Forum Settings
       
This thread is locked

Rating SystemFollow

#27 Mar 14 2010 at 2:18 PM Rating: Decent
Ken Burton's Reject
*****
12,834 posts
To be quite honest, the rating systems of every site barely work like they should. There will always be people that rate up their friends even if their friends are complete asshats, and there will be bitter people who rate down the best advice simply because they can. Neither is good, but neither can be 100% prevented.

Other forums are either heavily admined, or the wild west. I think Alla's found a happy medium. Any system will be abused, but at least here there are consequences... or I'd be a Guru right now >.>
____________________________
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/pawkeshup
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/pawkeshup
Twitch: http://www.twitch.tv/pawkeshup
Blog: http://pawkeshup.blogspot.com
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
The idea of old school is way more interesting than the reality
#28 Mar 14 2010 at 4:19 PM Rating: Good
****
7,106 posts
Quote:
I'd rather have a system that works. I know I'm asking a lot, but assuming the cake isn't a lie, it should be possible to get it and eat it too.

Sure. Have you got an example of a better system? And, I don't mean, "I am personally certain that X would be an improvement." I mean, can you point to a similar online forum that has the same problems as Alla and deals with them better? Because, there certainly isn't another FFXI forum that pulls it off.

The karma system makes a lot of people think before posting. That, right there, is more than most other online forums achieve.

Change can be good, and I have no doubts that there are ways to improve things. But the "Karma is broken and it should be removed" perspective simply ignores that it works a lot better than nothing.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
#29 Mar 14 2010 at 6:34 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Caesura wrote:
Just try to find a troll Sage or Guru with more than 100 posts.
Hi.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#30 Mar 14 2010 at 11:45 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
2,496 posts
I'm glad the numbers are gone. Seeing people whine over a 0.01 adjustment was annoying. Although when the numbers were around, spotting karma bugs was a lot easier. I was stuck at 3.13 for well over a year before it was ever fixed. The only reason I noticed it was stuck was because I wrote a few small guides which resulted in more than a few rate-ups and my karma didn't move.

I do agree that the karma system in it's current form is effective, but also broken. How about having the system only take into account the last 100 ratings (excluding unrated posts) and basing the scale off of that? This would eliminate the post count locked karma ratings.
#31 Mar 15 2010 at 3:24 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
Caesura wrote:
Quote:
I'd rather have a system that works. I know I'm asking a lot, but assuming the cake isn't a lie, it should be possible to get it and eat it too.

Sure. Have you got an example of a better system? And, I don't mean, "I am personally certain that X would be an improvement." I mean, can you point to a similar online forum that has the same problems as Alla and deals with them better? Because, there certainly isn't another FFXI forum that pulls it off.


What's wrong with being the first? If I could point to another site using a perfect system, surely one of the Allakhazam admins would have seen it as well and implemented it by now. I'm trying to invent the nuclear bomb here and you're telling me I need to look at Oppenheimer's notes first?

Caesura wrote:
The karma system makes a lot of people think before posting. That, right there, is more than most other online forums achieve.


My experience (ranging some six years back) is that the system doesn't work. Karma might cause the regular posters to consider their words before posting (or not - see OOT again), but those people aren't going to go away from a little karma downrating anyway, so what does it matter? The people affected by the karma system are largely newcomers and lurkers, but the lurkers usually don't post enough to care about their ratings, and the newbies don't understand the karma system enough to not go postal when they get sub-defaulted. In the case of the latter, we recently had an event on the Warcraft board where a newbie was wondering why the Japanese were eating his threads, prompting him to repost earlier threads in an attempt to circumvent the nuking.

Caesure wrote:
Change can be good, and I have no doubts that there are ways to improve things. But the "Karma is broken and it should be removed" perspective simply ignores that it works a lot better than nothing.


See above. The karma system either works too well, or not at all. People who get hit by it will either drift off or go postal, which isn't what the karma system should be doing. Those who stick around will come to learn that karma means little once you have a solid post count.

A simple 'report post' feature with an auto-temp-nuke at X amounts of reports would work just as well when it comes to nuking unwanted posts. As for the ******-o-meter, yes, it would prompt us to actually communicate with someone we disagree with to let that person know he or she is being an asshat. I see how this lack of anonymity might frighten some. Welcome to the world.

Angstycoder wrote:
Mazra wrote:
assuming the cake isn't a lie, it should be possible to get it and eat it too.


But if you eat it, you'll only have it until you ****... if you still count that as cake... and I guess you can still have it if you keep it, but that's just gross! Why do you want to eat and **** karma? :(


You're assuming the cake is a limited amount. Think outside the box, Angsty. Outside the box.

Edited, Mar 15th 2010 10:30am by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#32 Mar 15 2010 at 5:08 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
18,463 posts
If the forum is a popularity contest, why on Earth would you give power to auto-nuke to posters? Then all that would have to happen is a certain number of asshats agree to nuke a post, and it's done.

At least this way those of us still interested in sub-default posters can see and respond.
#33 Mar 15 2010 at 6:58 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
If the forum is a popularity contest, why on Earth would you give power to auto-nuke to posters? Then all that would have to happen is a certain number of asshats agree to nuke a post, and it's done.

At least this way those of us still interested in sub-default posters can see and respond.


If you read up a bit, I believe I mentioned that the nuke wasn't the final decision (admin attention, temporary nuke, etc.). Putting the power of perma-nuking into the hands of certain individuals here would be in violation of a law somewhere. Naturally the admins would have to look at and confirm the nuke. Also, the auto-nuke suggestion was more directed at dealing with spammers and such.

The fact that you can see sub-default posts means the current system has no real effect, though. Unless enough people rate it down so it gets unrated, it remains visible. I feed on sub-default posts, so I don't mind. I'm just trying to come up with improvements to the current system.

In all honesty, if it was up to me, they'd do away with the rating system, keep the report post system and let the regular posters sort out the rest. Rating up and down is so meaningless these days.

Edit: Unrated posts remain visible, they're just minimized. Unrated threads also remain visible. Entire thing is meh.

Edited, Mar 15th 2010 2:00pm by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#34 Mar 15 2010 at 12:34 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Rating up and down is so meaningless these days.
Then why not just ignore it? I get rated down constantly, regardless of what i post. It doesn't bother me one bit.
#35 Mar 15 2010 at 12:50 PM Rating: Decent
Caesura wrote:
The system doubtless has its flaws, but I see very few white names who consistently post supportive and helpful information, and very few red or green names who are constant idiots. Just try to find a troll Sage or Guru with more than 100 posts.


May I point you to a guru with nearly 47k posts?
#36 Mar 15 2010 at 1:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,443 posts
ThePsychoticOne the Prohpet wrote:
Quote:
Rating up and down is so meaningless these days.
Then why not just ignore it? I get rated down constantly, regardless of what i post. It doesn't bother me one bit.


Personally I somewhat ignore it. I don't ignore it when I'm being karma camped, but being rated up or down rarely touches my heart. It's nice to be appreciated, just like it's not nice being unappreciated, but it's not making/breaking my day.

I see others who don't feel that way, though. When karma camping causes people to leave the site in frustration, I somewhat understand them. Someone is having a laugh being a petty *** and there's nothing you can do about it, except call an admin, which sort of defeats the whole karma system, user-moderated forum thing in the first place. Some people don't know about karma camping and how to deal with it and either leave or go postal, making their situation worse. This isn't a tryout for Allakhazam worthiness, so I don't see why people have to be tested through that sort of harassment. Maybe that stuff is great fun in the Asylum or OOT forum, but not so much the game boards (or at least the WoW board). Who knows, maybe some of those who just packed their bags and left because of a single camper would've gone on to make some valuable stuff for the site and the community.

The karma system has lost its original functionality, or rather, the finer functionality of it. If people rate a person down enough for it to have an effect, it's usually because that person is a spammer or total maniac, in which case a report post feature would work. Most of all the karma system is being used for that anonymous 'f*ck you' ratedown function. Instead of rating the post based on its value in the community, it's being rated based on whether or not the rater agrees with or likes it.

I just thought about something, though. How about removing the personal karma rating? Currently, if someone with 100 posts has a bad day and gets nuked into oblivion, that poster will have a hard time getting back up, because the tendency seems to be that the red arrow is prettier than the green one (or more fun to click, I don't know). Basically, someone can spend 100 posts writing nothing but good, make a few mistakes (like walking into the Asylum or OOT unprepared), get nuked into hell and then spend the next 24k posts trying to rebuild the reputation, until that person realizes that at his current post count, it would take an eternity to even get near the final form, causing him to be oddly apathetic about his posts, descending him into madness and drunken rage with little care for his physical wellbeing... or so I've heard. Smiley: um

Edited, Mar 15th 2010 8:51pm by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#37 Mar 15 2010 at 1:57 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Caesura wrote:
Just try to find a troll Sage or Guru with more than 100 posts.
Hi.
Smiley: oyvey Always late to the party, this one is.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#38 Mar 15 2010 at 4:42 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Caesura wrote:
Just try to find a troll Sage or Guru with more than 100 posts.
Hi.
Smiley: oyvey Always late to the party, this one is.
Fashionably late, certainly.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#39 Apr 11 2010 at 8:26 PM Rating: Default
**
676 posts
Well, I am worried as usual that I'm going to be rated down for saying anything, so this post won't be any different than my others. Every time I post, I'm rated down. Right now, I have posts at default that have absolutely no reason to be. I frequently post thought-out, helpful mini guides and suggestions and am frequently rated down. For every post I complete and confirm, there have been two that I was worried might get rated down and I closed the tab.

I know other people don't worry about karma or say they don't, but I'll be honest in saying that I do care. When you rate someone down, it's not just a word or number next to your name. It's the value someone has placed on something you said, or you in particular. There are humans rating up and down, and when they click that red arrow, there is a civilized person saying "Who you are is so abhorrent to me that I wish to anonymously and indirectly harm you by virtue of you knowing that someone dislikes you or something you said, despite the spirit of the message or who you are."

I do care about karma, and it's a flawed system. The main problem is people who karma camp are doing it anonymously, because 90% of them are cowards who desperately want someone to feel bad.

I think a good fix for this would be A) Putting the names of people who rated up/down so they'll be just as hesitant as the people who posted in the first place and B) Make them give a reason. If someone notices they're being rated down indiscriminately by the same person time and again, they can report it.

Anyway, nothing will change. Nothing ever does, so carry on.

Edited, Apr 11th 2010 10:27pm by BeastmenLord
#40 Apr 11 2010 at 10:11 PM Rating: Decent
It's Just a Flesh Wound
******
22,702 posts
Mazra wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
There's already a Report Post button. Its that one that says Report.


Makes it even easier to implement my suggestion. All that's needed is an auto-temporary-nuke when X amount of reports are filed - possibly the "flag for admin attention" thing as well, if it's not already happening.


Most spam posts are already rated into sub-sub-default by the time an admin finds them due to people rating them down.

lolgaxe wrote:
Caesura wrote:
Just try to find a troll Sage or Guru with more than 100 posts.
Hi.


Only but a short time ago if you were a guru it meant one of two things: a. You were a very good and helpful poster or b. A bunch of 'friends' rated you up. The asylum is covered by b. Now with the asylum being dead and the OoT being the new asylum ratings mean even less than they used to.

ps. lolgaxe you're not a troll, you're just a /b/tard.
____________________________
Dear people I don't like: 凸(●´―`●)凸
#41 Apr 11 2010 at 10:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
There are checks on the system to discourage rating abuse. Namely, me and the other Administrators. For example, a user "BeastmenLord" recently created a ratebot to rate themselves up to guru illicitly. The karma camper tools allerted me to this fact, and I personally corrected the rating situation by norateing the ratebot and the main account and correcting the karma to where it should have been without the artificial prop.

Don't cheat the system. It irritates me.

Putting the names of who rates who up and down visable to non admins would be an invitation to start world war III. People are not rational about such things, they take it personally, feelings get hurt, and then next thing you know somone is assasinating arch dukes and setting the whole thing off again.

If you feel you are being karma camped, you always have the option to ask an admin for an impartial review. You can do so via PM, it takes mere seconds. No I won't tell you who is karma camping you, but if someoene is karma camping you in violation of the site rules, they won't be after that.

Aside from the various people who attempt to game the system there are a few issues yet to work out (new posters getting knocked sub scholar before they have a chance to not be annoying because they don't know any better, and Clique rate ups that don't get reported), but overall the karma system works as intended.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#42 Apr 12 2010 at 7:40 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,564 posts
BeastmenLord 0 Kaolian 5000

____________________________
◕ ‿‿ ◕
#43REDACTED, Posted: Apr 12 2010 at 8:25 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You're right, I did do that. 4 @#%^ing years ago, because I got sick of being defaulted for sh*t. Then I quit the game for 2 years, came back and have been a productive member. Only then did you catch what I'd done all that time ago. You know what happened when I sock rated myself with a SINGLE other account? Other people started rating me up too, just because they saw that I had already been rated up.
#44 Apr 12 2010 at 8:40 AM Rating: Default
*****
10,564 posts
Glad you're making his job easy. Noone wants you around anyway you stupid useless ****.
____________________________
◕ ‿‿ ◕
#45 Apr 12 2010 at 8:41 AM Rating: Decent
Terrorfiend
*****
12,905 posts
That's a case of sandy ****** if i ever saw one.
#46 Apr 12 2010 at 9:07 AM Rating: Good
*****
13,251 posts
The baseball board I frequent has a "Reputation" system. I think it works a bit better than this system, but again you're going to end up with ratings for reasons other than intended. Anyway, I like it because it prevents you from rating the same person twice without spreading it around a bit, and there's also a limit on how many posts you can rate within a 24-hour period.
#47 Apr 12 2010 at 9:38 PM Rating: Good
***
1,079 posts
I was on a forum that let people know who rated you down and they made you put down a reason. I rated down a moderator once and they PM'd me in a hissy fit and deleted my rate down.

So for the benefit of saving ourselves from hissy fits (See: BeastmenLord), let's keep it the way it is.

Edited, Apr 12th 2010 11:51pm by Stilivan
____________________________
FFXIV
Articus Vladmir
PLD WHM BRD DRG BLM
#48 Apr 13 2010 at 5:21 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,511 posts
I don't feel it's so much a problem of people being afraid to post what they want for fear of ratedowns, i'm more concerned about this new influx of just plain harassment or trolling posts from people with a high number of posts, because their score is too big to be altered at that point by a few ratedowns.

This whole board would be a lot more pleasant and less agressive if, for instance, only the last 100 or 200 posts counted for your score. It would certainly cut down on the amount of offensive posts. Maybe even made people think before posting something clearly retarded only meant to offend either the OP or another poster down the line.
____________________________
[XI] Surivere of Valefor
[XIV] Sir Surian Bedivere of Behemoth
http://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodestone/character/2401553/
#49 Apr 13 2010 at 7:05 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,564 posts
KojiroSoma wrote:
I don't feel it's so much a problem of people being afraid to post what they want for fear of ratedowns, i'm more concerned about this new influx of just plain harassment or trolling posts from people with a high number of posts, because their score is too big to be altered at that point by a few ratedowns.

This whole board would be a lot more pleasant and less agressive if, for instance, only the last 100 or 200 posts counted for your score. It would certainly cut down on the amount of offensive posts. Maybe even made people think before posting something clearly retarded only meant to offend either the OP or another poster down the line.


But then I might not have my awesome green name! >:(
____________________________
◕ ‿‿ ◕
#50 Apr 13 2010 at 7:49 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,511 posts
Vataro wrote:
KojiroSoma wrote:
I don't feel it's so much a problem of people being afraid to post what they want for fear of ratedowns, i'm more concerned about this new influx of just plain harassment or trolling posts from people with a high number of posts, because their score is too big to be altered at that point by a few ratedowns.

This whole board would be a lot more pleasant and less agressive if, for instance, only the last 100 or 200 posts counted for your score. It would certainly cut down on the amount of offensive posts. Maybe even made people think before posting something clearly retarded only meant to offend either the OP or another poster down the line.


But then I might not have my awesome green name! >:(

That shouldnt true actually, since all your posts start out at "Good" right now due to your current rating. Nothing should change, except for ratings to be more susceptible and influencable (?).
____________________________
[XI] Surivere of Valefor
[XIV] Sir Surian Bedivere of Behemoth
http://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodestone/character/2401553/
#51 Apr 13 2010 at 8:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Influential.


And some of us are asses regardless of post count and "protection" that high post counts give us. I'm the same way today, that I was at 2000 posts. 26,000 posts is a lot of time to remove any protection 2000 posts would have given me. Now today, my 28,000 posts gives me an *** ton of protection, but if I never cared at 2000, I don't see why I should care now at 28,000.

Personally, I think the rating system is useless as it's nothing more than a popularity contest. I'm a prime example. I'm an *** who has made people laugh while I'm insulting someone and now I'm, barring admin intervention, practically immune to ratings. I'd wager a guess of 24,000-26,000 posts of absolute garbage and I'm a Sage?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

This thread is locked
You cannot post in a locked topic!
Recent Visitors: 147 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (147)