Reading What Sucks

Hey all,

I've been noticing a tendency of negative post ratings being thrown around for no real reason whatsoever (examples here and here). This definitely has to stop.

A negative rating should be used to punish spammers, idiots, trolls, all in all real assholes. It should never ever be used to express disagreement, the current moon phase or bad mood of the rater.

Right now there's not one regular user on this site who would ever even remotely deserve a negative rating.

Probably starting from tonight when the new site update launches, virtually anything will be judged by post ratings. Post ratings will be this site's only real defense against the scum that's out there.

Hold on to your negative votes until real trols start to show up or this site is going to turn into a second Slashdot.

Jaz

'Yeah, That's what Jesus would do. Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.' - snowlion

This post was edited by Jaz on Jan 03, 2002.

Okay, I do understand I'm touching a sensible topic here (according to the three Greens), but after reading this your post, Jaz, over and over again I feel I have to reply. I dont want to start any flames here but just wish to discuss the matter for my understanding.

What came to my mind first when I read it was "so what are these rating good for anyway?". If I'm not supposed to express my agreement or disagreement with any article why should I rate any post at all?

I confess I'm the one to blame for some of the red ones during the last days (not all though!). But then again I dont understand the way its supposed to be working. According to your policy, Jaz, the red ones are just for the jerkes to keep'em outside. At the same time you claim none of the member currently enlisted deserves any red rating, so there are no jerkes around.

Okay. Agreed.

So following this we got four stages of ratings, the green ones for the article I like or agree to - Oh no, I'm not supposed to show any agreement or disagreement - right the green ones for... well, for what? Anyway. The green ones, not pressing any rating at all, the yellow and the red one. So if I'm not supposed to press the red one, the yellow is the worst rating I can give, allright. Not pressing any rating means it doesnt matter to me.

Really, I dont see the use of it at all! We all know the people around at the moment are not the worst guys to meet on the net, we know each other for several years meanwhile, so why do we have to overload each other with green points (== sympathy?)? Just to show us each and every day again how much more intellectual we are compared to the dark black mass out there? Though I do like the idea about NAO and have been with it from the very first minute some 273 years ago I dont like the tendency at all to make it an elitist club of 10 friends that meet in secret in a dark basement to discuss black magic. Sure its polemic and overdrawn but thats where it might lead to.
How come you all are so very touchy about that matter? What is wrong with some criticism? That doesnt mean we dont like each other anymore, at least this counts for me.

But maybe I'm just too dumb to understand the matter of rating anyway. If so, please, be patient and try to explain it to me one more time.

And I want some opinions on this matter! Not just Jaz replying!
Thank you!

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

This post was edited by Martin on Jan 04, 2002.

Remember my last email bout opposition?

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

imo rating should change to agreement or disagreement of the posting. it would clarify a lot and be more intuitive since i thing i'm not the only one first reacting "wow, i agree -> green button" but then it comes "stop - jaz has a different rule for voting" and so i stopped voting at all.

it's not like i want to start flames here but i agree with martin that clarifying what the rating is supposed to be now is required.

If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything. -- Mark Twain

This post was edited by madmaxx on Jan 04, 2002.

imo rating should change to agreement or disagreement of the posting.

I don't agree, because in my eyes this wouldn't fit the rating system as it currently is.
The reason is, people may (and hopefully do) differ in their opinions and views, yet most people do agree on whether a particular post is good, or offensive. I find the rating system important to find "real" lamers; if a posting gets 3 or more negative ratings, that means 3 people think the author is a dork or lamer. I feel that this is more important than knowing how many people agree/disagree with you. Especially when you could always answer to a post and choose "Agree" or "Disagree" as post type. IMHO this has even the advantage that you have a means to explain your position.

Plus if somebody is really nice but has an (in my opinion) absolutely inacceptable opinion, I don't have to give him a dozen negative ratings.

And now go ahead and rate me. :-)

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.

At NAOs current state (has it ever been different? No.) you dont need to find "real lamers" cause there are no more than 10 people posting at all. Of course we're all looking foward to increase this number, but with that also the look and feel of NAO will change. Why is it so hard to accept you dont like a special post you read? Because everybody knows each other! Mind my words, as soon as NAO gets a bit more traffic and members the number of Reds will increase, just because its easier to press this button for someone you dont know. This ratings are far away from being an impartial tool to really rate a post but its used to show someones sympathy for someone else, at least unknowingly, its a part of the decision to press any of those buttons. And thats as well the problem with recieving one of the Reds. Suddenly you think you are disliked, no longer part of the family, whatever. But thats nonsense! Maybe we all just have to understand these ratings are for a single post but not for the person behind it. (tag bug here?)
The more I think about it, the more I feel its just the wrong sign to use the Reds only for "lamers" to punish them. You just enforce the wrong attitude to use those buttons for or against the person but not for the post.

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

This post was edited by Martin on Jan 04, 2002.

To prevent a possible mistake, I don't mean to rate people. All I was trying to do is point out the difference between a (maybe good) posting you disagree with, and a posting that's just plain stupid. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.

I know that! When I say "you" I dont mean you in person, but it was meant as counterpart to the german "man". English gurus, tell me, is that a mistake? If so, sorry!

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

I like the posting, it's well-written (and convincing), it speaks from my heart (this includes a certain degree of "I agree with this post", yet it's not the main reason) --> green button.

It's just an average posting, not outstandingly good or bad --> yellow button.

It's a badly written, obviously absolutely superfluous, offending or ignorant post, or it makes me dislike the author --> red button.

I don't really have a strong opinion about the post --> no rating.

Just how I see things. :-)

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.

So do I.

Its more or less the same definition I had given before this topic came up.

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