Forums: Rockclimbing.com: Suggestions & Feedback:
Post rating
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Suggestions & Feedback

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All


Partner j_ung


Feb 1, 2011, 7:08 AM
Post #26 of 58 (7207 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690

Re: [jt512] Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (7 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
j_ung wrote:
I overestimated the communal maturity level . . .

The moderators' maturity level?

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 don't always agree with you, but I always consider what you write seriously. 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. (That's not to say you haven't ever been one-starred by a moderator. I one-starred you a few times when I was blue. These days, I sometimes one-star you when you're just spouting useless Internet noise.)

I get that you're stressed over the situation you're in. Who wouldn't be? I mean, shit, nearly everybody here hates you, and some even go out of their way to make you feel unwelcome. But this system, which admittedly doesn't work in your favor, is not solely responsible for that.

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. Honestly, I'm beginning to think that eliminating anonymity won't work either. There will probably be plenty of people who are happy to show you how much they dislike you.

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.







* Post rating was to be just one of an array of tools and changes I wanted to experiment with over the course of years. I knew recognizing Rockclimbing.com's potential to be a valuable knowledge base would be a glacial process. Unfortunately, I only had five months on the job. That's like asking a snail to run an 8-minute mile. I'm glad to see ddt and Namemedia are revisiting this issue and continuing to work on what I never intended to be the end-all of forum tools.


jt512


Feb 1, 2011, 10:11 AM
Post #27 of 58 (7174 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [j_ung] Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (9 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
jt512 wrote:
j_ung wrote:
I overestimated the communal maturity level . . .

The moderators' maturity level?

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

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

In reply to:
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.

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

In reply to:
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.

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.

In reply to:
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.


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

In reply to:
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.


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


(This post was edited by jt512 on Feb 1, 2011, 11:35 AM)


Partner macherry


Feb 1, 2011, 3:31 PM
Post #28 of 58 (7139 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 10, 2003
Posts: 15848

Re: [jt512] Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
j_ung wrote:
jt512 wrote:
j_ung wrote:
I overestimated the communal maturity level . . .

The moderators' maturity level?

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

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

In reply to:
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.

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

In reply to:
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.

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.

In reply to:
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.


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

In reply to:
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.


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. Some mods suspected that our votes were weighted, but did not know for sure. Yeah, you might have been one starred bombed, but not to manipulate ratings.

fwiw, i could give a rat's ass about starred posts. This is a climbing website and for the most part voting is like a popularity contest. There are very few posts i even bother to vote for. i don't lose any sleep over it.


jt512


Feb 1, 2011, 5:16 PM
Post #29 of 58 (7125 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [macherry] Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (9 ratings)  
Can't Post

macherry wrote:
jt512 wrote:
j_ung wrote:
jt512 wrote:
j_ung wrote:
I overestimated the communal maturity level . . .

The moderators' maturity level?

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

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

In reply to:
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.

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

In reply to:
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.

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.

In reply to:
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.


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

In reply to:
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.


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.

Tell it j_ung. You are contradicting his assertion:

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

Maybe you missed the memo.

Jay


jakedatc


Feb 1, 2011, 6:18 PM
Post #30 of 58 (7114 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

Re: [jt512] Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
macherry wrote:
jt512 wrote:
j_ung wrote:
jt512 wrote:
j_ung wrote:
I overestimated the communal maturity level . . .

The moderators' maturity level?

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

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

In reply to:
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.

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

In reply to:
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.

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.

In reply to:
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.


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

In reply to:
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.


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.

Tell it j_ung. You are contradicting his assertion:

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

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.

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

your narcissism has grown over the years and your ass to useful comments ratio has been taking a hit. arguing semantics and nitpicking is one of the reasons you get 1 stars. being an abrasive ass is another. yea sometimes people need a "you're an idiot" kind of response.. but don't expect people to 5 star you for it.

if you really care about your stars you should really find an extra hobby.


jt512


Feb 1, 2011, 6:37 PM
Post #31 of 58 (7108 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [jakedatc] Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (10 ratings)  
Can't Post

jakedatc wrote:
jt512 wrote:
macherry wrote:
jt512 wrote:
j_ung wrote:
jt512 wrote:
j_ung wrote:
I overestimated the communal maturity level . . .

The moderators' maturity level?

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

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

In reply to:
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.

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

In reply to:
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.

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.

In reply to:
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.


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

In reply to:
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.


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.

Tell it j_ung. You are contradicting his assertion:

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

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.

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

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

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 expressed doubts about a system they did not know about.

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

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

In reply to:
arguing semantics and nitpicking is one of the reasons you get 1 stars.

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

Jay


(This post was edited by jt512 on Feb 1, 2011, 8:32 PM)


jakedatc


Feb 1, 2011, 7:23 PM
Post #32 of 58 (7091 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054

Re: [jt512] Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
jt512 wrote:
macherry wrote:
jt512 wrote:
j_ung wrote:
jt512 wrote:
j_ung wrote:
I overestimated the communal maturity level . . .

The moderators' maturity level?

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

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

In reply to:
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.

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

In reply to:
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.

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.

In reply to:
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.


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

In reply to:
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.


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.

Tell it j_ung. You are contradicting his assertion:

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

In reply to:
arguing semantics and nitpicking is one of the reasons you get 1 stars.

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


jt512


Feb 1, 2011, 8:04 PM
Post #33 of 58 (7078 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [jakedatc] Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (6 ratings)  
Can't Post

jakedatc wrote:
jt512 wrote:
jakedatc wrote:
jt512 wrote:
macherry wrote:
jt512 wrote:
j_ung wrote:
jt512 wrote:
j_ung wrote:
I overestimated the communal maturity level . . .

The moderators' maturity level?

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

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

In reply to:
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.

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

In reply to:
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.

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.

In reply to:
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.


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

In reply to:
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.


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.

Tell it j_ung. You are contradicting his assertion:

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

In reply to:
arguing semantics and nitpicking is one of the reasons you get 1 stars.

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

So, I guess that's as close to both the apology you owe me and the admission that you were wrong, both about my intent and about the plausibility of the mods (as a group) not knowing that their votes counted more.

Jay


curt


Feb 2, 2011, 10:06 PM
Post #34 of 58 (7028 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

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


guangzhou


Feb 4, 2011, 2:37 AM
Post #35 of 58 (6990 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 3389

Re: [curt] Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Curt, after rereading this thread, I have come to the conclusion that only one person actually cares about this soap opera.


Arrogant_Bastard


Feb 8, 2011, 11:18 AM
Post #36 of 58 (6901 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

Re: [guangzhou] Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Bring back the poop!


spikeddem


Feb 8, 2011, 11:54 AM
Post #37 of 58 (6888 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 27, 2007
Posts: 6319

Re: [Arrogant_Bastard] Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
Bring back the poop!
If I had a nickle...


Toast_in_the_Machine


Feb 11, 2011, 5:40 AM
Post #38 of 58 (6846 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5206

Re: [j_ung] Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
jt512 wrote:
j_ung wrote:
I overestimated the communal maturity level . . .

The moderators' maturity level?

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.

If they are tired of pointing it out, why do they persist? I would suggest it is a petty childish act. Having quibbled vigorously with JT, albeit in the campground, getting a little excited about a reply is a good thing. My favorite reply I had was when I said I would create a new account called JT512sGoogleBitch. I slay me (alf quote). I would link to that thread, but it isn't really the type of thread that comes up in the search.

I've thought about rating jt's posts all 5 stars just to try to counter the pettiness, but it seemed like I would be contributing to the bad behavior.

I am also somewhat of an oddball in that I actually learned most of my climbing knowledge from rc.com. The stars should help a n00b like me, but they don't. I trust JT's tone more than I do stars.

Get rid of the stars, update the routes (the reason I pop over to mp), increase picture size, re-invigorate gear reviews, and encourage madjid to post up I&A threads.


curt


May 30, 2012, 9:43 AM
Post #39 of 58 (6546 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't 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


wonderwoman


May 30, 2012, 10:03 AM
Post #40 of 58 (6540 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 4275

Re: [curt] Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

curt wrote:
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.


curt


May 30, 2012, 10:07 AM
Post #41 of 58 (6537 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: [wonderwoman] Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

wonderwoman wrote:
curt wrote:
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


wonderwoman


May 30, 2012, 10:10 AM
Post #42 of 58 (6533 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 4275

Re: [curt] Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

curt wrote:
wonderwoman wrote:
curt wrote:
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

I can't explain that, so I will ask to find out if our posts are still weighted. I had thought they put an end to that.


Toast_in_the_Machine


May 31, 2012, 5:49 AM
Post #43 of 58 (6474 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5206

Re: [curt] Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

All votes are equal, just some are more equal than others.


xmesox


May 31, 2012, 7:44 AM
Post #44 of 58 (6467 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 17, 2009
Posts: 326

Re: Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

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.


curt


May 31, 2012, 8:27 AM
Post #45 of 58 (6456 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: [xmesox] Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

xmesox wrote:
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.

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

xmesox wrote:
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.

As is unfortunately too often the case.

Curt


Partner j_ung


May 31, 2012, 11:35 AM
Post #46 of 58 (6417 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690

Re: [curt] Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

curt wrote:
xmesox wrote:
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.

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

xmesox wrote:
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.

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.


curt


May 31, 2012, 12:47 PM
Post #47 of 58 (6403 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: [j_ung] Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
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.

Sorry. I honestly thought "Suggestions & Feedback" could be used for suggestions and feedback.

Curt


Partner j_ung


Jun 1, 2012, 5:24 AM
Post #48 of 58 (6369 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690

Re: [curt] Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

curt wrote:
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. ^^


curt


Jun 1, 2012, 8:34 AM
Post #49 of 58 (6354 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 26, 2002
Posts: 18273

Re: [j_ung] Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
curt wrote:
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


Partner j_ung


Jun 1, 2012, 12:33 PM
Post #50 of 58 (6343 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690

Re: [curt] Post rating [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

curt wrote:
j_ung wrote:
curt wrote:
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

Ah, so it was. So it was. Oh well.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Rockclimbing.com : Suggestions & Feedback

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?
$73.76 (10% off)
$125.06 (10% off)
$53.96 (10% off)
$17.95 (10% off)



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook