Reading zane's journal

Mine, 68% and some of the responses to this post...

All the response, both mine and other peoples are all on target for this post. This is something that is opionion. Ratings I though were to distiqunish between good and bad posters, by people that are posting crap, short no sense bunk, and people that are legit and posting things of importance, or intelectal conversation...

To be honest, I though journals were for this kind of stuff. I have seen much worse and pointless posts from other people not get rated down because of their activity and logevity on NAO.

I think journals should be the safe haven away from ratings...

<I am the most complex person alive to my knowledge, save me>

Which bad rating?

Mine, 68%

Duh. 68% is pretty good!

"God is dead." - Nietzsche, 1882 "Nietzsche is dead." - God, 1900

Maybe in ur opion...

But my point was not just my rating, as i commented on the people that had 50%.

<I am the most complex person alive to my knowledge, save me>

Hmm... I'll chip in a bit here; I think it's my post that you were refering to.

I tend to agree with null, 68%, although it looks low, is actually an above average 'Nice' rating, meaning your post was good, but not excellent (something you noted yourself).

As to my 50% rating... yeah I think it was kind of low. It wasn't badly written or insulting.

I know I recently called on people to rate posts more... but, if it's a short post that is just a link or a comment/agreement, and especially if it's in Journals, I think not rating at all if fine, in that case.

But there should still be SOME rating of Journals... because some of the stuff here really is worth reading and rating... and some of it isn't. :-p

You're here, aren't you? You're talking to me, aren't you?

As to my 50% rating... yeah I think it was kind of low. It wasn't badly written or insulting.

50% usually means you've got one 'nice' and one 'mediocre'. While I agree with you that the 'mediocre' wouldn't have been necessary, whoever rated you does have a right to their own opinion. It's like that free speech thing, you see. :-)
Don't worry tho. One single bad rating has virtually no influence on anything.

But there should still be SOME rating of Journals... because some of the stuff here really is worth reading and rating... and some of it isn't.

100% agree. :-)

"God is dead." - Nietzsche, 1882 "Nietzsche is dead." - God, 1900

But my point was not just my rating

Well, you mentioned it in reply to Jaz asking "which bad rating", so I had to assume your 68% were one of the bad ratings you're talking about.

But anyways,

Maybe in ur opion...

Well, see it this way, your or my opinion on the rating system is worth el zilcho. It's not up to you or me to define "good" or "bad". And you know what, that's exactly how it should be. This site has a rating system which is the same for all users, and it works damn well, and the main reason it works at all is that nobody (besides Jaz) can mess with it. Whether a rating is "good" or "bad" is solely defined by him, the designer (the "architect", duh huh), simply because there is no room for individuality: the meaning of a particular rating has to be exactly the same for all users, whether they agree with the numbers Jaz picked or not. (NAO has seen its share of people who wanted to re-design the rating system based upon their own ideas at all cost. Please don't join them.)

"God is dead." - Nietzsche, 1882 "Nietzsche is dead." - God, 1900

First off I don't think it needs redesign. I was refering to the fact that you think 68% isnt bad. Pesonally I do. I also know that jaz is the designer. But incase you did not notice, your not speak as someone that has a 65% for their overall rating. I do because of posts like this. Now honestly I would like to see you say the same thing if your rating was this low. But as you might have notice, u put ur two sense into everyone business, which u are free to do, and don't get a bad rating. Maybe because you have been around so long, and people without even reading what you say rate you up. Or maybe because its you. While other people with equal things to say get a lower opion. I mean how can u get a higher rating, agreeing with someone that got a lower rating on a post makign the statement that you agreeded with. Honestly, if the persons statment that you are agreeing with is lower when all you post is "I Agree" and get a higher rating on the post. Something is off...

Not asking for a redesign. Just talking ethical. Please don't make any assumptions.

Fair or not, its not about the number jaz picked, its about the people rating other people.

It's not up to you or me to define "good" or "bad".

Ohh and in reference to that, I am not defining good or bad, merally stating my take on it. Hence my opion. Seriously, don't assume so much...

Don't take this as a attack on Jaz's design, which u are protective of. It is a attack on the ethics behind peoples ratings.

If I could make one suggestion, I would just writing guidlines to which you rate people.

For example when you sell a book on half.com or amazon.com or anything else, you rate its quality, NEW / Used - LIKE NEW / Used - Acceptable / ECT.

To each of these half.com and amazon and other site define what you base your rating on.

New - Never used, unopened, no scratchs or marks, contains everything...

ECT

Maybe make Excellent - Good Form in Posting, Relevent, not a wast of space, enjoyed reading.

Some type of guidlines, not saying the above should be it. That would be my only suggestion, and even then honestly, It would not matter to me. But I definatlly would not redo the system itself.

Once again, DON'T ASSUME THAT.

The above example isnt a attack at anyone specific, its just a oberservation in general.

<I am the most complex person alive to my knowledge, save me>

Some type of guidlines, not saying the above should be it. That would be my only suggestion

Have you tried the NAO Help on rating and ranks?

"God is dead." - Nietzsche, 1882 "Nietzsche is dead." - God, 1900

Yep, forgot about it though. But I remember why that didnt strike me.

Rating a post as Excellent will heavily help ranking up the respective post’s author and should be reserved for extremely good contributions.

Rating a post as Nice will also help ranking up a user, although not as much as choosing Excellent. Rate a post as Nice if you believe it is good reading, just not something very special.

Voting for Mediocre will give the author’s rank a tiny push downwards. Rate a post as Mediocre if you believe that people short of time may as well skip this post because it is not really worth reading.

Finally you have the Spam / Flamebait option, which will heavily help ranking down the post’s author. This rating should be reserved for real cases of abusive or extremely impolite and aggressive posts.

Notice the italic parts. They just didn't strike me, as very speicif. Not all them. What defines extreamly good. Anyways, its a step in the right direction...

<I am the most complex person alive to my knowledge, save me>

Well I'm of the mind that a persons rank should be somehow effected by the way they rank others. Not totally sure how it would work but there should be some type of incentive for a person ranking others. After all there is a good deal of posts that don't get ranked at all. I'm not complaining but I will state one fact that I've had one white star for almost a year now. Should the ranking system be so hard to attain that you literally have to wait years to get a white star? Other peoples mileage may very but for some of us there is very little incentive to this rating game.

For the record I rate alot of posts. The majority of the time I give excellents. There are probably alot of users who simply do not rate at all. This is a crying shame. What's the purpose of a rating system if nobody really takes it seriously?

This post was edited by majic on Jun 28, 2004.