Reading Other Topics

May 22, 2002 16:26 # 3422

Martin *** wants to note...

On ratings again

96% | 3

Some of us seem to feel mistreated by bad ratings lately. Time to talk about it once more I think.

To be honest I didn't see any Red rating since the two I mentioned a few weeks ago, and thats okay. I think we all agree to keep the red ones for lamers we dont wonna see here.

But, I also refuse to mark each and every post Green, cause simply not every post is worth it. I keep the green ones for really outstanding, or funny or beautiful articles that I also - mind my words - absolutely agree with! If I want it or not, funny enough I never find a post outstanding I *dont* agree with! Maybe I'm too stupid or easy minded for it, but somehow I can't make a difference there.

I use Yellows for avarage posts every now and then. Read the definition again, its for avarage posts "I may not agree with", but its worth reading. So after all giving a yellow rating is still a mark for the others to read this post as well. I cant see anything bad about it other than its not outstanding!

But then again, maybe we have to rethink the whole thing again. I know Jaz wont be too happy we're talking about it again, but still I think this whole rating business becomes more and more a competition, a kinda race for Greens. If anybody gets so sad or angry about a yellow rating that he feels the need to complain about it, I think its going the wrong direction.

I'm trying to share my thoughts about different topics with people, who have totally different backgrounds than me, living in different cultures, made different experiences. To know these people by their opinions, to see a personality unfold in multiple posts, thats what NAO for me is all about, and NOT whether or not someone agrees with me. And even if I absolutely dont understand some points of view and keep opposing against it, still its fascinating to learn more about the person behind the words. If you only would try to understand that rating is not FOR or AGAINST a person, but just reflects the subjective opinion of the one who pressed the rating button at that very moment...

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

May 22, 2002 16:51 # 3426

chris ** replies...

Re: On ratings again

96% | 2

The difficulty comes in the meaning of green, then. It says, "This post is well written". That would indicate to me that a yellow means "This post is sort of average in its expression" and a red means "Get this loser out of here, he's ruining it for everyone".

But, the problem as I see it is simply these labels. Green and Yellow and Red are comparing apples and oranges and pears. Green is for well written posts, yellow is "I can see the viewpoint, though I don't agree", and red is for spammers. They aren't even measuring the same scale.

I was under the impression that the rating was to help us to keep the people who express themselves in appropriate and lucid ways, the ones who contribute to the neatness of this culture, on the list, and to discourage those who just want to yell and flame and advertise off of the list.

But, right now, we have three orthoganal rating buttons, each of which rates someone in a completely different category. Given the ambiguity, I treated them all as being on the same scale as Green: how well written is the post, and is it abusive or not?

I think a lot of confusion could be avoided by making the ratings all rate the same thing, and that's just a matter of good labeling.

C

Sig Wanted -- Apply Within

May 22, 2002 17:04 # 3427

Martin *** replies...

Re: On ratings again

The difficulty comes in the meaning of green, then. It says, "This post is well written". That would indicate to me that a yellow means "This post is sort of average in its expression" and a red means "Get this loser out of here, he's ruining it for everyone".

I dont think we should rate any users ability to write in English, his orthography or his grammar (I'd fail ALL tests then :-) ). Thats not what "well written" means, I guess.

Sure, you're right, somehow everybody seems to have made his own interpretation for it, and so misunderstandings have to happen.

In my view we dont need ratings at all, but I know I wont make it with this proposal. So somehow we must find a useful definition we all agree to, AND any new user is able to understand without talking about it again.

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

May 22, 2002 17:09 # 3429

ReallyCoolDude *** has an idea...

Re: On ratings again

How about just the green and the red. The red ones to keep the scum out, the green ones to mark some really good posts. If one does not get the green, they will know maybe their post was not interesting enough for people to recommend it to others.

All the misunderstandings are due to the orange button. I guess, the green and the red are like pure black and white! The Orange is the culprit! First it was yellow, then it just changed it's colours, but remained to cause so much confusion!

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

May 22, 2002 17:16 # 3431

Martin *** replies...

Re: On ratings again

How about just the green and the red.

Would be okay for me, as well as the ealier idea of two additional values, and then really rate how much you like it or not.

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

May 22, 2002 17:42 # 3432

Orchid *** throws in her two cents...

Re: On ratings again

?% | 1

I quite like the 3-system we have.
Red is almost never used (apart from some, I thin, misunderstandings and spam of course) so you knew green=good post, yellow=good enough to appreciate with the yellow button (and it hasn't changed its meaning by getting orange, really not) but not that great.
If we'd let away the yellow button I'm afraid every post gets the green vote as it is now because look at the forum "abortion" or so. For several months I could see a tendency of just voting every post. There are good posts but there are also average ones where you couldn't see the writer sat down for half an hour.
Some months ago NAO was more agreable: There were many posts on a topic but you could really see just one or two green ones (the rest nothing or yellow). That helped far more to see: "Ah, this post of Martin is green voted, I'll read it though maybe it's long" but now you don't have the choice: Every post is marked green by one person or so. I think green really shouldn't be used so much.

"Sie wollen nichts anderes. Sie wollen kämpfen! Sie sind Soldaten! Fucking Wahnsinnige!" - Noel G.

May 22, 2002 19:18 # 3436

gentledeepwaters *** replies...

Re: On ratings again

91% | 2

Sigh.......okay I'll quit marking every syllable he utters green............hmmmmmmmmmmmm unless of course I happen to think it is well written.......but then I think everything he writes is well written......because he wrote it....

Sigh......okay.......I'll check into counseling on addiction. I don't think there is a l2 step program for him, though.

But I'll check.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

May 22, 2002 20:21 # 3441

ReallyCoolDude *** throws in his two cents...

Re: On ratings again

?% | 1

I remember Jaz writing once that he never wants that to happen. He doesn't want that people start rating each others on whether they agree to the opinion expressed in the post or not.

IMO, the purpose of the ratings is just to let a user know how *interesting* a post is. So, if one likes the views expressed in the post (whether one agrees to it or not), and would like others to definitely read the post, then it should be a green. If however, someone wants people to avoid a particular post because they feel that it is not written in good faith (maybe an abuse, or maybe just doesn't strike a feeling that it's worth-reading), then it should be voted an orange. The reds are just to keep the scum out.

I know I suggested the 5 button thing first, but, after Jaz explained his view, I think it might not be a good idea. That would make people voting in a race to find out who is more compatible with others, I mean Frank and Martin will just vote each other out, and their votes will cancel each other (they have the same voting power, right). :D

So, maybe abolishing the orange might be a better idea, OR, a clear understanding/explanation of the green and the orange posts are needed. An orange means, don't read it, it's not worth it, a green means, worth reading! A red as usual means let's kick him outta here.

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

May 22, 2002 20:38 # 3442

Orchid *** throws in her two cents...

Re: On ratings again

He doesn't want that people start rating each others on whether they agree to the opinion expressed in the post or not.

I think every user agrees to this and I also think respects this. I mean we're old enough, aren't we?

So, maybe abolishing the orange might be a better idea, OR, a clear understanding/explanation of the green and the orange posts are needed. An orange means, don't read it, it's not worth it, a green means, worth reading! A red as usual means let's kick him outta here.

As I already said, I don't like the idea of abolishing the orange, it takes away a little bit of variety we have here in NAO, I mean you could also abolish any kind of voting then.

Jaz already exposed an explanation for the colours and noone ever objected. I myself like Jaz' explanation very much. I think it's very clear.
And I don't think anyone can blame others for votings as long as he or she didn't get a red one which wouldn't be nice. It happened to me two times and I wasn't amused about it because there was no reason at all to vote red. After Martin's post I think now everyone got the meaning of red posts.

"Sie wollen nichts anderes. Sie wollen kämpfen! Sie sind Soldaten! Fucking Wahnsinnige!" - Noel G.

May 22, 2002 23:53 # 3454

ReallyCoolDude *** replies...

Re: On ratings again

?% | 1

I think every user agrees to this and I also think respects this.

Well, if that was the case then we wouldn't be discussing this again, right? I think Chris' post on abortion was a very well-written post, and it was in no way just an average post, or not worth reading. The ratings he and others got in many of the posts were purely due to the fact of disagreeing with their opinions.

I won't say anything about myself, because I don't consider myself a very good writer, and I am sure many of my posts are just *average* and probably can be easily skipped, so if I get an orange, I feel bad for just a little while, but understand that it must not be because someone doesn't agree to me, but it's because I have written something which is not worth reading.

[compliment mode]
But, I can certainly say about others like Martin and Chris, that their posts are very well-written, and they don't deserve an orange anytime. Even when they are asking someone to shut up, they masquerade it so well, that it seems like a very well-written post! :) No I mean it, I don't see any reason for their posts getting an orange. Maybe I am addicted to these guys posts, GDW, please let me know if you are joining a rehab center to get out of that addiction, I might join in!
[/compliment mode]

As I already said, I don't like the idea of abolishing the orange, it takes away a little bit of variety we have here in NAO, I mean you could also abolish any kind of voting then.

Yes, I agree to you on this one. It does provide a bit of variety, and I like it too. And, since Null points out that the ratings do increase even if a person receives an orange, just not as much it would if the person had received a green, I guess it's okay.

It happened to me two times and I wasn't amused about it because there was no reason at all to vote red. After Martin's post I think now everyone got the meaning of red posts.

Yes, I am glad they did. Even I was a victim of the red rating at that time. I know how it feels. Thanks Martin. Because of you, I have survived so far!

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.


Favorites (edit)

Small text Large text

Netalive Amp (Skin for Winamp)