Suggestion to forward to Jelsoft

[cracker]

An enhancement to the forums software that would really have a lot of value would be to provide an option to display two user ratings instead of displaying the post count.

Post count seems to only reflect the level of posting diarhea an chattiness that users might have.

User ratings would be scores that are updated when points are handed out by the moderators in a couple of key areas. The labels for these areas should be changeable in the site software so that different sites could potentially use the ratings differently.

The suggestions for user ratings that would be of value would be:

content rating: Any posting in the forums could be rated by a moderator. The rating for all posts would be zero to begin with. Moderators could give the posting a rating of 0, 1, or 2 based on whether if the posting was nothing special, valuable, or really special. Posts that originate a thead would automatically have their rating doubled in value so that starting a thread for an important topic would be seen as valuable.

diplomacy rating: (yes, a nod to civ 3) Moderators could again grant a rating to any post. -2 would be a disruptive or hateful post while +2 would be a helpful of informative post. Postings would start off with a rating of zero.

There would be no requirement for moderators to ever rate most of the postings to the forums. Moderators should craft some agreed upon rules to give the ratings a more consistent implementation and meaning.

The total content rating for a user would just be the sum of all the content scores for his/her posts. The same with diplomacy.

Fairly quickly this would lead to some indicators that would show up for users that conribute positively to the community while other users might be rtaed as not contributing or disrupting the process. A user with 1200 posts and no content points would be viewed in one way while a user with 25 posts and 30 to 50 content points would be viewed much differently.

If you wanted to expand this effect just a little bit, there could be the built in option for moderators to designate some other users as additional "raters" or "designated readers". These raters would not have any moderator privileges but would be able to update the post ratings for all the posts other than the posts made by themselves.

The key variables to store would be the rating number and the "rated by" code that would tie back to a registered user number. The rated by data would not be displayed for users other than moderators and raters.

Moderators could change ratings, but raters could only add ratings to posts that were previously unrated.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

All posters at CFC are equal, we have no need of ratings, in fact, this was tried once, and was a DISASTER.

 

[VanillaCube]

Originally posted by cracker
An enhancement to the forums software that would really have a lot of value would be to provide an option to display two user ratings instead of displaying the post count.

Post count seems to only reflect the level of posting diarhea an chattiness that users might have.

User ratings would be scores that are updated when points are handed out by the moderators in a couple of key areas. The labels for these areas should be changeable in the site software so that different sites could potentially use the ratings differently.

The suggestions for user ratings that would be of value would be:

content rating: Any posting in the forums could be rated by a moderator. The rating for all posts would be zero to begin with. Moderators could give the posting a rating of 0, 1, or 2 based on whether if the posting was nothing special, valuable, or really special. Posts that originate a thead would automatically have their rating doubled in value so that starting a thread for an important topic would be seen as valuable.

diplomacy rating: (yes, a nod to civ 3) Moderators could again grant a rating to any post. -2 would be a disruptive or hateful post while +2 would be a helpful of informative post. Postings would start off with a rating of zero.

There would be no requirement for moderators to ever rate most of the postings to the forums. Moderators should craft some agreed upon rules to give the ratings a more consistent implementation and meaning.

The total content rating for a user would just be the sum of all the content scores for his/her posts. The same with diplomacy.

Fairly quickly this would lead to some indicators that would show up for users that conribute positively to the community while other users might be rtaed as not contributing or disrupting the process. A user with 1200 posts and no content points would be viewed in one way while a user with 25 posts and 30 to 50 content points would be viewed much differently.

If you wanted to expand this effect just a little bit, there could be the built in option for moderators to designate some other users as additional "raters" or "designated readers". These raters would not have any moderator privileges but would be able to update the post ratings for all the posts other than the posts made by themselves.

The key variables to store would be the rating number and the "rated by" code that would tie back to a registered user number. The rated by data would not be displayed for users other than moderators and raters.

Moderators could change ratings, but raters could only add ratings to posts that were previously unrated.

You do realize that if that was done then at least eight more mods would be needed I mean, hey wait then I might be a mod? ok, nevermind its a bad Idea!

 

[floppa21]

Vanillacube came out of retirement again?

I agree, the whole idea is not very plausible...

 

[VanillaCube]

Originally posted by floppa21
Vanillacube came out of retirement again?

I agree, the whole idea is not very plausible...

NO Im never in retirement!
Im always watching you!

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Bad idea I think. Too much extra work for not really very tangible benefits, esp considering the 1000s of posts posted every day.

 

[Thunderfall]

What cracker suggested are already possible... All I need to do is install a hack or two. I am not sure it's feasible though because of the large number of posts.

The Heroes Community forum (which I visit regularly) has a similar and pretty niftysystem. In that forum, all non-admin/mod posters start with 2 stars. Additional stars are awarded to the top 2% posts of the forum. If you write a really helpful or informative post, a moderator will give u a star (or "QP": Quality point). But that's not all, the star rating system they have is associated with the floodprotect time. The lower your QP, the longer you have to wait between posts. Posters with 5 or more stars don't need to wait at all. I think it's pretty cool.

What are red stars, rank prefixes and quality points?
Each member stars with 0 quality points. To gain a quality point, a moderator needs to rate one of member's posts as being among the TOP 2% of posts at Heroes Community. Moderators can also give you a quality penalty if you make a post that breaches the rules. It does not matter whether the post is first in a thread or not, quality points are given for quality of what you've posted.

Quality however is a relative term, so there's no set definition. Moderators will give quality points upon their judgement of quality. Bad quality however is defined by breaching the rules outlined above.

Quality point amounts correspond to the amount of red stars a member has. 0 quality points corresponds to two red stars. Red stars therefore can be gained or lost by gaining or losing quality points.

Each amount of red stars, except two, corresponds to a rank prefix, which will look like: Promising Adventuring Hero, for example.

Loss of red stars puts member into an iminent danger of being banned from the community. Negative amounts of quality points increase the floodprotect exponentially, so the more penalties you've got, the longer you will have to wait before you can make your next post. If you have only one red star left, you will be unable to modify your signature or custom status.

Gaining red stars has its own benefits. Having four red stars will set you free of floodprotect. Having five red stars will enable you to rate threads.

Red stars are not a basis for discrimination, it's a feature implemented in order to shift the focus away from gaining stars through quantity of posts to gaining stars through quality of posts.

If you want to get some quality points, find a member that has lots of red stars, click his avatar, find the posts where he gained his quality points and understand what they have in common.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

The posters do no want to know how I rate most of the non gaming content here.

 

[baseballtwin86]

Originally posted by Thunderfall
What cracker suggested are already possible... All I need to do is install a hack or two. I am not sure it's feasible though because of the large number of posts.

The Heroes Community forum (which I visit regularly) has a similar and pretty niftysystem. In that forum, all non-admin/mod posters start with 2 stars. Additional stars are awarded to the top 2% posts of the forum. If you write a really helpful or informative post, a moderator will give u a star (or "QP": Quality point). But that's not all, the star rating system they have is associated with the floodprotect time. The lower your QP, the longer you have to wait between posts. Posters with 5 or more stars don't need to wait at all. I think it's pretty cool.

That system sounds pretty neat. Points that actually allow benefits on the boards .

 

[anarchywrksbest]

I don't think that we need a rating, I am happy enough to know myself that I have helped out someone. Leave it like it is

 

[floppa21]

The QP = longer/shorter wait between points does sound interesting... (but don't do it! I'd only get to post once a week then... )

I believe what Lefty said...

 

[Becka]

This all sounds very dangerous.

 

[Padma]

I have visited and belonged to other sites that have used various rating systems. In my experience, sooner or later these tend to reach a point where those who agree with the rater/moderator opinions get points for very little, while those who disagree lose points for just as little. They tend to become nice homgenous sites where dissension is quickly stamped out, and they pat themselves on the back for being such a "polite" site, where everybody agrees.

Sure, there are people on this site I would like to see post less often, or just less rudely, but I can ignore them. And I don't want to think that I have to put serious thought into each post to avoid getting the dreaded negative points.

I'm afraid such a system could drive people away.

 

[VanillaCube]

Originally posted by floppa21
but don't do it! I'd only get to post once a week then...

Its starting to sound like a better Idea j/k

anyway I think rating would be a bad Idea as then I would have a constant reminder as to how much I am truly hated here I would constantly wonder why certain people had higher ratings than me I WANT HIGH RATINGS! actually for me it would turn in to a how low can I go kind of thing for the rating, just because!

 

[Switch625]

This sounds like a very bad idea. The last thing we need is a "beauty rating" on posts. Those who get a very low rating would become bitter, resentful, etc, etc, and those who got a high rating would become insufferable. For a small and cozy site like Gamecatcher, it might work. But for a site that is as large and active as CFC, with such a diverse set of opinions, I don't see it as appropriate.

Besides, I'm just insecure enough to be afraid of what rating I'd end up with...

 

[floppa21]

bitter, resentful
insufferable
insecure

Jiminy Christmas Switch! You just described me! Maybe this rating thing IS a good idea...

 

[Thunderfall]

We are not going to have a rating system like the one at Heroes Community (even though it's a cool feature), because the forum already operates pretty well without it.

There is a little hack that let's members reserve an avatar for their own use... maybe I will install that...

 

[Lucky]

Rating posters is a bad idea, especially if done by other people. It´s all too subjective and also does not reflect the different interests, orientations and cultural background of our global community here.

If you want stars, you can go to Gamecatcher. We have stars, but not a ranking with certain priviledges or such.

Btw, we also have a new, very nifty IRC chatroom, much better than lot´s of other clients.

 

[spycatcher34]

I can see it now thunder, the fighting clawing for the coveted avators... will there be enough to go around? I think not you should just give us custom then we have no need for that tiresome hack now do we?

I'm only half j/k

 

[Switch625]

Originally posted by floppa21
bitter, resentful
insufferable
insecure

Jiminy Christmas Switch! You just described me! Maybe this rating thing IS a good idea...

And the first time someone gave you a good rating on a post, it would tip you right over into intolerable. No thanks, I don't think the forum could survive that!