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.