> Barry's description of what happens on Google is
> very accurate. The rating feature was introduced
> fairly recently, about a month ago, I think, and
> after a flurry of use in the beginning, it's pretty
> much ignored now.
If its ignored, then its just the same as it is now here, that is no
improvement, nor a worsening.
> alt.m.t is generally more factionalized than FFL, and
> people tended to use the ratings to dump on posts of
> folks they didn't like and elevate those of folks they
> did like, rather than considering the quality of the
> post.
The dumping could be counteracted if positive votes couldn't be
cancelled out by negatives and vice versa, both would show up. If a
post is considered important you would see on the overall number of
votes it gets. Very highrated post (many stars, many viewers) could be
displayed at the right column side. This would give people the
motivation to rate posts they value. Or even more, recent highrated
posts simply would first show up on top of the page, another column
shows most recent posts.
> Over on the blog Daily Kos, which also has a detailed
> rating system, there are periodic complaints that
> people will down-rate a comment simply because they
> disagree with the author's point of view rather than
> because they don't think the comment is well done.
But do they have a twofold rating system, like I suggested with
positive and negative votes?
> There's plenty of disagreement on Daily Kos, but not
> as much factionalization per se--i.e., personal
> hostility--as there is even on FFL.
The point is that even though the system might be misused to downrate
a view, it still could take that traffic away from the thread, as
people now don't have to comment anymore, to express their disagreement.
> The problem with a rating system is that it's all too
> easy for folks to misuse to vent their spleen,
> particularly because it's so anonymous. And it
> could really intimidate folks from speaking up who
> didn't have a thick skin.
But thats even so now with comments.
> At least if someone makes
> a post in response that dumps on yours, they have
> to give some reasons, and you can evaluate their
> comments in light of the body of their postings.
> With an anonymous rating system, you can't do that,
> obviously.
> Also, given, as you note, that such a system would
> be available only on the Web interface, it would give
> those who read this forum on the Web a disproportionate
> say. I don't know who-all reads on the Web (I do), but
> they're not necessarily representative of the entire
> group, so it might produce a "sense of the meeting"
> that was significantly distorted.
I think no rating system could be truely objective. But it possibly
could give people some kind of clue, and an incentive to writers to
improve. That could be worth a try. And even think of it, lets say
there is a 'Yahoo best rated of the day' or 'Yahoo spiritual bets
rated', it could really change the way we get to know of things.
> Personally, if I *had* to rate each post before I could
> move on to the next, I'd probably quit the forum rather
> than have to deal with such a pain in the butt.
No that would be absurd. Such a system could only function in a work
situation. In addition, a lack of votes is an additional information
about the importance of the post. Btw. I give you two stars ;-)
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
