open public ratings system would be worthless but I still strongly feel that a selectively reviewed rating system of posts, threads, and users would be very valuable in the long run. The examples I have seen, show that the reviewed rating systems tend to increase participation frequency and quality by valued contributors while reducing a number of negative behaviors at the same time.
Just some thoughts to share.
For the general populace, the rating giving process is almost always corrupted by losing sight of why the ratings exist in the first place.
The primary use for the ratings would be a sort of quality control assessment on the efficacy of the posts from the user. Since the ratings would be given out by the moderators or a very limited group, they would be fairly rare things. 95% of the posts would probably never get rated at all and thats great.
When you would see a post from a user who had earned a high content rating that would tend to carry a bit more weigh than teh 32 chat posts from some user with no content rating.
The same process would apply to the diplomacy rating. SInce it would only come from moderators it would just reflect how the user had developed a report with the forums. Some users with lots of posts are fairly negative contributors, while there are some infrequent posters that always seem to have good information and present it in a contributory fashion.
Likewise there are some posters that only hijack or spam other threads while there are other posters that alway seem to start the valuable and interesting discussion topics.
The QP rating example that Tfall posted is just one example where the rating system encourages positive contribution. Without making it a game of tag or a competition.
Witness the current CF spamathon in the General forums if you want an example of an ongoing free-for-all with users behaving as if there was no cost associated with posting the same thing over and over ad naseum.
I agree an open public ratings system would be worthless but I still strongly feel that a selectively reviewed rating system of posts, threads, and users would be very valuable in the long run. The examples I have seen, show that the reviewed rating systems tend to increase participation frequency and quality by valued contributors while reducing a number of negative behaviors at the same time.
Just some thoughts to share.
Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
Several moderators (like myself) keep mental notes on posters, and the quality of what they post, I don't need a rating system to tell me whom wastes my time. 
spycatcher34
Emperor
I'm not saying we should have a rating sytem but from just reading that I think I would shape up the way I post some times and try to contribute more.
cracker
Gil Favor's Sidekick
Just from the few posts in this thread, it might be safe to say that letting AoA rate anything might be a bad idea. 
Its sort of interesting of this site really works. I post actively in the CIV3 area and have never heard of AoA before.
I am sure the complexion of different subforums varies widely, and the expereinces in one area may not attract of support the same type of user.
Just as observations of late have indicated that Poly is getting a lot more fanboy and extreeeeeeeeeeeeme novice computer users who participate in Q&As.
Its sort of interesting of this site really works. I post actively in the CIV3 area and have never heard of AoA before.
I am sure the complexion of different subforums varies widely, and the expereinces in one area may not attract of support the same type of user.
Just as observations of late have indicated that Poly is getting a lot more fanboy and extreeeeeeeeeeeeme novice computer users who participate in Q&As.
Switch625
I don't care.
Originally posted by cracker
Just from the few posts in this thread, it might be safe to say that letting AoA rate anything might be a bad idea.
Its sort of interesting of this site really works. I post actively in the CIV3 area and have never heard of AoA before.
You've never heard of AoA because he doesn't moderate the Civ3 forum, and doesn't post there. He, along with Lefty, ride herd over the Off-Topic forum, which can sometimes make the Civ3 forums look positively polite. He rules with an iron fist, but that's a good thing for that forum.
Right you are. As I stated above, Off-Topic would be brutal (like Apolyton) if we didn't have two benevolent despots (AoA and Lefty) keeping things in line. Some posters really hate them, but I appreciate their efforts.
Sounds like Usenet after the flood of AOLers and WebTVers hit.
cracker
Gil Favor's Sidekick
Dell19,
I think my original thought of the ratings would be that only moderators (or a limited group of sub-moderators that could only rate for content) would be able to hand out the "brownie points" and these brownie points would usually just not go to newbie questions when the question was posted. I think the limited set of people with the rating power would agree on some rules and these rules would include trying to use the rating system for positive reinforcement only.
When someone answered a newbie question very supportively that could earn them a diplomatic point bonus. If they answered the newbie question in a supperior way that would be worthy of an FAQ inclusion then that might get a +1 or a +2 rating in the content category.
It would be nice to have a search function or a display option that brought up a list of the valuable content posts. That way we could see the discussion threads that had a lot of valuable content getting pushed to the top just be selecting a display option or preference. All the threads with no valuable content (rants, repeats, stoooooooooooopid "what color should Libby's hair be" type questions) would get pushed to the bottom.
To AoA's comment that he/she does not need a rating system because he keeps mental notes on the bad dudes and know who they are, I would say this indicates a lack of understanding of what a positive reinforcement rating system is intended to do. We will all still keep our mental lists of the gold bucket versus the brown bucket, but the ratings would be designed to help place value on certain postings so that any users who did not necessarily know all the personalities involved would be able to quickly sort the wheat from the chaff.
The diplomacy ratrings, would help newbies understand that not all users are jerks and quick tempered. Its easier to let the water roll off a duck's back if you know that the other person is always a little gruff with everyone.
For the benefit of newbies, if I got two answers to my question and one of them came from a user with a content rating of zero (0) while the other posting came from someone who had a content rating of (50+) (say an Aeson or SirPlebe) then I would use those ratings to help me sort out potential good advice from potential bad advice.
Ultimately, the tolls are designe to promote good behavior and help newbies recognize good and bad content.
An unfortunate facet of open message boards is that long term, there will always be theweekly newbies and the weekly dysfunctional characters. They go away each week, but there is always a constantly arriving supply of reinforcements to take their place (I guess we have to capture their capital and kill all their cities to stop them from reproducing and coming back).
I think my original thought of the ratings would be that only moderators (or a limited group of sub-moderators that could only rate for content) would be able to hand out the "brownie points" and these brownie points would usually just not go to newbie questions when the question was posted. I think the limited set of people with the rating power would agree on some rules and these rules would include trying to use the rating system for positive reinforcement only.
When someone answered a newbie question very supportively that could earn them a diplomatic point bonus. If they answered the newbie question in a supperior way that would be worthy of an FAQ inclusion then that might get a +1 or a +2 rating in the content category.
It would be nice to have a search function or a display option that brought up a list of the valuable content posts. That way we could see the discussion threads that had a lot of valuable content getting pushed to the top just be selecting a display option or preference. All the threads with no valuable content (rants, repeats, stoooooooooooopid "what color should Libby's hair be" type questions) would get pushed to the bottom.
To AoA's comment that he/she does not need a rating system because he keeps mental notes on the bad dudes and know who they are, I would say this indicates a lack of understanding of what a positive reinforcement rating system is intended to do. We will all still keep our mental lists of the gold bucket versus the brown bucket, but the ratings would be designed to help place value on certain postings so that any users who did not necessarily know all the personalities involved would be able to quickly sort the wheat from the chaff.
The diplomacy ratrings, would help newbies understand that not all users are jerks and quick tempered. Its easier to let the water roll off a duck's back if you know that the other person is always a little gruff with everyone.
For the benefit of newbies, if I got two answers to my question and one of them came from a user with a content rating of zero (0) while the other posting came from someone who had a content rating of (50+) (say an Aeson or SirPlebe) then I would use those ratings to help me sort out potential good advice from potential bad advice.
Ultimately, the tolls are designe to promote good behavior and help newbies recognize good and bad content.
An unfortunate facet of open message boards is that long term, there will always be theweekly newbies and the weekly dysfunctional characters. They go away each week, but there is always a constantly arriving supply of reinforcements to take their place (I guess we have to capture their capital and kill all their cities to stop them from reproducing and coming back).
Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
You seem to have a lack of understanding as to what CFC is, new guy.
This place is intended to promote equality, we don't need to throw bones at posters to make them feel good, god knows why anybody would even want that.
You want attention, get a dog.
As for rating content, a total waste of time, we aern't awarding prizes here for what you post, people very quickly realize whom they wish to read and whom they don't.
Lastly, when someone doesn't agree with your ideas, that doesn't mean they lack understanding, having moderated on this site for a year, and been a poster here longer then that, I know a bit about what's good for it, and handing out gold stars IS NOT.
Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
Because I don't agree with your dumb-assed idea?
Get real.
I'm one of the senior moderators here, only a few have been on longer then myself.
Which is the reason we have many different areas.
Well, good for them.
cracker
Gil Favor's Sidekick
Sorry AoA, didn't mean to offend. I was not questioning the magnitude of your experience versus mine.
One of the side effects of wallowing permanently in OT land may be that is easier to loose sight of the real game foundations. We have had a number of posters crawl out from under the OT shroud with 1500 and 2000 posts, and yet they seem abit more aggressive than the typical posters while lacking even some of the most basic knowledge about the CIV3 games.
I don't own CIVI of CIVII so I respect how some people might be linked to the site from only a perspective that so far excludes CIV3.
I just find the difference in behavioral cultures in the different site areas to be a bit fascinating.
The OT forums would have to be one of the toughes to moderate in my opinion because that must be alot like having a chatroom with a little less of the glue that may help to self-control some of the game forums.
----
On another path, is there a "self timeout for acting just like Venger or Zouave" button available in the moderator functions.
One of the side effects of wallowing permanently in OT land may be that is easier to loose sight of the real game foundations. We have had a number of posters crawl out from under the OT shroud with 1500 and 2000 posts, and yet they seem abit more aggressive than the typical posters while lacking even some of the most basic knowledge about the CIV3 games.
I don't own CIVI of CIVII so I respect how some people might be linked to the site from only a perspective that so far excludes CIV3.
I just find the difference in behavioral cultures in the different site areas to be a bit fascinating.
The OT forums would have to be one of the toughes to moderate in my opinion because that must be alot like having a chatroom with a little less of the glue that may help to self-control some of the game forums.
----
On another path, is there a "self timeout for acting just like Venger or Zouave" button available in the moderator functions.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2000
- Messages
- 12,621
cracker, you may want to submit the idea to Jelsoft directly. Maybe they will include the feature in the next version of vBulletin! You never know.
http://www.jelsoft.com
http://www.jelsoft.com
Black Fluffy Lion
Qxria
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
- Messages
- 977
Originally posted by Thunderfall
cracker, you may want to submit the idea to Jelsoft directly. Maybe they will include the feature in the next version of vBulletin! You never know.
I think I do
