On the last point I'd like to disclose that moderator votes are currently weighed more than other votes in the calculation of averages. This would explain calculation "anomalies" that a few of you have noticed.

That's about as understated an announcement of this finding as possible...

I used to check this site daily, but until today never wanted to register because of the atmosphere created by some of the users, particularly you, Jay.

Hi everyone,

Just a quick note to say that we're currently considering the entire post rating system and its implementation. We anticipate making some changes based on the feedback we've received. In the mean time the current system will remain in place.

The original idea was that post ratings could enhance the search functionality in the forums, and this remains a goal that we would ultimately like to implement, even though it could take some time. Additionally we're considering the type of rating system (5-star vs thumbs up/down), anonymity of votes, visibility into average ratings for users, and the calculation of these averages.

On the last point I'd like to disclose that moderator votes are currently weighed more than other votes in the calculation of averages. This would explain calculation "anomalies" that a few of you have noticed.

We will review existing threads with feedback, suggestions and ideas. Feel free to share any additional thoughts or suggestions you may have.

DDT

That's about as understated an announcement of this finding as possible. Let's make clear what happened: the moderators (or administrators) secretly (without even ddt's knowledge) implemented a system whereby their votes count more than those of ordinary users. This is why when you vote on a post that, based on the total number of votes, should change the average, your vote sometimes does not change the average.

DDT, how much did the moderators decide their votes should count compared to ours?

Jay

While I'm not opposed to weighting votes in proportion to their actual value, automatically assigning greater weight to RC.com moderator votes is absolutely hysterical. I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry. Did the rest of us get at least 3/5 representation like black people in the 18th century US?

Curt

The moderators decided no such thing. I decided moderator votes would be worth five, specifically to give them the power to combat malicious voting.

I overestimated the communal maturity level . . .

The system as it stands is mostly working. It's obvious, as I poke around the site that a lot of posts are rated, I think, accurately.

. . . and I would still make moderator votes heavier than regular votes, too.

I still believe the idea has positive implications for the search function, which was, and should continue to be, the primary consideration in all this.

You made a moderator's vote worth five times a user's? That's bat-shit crazy. I figured at the most maybe 1.5 or double. But five times?

And of course it was done in secret.


The moderators' maturity level? Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke. Half of them only rarely visit the site. And of the half who visit often enough to be able to moderate (if they actually had any inclination to), half hide their online status. So the question "where's a moderator when you need one?" has the answer "probably hiding."

Jay

You made a moderator's vote worth five times a user's? That's bat-shit crazy. I figured at the most maybe 1.5 or double. But five times?

And of course it was done in secret.


The moderators' maturity level? Newsflash: the moderators here are a total joke, or more accurately, an inside joke. Half of them only rarely visit the site. And of the half who visit often enough to be able to moderate (if they actually had any inclination to), half hide their online status. So the question "where's a moderator when you need one?" has the answer "probably hiding."

Jay

wow, thanks for the ringing endorsement

OK, you've got the "feedback" covered - now how about some suggestions? How do we fix this problem of the moderators being "a total joke"?

In answering, keep a few things in mind:

1. Rockclimbing.com makes very little income. This should be obvious from the frequency at which it changes hands, if nothing else.

Daniel (ddt) only makes it work at all by running it as part of a larger portfolio of websites. So paying moderators - hell, even paying a moderator - is pretty much out of the question. So we're stuck with volunteer moderators.

2. If you're going with volunteer moderators, well... they still have to support themselves. So their moderating is pretty much limited to their free time. You could consider trying to recruit moderators from those with more free time - the unemployed, stay-at-home parents, etc., but let's face it. The sort of person who'd be willing to spend more than the occasional hour on moderating a web forum? For free? That's the sort of person you don't want to let anywhere near the moderator buttons.

So, what's the answer?

Aside from what Jay suggests, no one should be a moderator for more than 6 months at a time. People lose all perspective, and start to believe that what they are doing is important and couldn't easily be done by someone else.

elite moderator class.

JT512, if you're so unhappy with this site, feel free to leave. I doubt any of us will be begging you to return.

I do speak my mind, but would love some examples. Here or PM would be fine.

First of all, let me say that in spite of your previous rancorous remark(s) toward me (which I think were excessively harsh), I think it is commendable that you are open to criticism. Although I am not predisposed to going out of my way to find the posts of yours that I thought were undeservedly harsh*, if I run across them again in the normal course of perusing the forums, I'll let you know.

*Note that the phrase "undeservedly harsh" implies that there could be posts (made by either of us) that are deservedly harsh.

Jay

I am open to critic in every area of my life, but I don't really care for criticism. Like everyone, I have room for improvement.

Thanks for replying to my question. You had a nice way of posting a response without every answering the question I posted with a specific example. (which should be numerous from what you said about me.)

Moderators probably shouldn't be allowed to assign star ratings at all, and certainly not in any thread that they are participating in.

The moderators' maturity level?

I really don't think your one-star stalker is a moderator. ...

Let's be perfectly honest here. I am one of a very small — and ever shrinking — number of people who can see past your pathological inability to communicate constructively, and instead recognize the truthfulness and usefulness of what you so often post.

In this case, I wondered if perhaps a moderator was stalking you. I sought out 20 of your posts that have one star with one rating and rated all of them 5. In every single case the average jumped to 3, which means that, at least in those 20 cases, it was no moderator who one-starred you.

Would you be surprised to learn that I was thinking specifically (but not entirely) of you when I weighted moderator votes? If weighted voting failed (and I'm also willing to admit that this aspect of the system is far from perfect*), then one of the ways in which it did is that it wasn't robust enough to protect your content.

Last thing: For the record, most of the moderators expressed doubts about weighting votes in their favor and keeping it secret. Since I'm the one responsible for both, you might consider an apology to them, at least on that issue.

There was at least one moderator "stalking" my posts and one-starring them.


Believe it or not, Jay, there are many users here who actually don't think I even have a "pathological inability to communicate constructively."


I don't know when you did that or to which posts, but after getting PMs from numerous people saying that when they gave one- or two-vote one-star posts of mine five stars, the average didn't budge, I had my girlfriend do the same thing using a sample of unambiguously high-quality posts, and she confirmed the result. It was at that point that I PMed DDT stating that there appeared to be a problem with how the average ratings were calculated. He responded that he'd investigate and report what he found publicly. That's the only reason this travesty was ever disclosed. The moderators had repeated opportunities to disclose it. There are numerous posts in the forums where people say, "I just gave your post five stars and the rating didn't change." Multiple moderators undoubtedly saw these posts and decided to bite their tongue if not revel in their secret powers.



Yes, it does surprise me, and I appreciate the intent. Unfortunately, it was a flawed approach.



What I said was true: "[T]he moderators (or administrators) secretly (without even ddt's knowledge) implemented a system whereby their votes count more than those of ordinary users." What would you have me apologize for, putting the "administrators" in parentheses?

It turned out that it was the administrators who implemented it, and you who made it a secret. Furthermore, I feel that the moderators were complicit: they kept it a secret long after you were gone; at least some of them used it abusively; others knew of the abuse, and did nothing; and they failed to come clean about it, even when users began to publicly comment on obvious anomalies in the calculation of vote averages. It is not I who owe them an apology.

Jay, next time you want to manipulate vote averages, consult a statistician. Had you also incremented the display of total votes by 5 when moderators "voted," the plan would probably have gone unnoticed indefinitely.

Here's a constructive idea on how to combat abusive voting. Make votes public and make voting a revocable privilege. Have moderators monitor votes and/or investigate complaints of abusive voting, and when a member is found to be abusing the system, revoke his or her voting privilege.

Jay

that's bullshit. we did not know until recently when ddt disclosed how much our votes were worth.

I decided moderator votes would be worth five, specifically to give them the power to combat malicious voting.

Tell it j_ung. You are contradicting his assertion:


Maybe you missed the memo.

Jay

perhaps you should reexamine that one.. Jay decided they would be different. he didn't say he told anyone about it.

For the record, most of the moderators expressed doubts about weighting votes in their favor and keeping it secret.

marge is one of the more level mods on here and i don't see why she'd lie.

arguing semantics and nitpicking is one of the reasons you get 1 stars.

OK. I re-examined it, and I was right. In addition to the above quote from j_ung, there is this one:


So, if you believe that the mods did not know about the system, you have two things to explain: one, why j_ung would have designed a system "specifically to give them the power to combat malicious voting," and then not tell them about it; and, two, how most of the moderators could have have expressed doubts about a system they did not know about.


Nobody has accused her of lying. I said, "Maybe you missed the memo," which means "maybe you didn't know."


Which is defending myself against false accusation of accusing someone of lying: nitpicking or semantics?

Jay

from the tone of the post it seemed sarcastic. when you get a reputation for being negative you don't really earn much benefit of the doubt

Bring back the poop!

I really don't think your one-star stalker is a moderator. I think it's an assortment of regular users who are sick of your shit and tired of pointing it out to you.

Let's be perfectly honest here. I am one of a very small — and ever shrinking — number of people who can see past your pathological inability to communicate constructively, and instead recognize the truthfulness and usefulness of what you so often post.

I actually think it's funny that moderator votes are weighted--that way, I can immediately tell that it is a moderator one-starring my recent posts.

"Weighted star ratings - when wielding capricious moderator powers just doesn't stroke the ego quite enough."

Curt

I'm pretty sure they un-weighted them awhile ago.

Then perhaps you can explain how one 1-star rating plus one 5-star rating equals a one star rating?

Curt

It looks as though the moderators still have a bit more weight in their votes than regular users, and we will be looking into possibly amending this to make their votes count the same as regular users. For the mean time I have requested that the moderators hold off 1-starring posts for the time being, even if they feel it's deserved.

The reason they were given extra weight was that they are a trustworthy source and if they thought a post was excellent and rated it 5 stars, their vote could then not be cancelled out by some noob who comes and 1-stars the post because he doesn't know what it's about.

As with any power, it can be abused. But there is no abuse in moderators one starring posts they deem as bad posts, it's when a post is 1-starred because they simply disagree with what is being said that it becomes an issue.

Except that the moderators are not always a trustworthy source and compared to some of us, they are the n00b in the discussion.


As is unfortunately too often the case.

Curt

Somewhere between Feb 2 and now, you apparently started caring more, and I definitely started caring less. There are a handful of people on this site that I actively like, Curt, and you're one of them. I hope you to go back to caring less. I personally find it to be much more pleasant.

After considerable further thought, I have arrived at the inescapable conclusion that I really don't care very much. You may now return to the ongoing soap opera. Thank you for your momentary attention.

Curt

Sure. I was just going off what you posted a few months ago. ^^

Actually, that was 16 months ago.

Curt

Actually, that was 16 months ago.

Curt

It looks as though the moderators still have a bit more weight in their votes than regular users, and we will be looking into possibly amending this to make their votes count the same as regular users. For the mean time I have requested that the moderators hold off 1-starring posts for the time being, even if they feel it's deserved.

The reason they were given extra weight was that they are a trustworthy source and if they thought a post was excellent and rated it 5 stars, their vote could then not be cancelled out by some noob who comes and 1-stars the post because he doesn't know what it's about.

As with any power, it can be abused. But there is no abuse in moderators one starring posts they deem as bad posts, it's when a post is 1-starred because they simply disagree with what is being said that it becomes an issue.

Can the mods see who gives how many stars to what? Just wondering.

No, we can't see that. We can see your 'average' post rating if we go to your profile page, but I don't think that is visible to you. We formerly had trophies & poo. Those were the days!

What is an average user's average post rating? More like 2, or more like 4?

GO