|
fxgranite
Feb 3, 2009, 7:28 PM
Post #26 of 176
(9553 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 1, 2007
Posts: 358
|
Just log out to see your posts score...
|
|
|
|
|
carabiner96
Feb 3, 2009, 7:28 PM
Post #27 of 176
(9552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2006
Posts: 12610
|
epoch wrote: Everyone, do me a favor and check out your profile. Do you see an rated average or no?
no.
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Feb 3, 2009, 7:29 PM
Post #28 of 176
(9550 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
Valarc wrote: I think a digg or reddit style thumbs up/thumbs down system would be both simpler and more effective. Each thumbs up is a +1, and each thumbs down is a -1 - the post gets an overall score, so posts that were loved by lots of people will get a high score. This would make sorting a lot more intuitive - under the current system, a post with one 5-star vote looks better than a post with five 5-star votes and 1 one-star, depending on how you handle the rounding. Under the +/- system, the first post would have a score of +1, while the second would have a score of +4, more clearly illustrating that the second was enjoyed by more people.
...You obviously weren't here for the poo trophy wars.... 
|
|
|
|
|
Valarc
Feb 3, 2009, 7:32 PM
Post #29 of 176
(9540 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2007
Posts: 1473
|
epoch wrote: Everyone, do me a favor and check out your profile. Do you see an rated average or no?
I see nothing in my profile. However, I do see the average rating on my own posts now.
|
|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
Feb 3, 2009, 7:41 PM
Post #30 of 176
(9532 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
I find the new feature annoying. At best.
A useless feature that brings nothing to the table. It isn't going to improve "content", eliminate trolls, or help determine which zingers are actually funny.
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Feb 3, 2009, 7:47 PM
Post #31 of 176
(9523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
Jay,
...if you have voted on a post, leave the thread, then come back to it, and then hover the mouse over the stars again the vote disappears.
...a minor glitch perhaps?
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 3, 2009, 7:58 PM
Post #32 of 176
(9512 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
boymeetsrock wrote: How does the average work? is it n average rating for the particular post? poster? or thread? Cool to see this back in some form though!
Just per post.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 3, 2009, 8:00 PM
Post #33 of 176
(9508 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
happiegrrrl wrote: Can people see how the stars in their own posts are averaging? I have to say, about these new star wars: It is my opinion that no good can come of this..... But it ought to be entertaining to see what happens. Smart marketing Jay. Middle of winter blues - toss some gas in the fire to heat things up!
 Busted, I am!
As to your question, though, nope, too much functionality for its own good I think.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 3, 2009, 8:01 PM
Post #34 of 176
(9505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
imnotclever wrote: The other thing to notice is that I can go back and change my vote. Im sure you could use a vote change to intentionally draw out the butthuttz. Can we change our votes on pictures? I'll have to go check.
Not sure about pictures, but probably. Here, that's by design, just in case you accidentally hit a star when you mean to hit something else.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 3, 2009, 8:03 PM
Post #36 of 176
(9495 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: I find the new feature annoying. At best. A useless feature that brings nothing to the table. It isn't going to improve "content", eliminate trolls, or help determine which zingers are actually funny.
On it's own, no. You're correct. I'm well aware that there's no such thing as a magic bullet.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 3, 2009, 8:06 PM
Post #37 of 176
(9492 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
kachoong wrote: Jay, ...if you have voted on a post, leave the thread, then come back to it, and then hover the mouse over the stars again the vote disappears. ...a minor glitch perhaps?
But the average stays the same. Glitch, but a minor one.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Feb 3, 2009, 8:06 PM
Post #38 of 176
(9488 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
epoch wrote: Everyone, do me a favor and check out your profile. Do you see an rated average or no?
No. Where in the profile should it be?
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 3, 2009, 8:06 PM
Post #39 of 176
(9487 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
imnotclever wrote: jAY you can't let this be active in the community forums though. That'd bee tooo much.
You're right. --POOF!-- It is done.
Edit: although ratings will remain live in the Ladies Room.
(This post was edited by j_ung on Feb 3, 2009, 8:07 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Feb 3, 2009, 8:07 PM
Post #40 of 176
(9482 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
sungam wrote: I throwing a turd at yourn post for not including GMburns.
I gave you a 5-star for helping me to build my online reputation.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 3, 2009, 8:08 PM
Post #41 of 176
(9487 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
reno wrote: epoch wrote: Everyone, do me a favor and check out your profile. Do you see an rated average or no? No. Where in the profile should it be?
It shouldn't be anywhere. Averages should only be viewable by post.
|
|
|
|
|
shoo
Feb 3, 2009, 8:11 PM
Post #42 of 176
(9483 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
How about a thread rating?
|
|
|
|
|
kachoong
Feb 3, 2009, 8:11 PM
Post #43 of 176
(9483 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: 15304
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: sungam wrote: I throwing a turd at yourn post for not including GMburns. I gave you a 5-star for helping me to build my online reputation.
Ahhh, but your online reputation is by far grossly out-weighted by our votes of your posts than your votes of our posts. 
|
|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
Feb 3, 2009, 8:21 PM
Post #44 of 176
(9474 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
j_ung wrote: Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: I find the new feature annoying. At best. A useless feature that brings nothing to the table. It isn't going to improve "content", eliminate trolls, or help determine which zingers are actually funny. On it's own, no. You're correct. I'm well aware that there's no such thing as a magic bullet.
I didn't intend to imply that the stars wouldn't solve everything. I ment to imply they wouldn't solve anything.
I guess I'm stuck on "why the feature" Unless it is one part of an integrated new feature set???.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 3, 2009, 8:28 PM
Post #45 of 176
(9468 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: j_ung wrote: Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: I find the new feature annoying. At best. A useless feature that brings nothing to the table. It isn't going to improve "content", eliminate trolls, or help determine which zingers are actually funny. On it's own, no. You're correct. I'm well aware that there's no such thing as a magic bullet. I didn't intend to imply that the stars wouldn't solve everything. I ment to imply they wouldn't solve anything. I guess I'm stuck on "why the feature" Unless it is one part of an integrated new feature set???.
Yes, indeedy. Eventually the search feature will rely heavily on it, and hopefully users will also be able to set filters, much like they used to be able to do with trophies and poo. This is part of the package that includes blue forums and the eventual killfile.
|
|
|
|
|
clausti
Feb 3, 2009, 8:34 PM
Post #46 of 176
(9460 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2004
Posts: 5690
|
j_ung wrote: Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: j_ung wrote: Toast_in_the_Machine wrote: I find the new feature annoying. At best. A useless feature that brings nothing to the table. It isn't going to improve "content", eliminate trolls, or help determine which zingers are actually funny. On it's own, no. You're correct. I'm well aware that there's no such thing as a magic bullet. I didn't intend to imply that the stars wouldn't solve everything. I ment to imply they wouldn't solve anything. I guess I'm stuck on "why the feature" Unless it is one part of an integrated new feature set???. Yes, indeedy. Eventually the search feature will rely heavily on it, and hopefully users will also be able to set filters, much like they used to be able to do with trophies and poo. This is part of the package that includes blue forums and the eventual killfile.
how is this going to improve the search feature? are you going to classify the posts by topic? because the biggest problem right now with telling people to "do a search" for something (by topic) is that the search feature will only return posts with the search terms in it, rather than returning *thread* ranked by number of times the search terms are included. and the biggest problem with searching for a particular post/phrase, is that you can't sift through results by sorting by multiple criteria (poster, date, thread title) on the fly.
but i do fail to see how this is going to help the search feature.
|
|
|
|
|
Valarc
Feb 3, 2009, 8:36 PM
Post #47 of 176
(9459 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2007
Posts: 1473
|
j_ung wrote: Eventually the search feature will rely heavily on it, and hopefully users will also be able to set filters, much like they used to be able to do with trophies and poo. This is part of the package that includes blue forums and the eventual killfile.
Even more reason to go to the simpler trophy/poo, or slightly less infantile thums up/thumbs down system, IMHO.
If I set a filter to remove all posts with only one star, that means posts with only a single vote, by someone who doesn't like a certain guy, will get filtered, in addition to those posts that get 50 one-star votes because they are clearly trolls or flamebait.
In the same scenario, one post would have a -1 score, and the other a -50, so if I set my filters to -10 and below, I could more easily control the level of filtering.
|
|
|
|
|
qwert
Feb 3, 2009, 8:37 PM
Post #48 of 176
(9458 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 2394
|
I am not shure what to think of the idea.
It could be very usefull to have some way to identify good content, but being able to rate every single post is a bit too much.
Also how does the number of posts get weighted?
For example we have one thread with only one post that is so stupid that noone even clicks on the title, apart from dumbn00b92s buddy, who rates dumbn00b92s post on how to safe money by using hardwear store carabiners a 5. So The only thing on carabiners with a straight five that pops up in the search first will then be this lunacy.
Maybe better to rate threads?
Wait for a minimum amount of votes until the ratings take effect?
And the visual side:
It is too distracting at the moment.
It needs to be much smaller. Maybe place it to the side, sowhere under the avatar?
But first and foremost:
GET RID OF THOSE WHITE BOXES AROUND THE STARS! THAT TOTALLY BUGS ME!
No seriously, give those little grafics a background that is matching the forum color, like this:
qwert
(This post was edited by qwert on Feb 3, 2009, 8:38 PM)
|
|
Attachments:
|
postrate1.jpg
(17.6 KB)
|
|
|
postrate2.jpg
(16.8 KB)
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Feb 3, 2009, 8:44 PM
Post #49 of 176
(9449 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
kachoong wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: sungam wrote: I throwing a turd at yourn post for not including GMburns. I gave you a 5-star for helping me to build my online reputation. Ahhh, but your online reputation is by far grossly out-weighted by our votes of your posts than your votes of our posts.
I vill vote more!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
donald949
Feb 3, 2009, 8:46 PM
Post #50 of 176
(9448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2007
Posts: 11455
|
happiegrrrl wrote: Ah...No. One cannot see their own post ratings. You do understand, I am sure Jay, that all a person has to do is ask what their stars are. Is this another scheme to get post count increases???? edit: hey! The stars weren't on the post of mine I looked at before??? At least I don't think they were....
Happie,
That is how I saw it go down.
Don
|
|
|
|
|
|
