|
trevor
Anonymous Poster
Dec 14, 2001, 10:23 PM
Post #1 of 13
(2113 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2006
Posts: 0
|
Yes, the Q Rating is done now. I posted a message in the news, but I wanted to hear what everyone else thinks about it.
45 minutes after I finished this we already had 60 votes. So I guess people see the usefulness of this. I am really curious to see people's scores after tonight.
|
|
|
|
|
wigglestick
Dec 24, 2001, 5:53 PM
Post #2 of 13
(2113 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 1235
|
I really have no opinion about the Q-rating. Although if you are going to have it I think you should be able to see who voted for you. If you know who doesn't like you then you may be inclined to mend some fences, but there are some people who you don't care how they voted for you. Just my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Dec 24, 2001, 6:04 PM
Post #3 of 13
(2113 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
In my opinion, knowing who voted what for you would cause unnecessary conflict. Revenge. Etc. As you may see, I seem to have a few (or more than a few) people who don't like me that much. Assuming I could see who they were, and what they voted, I would want to get back at them, maybe call them a dummie head or something equally lame. (That was an example, not real actions).
Secret votes are neato.
|
|
|
|
|
fo_d
Dec 24, 2001, 6:26 PM
Post #4 of 13
(2113 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2001
Posts: 918
|
I also think it should be secret, I have only given one bad Q-rating to one member, he gave a totaly wrong answer to someone, but i might not have given him the bad rating if he would know where it came from. O.K. yes im a wimp.
By the way, I think there is potential for abuse, I dont know how you could avoid it but i like the idea of the Q-rating anyway.
[ This Message was edited by: fo_d on 2001-12-24 10:28 ]
|
|
|
|
|
wigglestick
Dec 24, 2001, 7:51 PM
Post #5 of 13
(2113 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 1235
|
Hmmm... Since I posted this my rating has gone from a 8.33 to a 6.80. I wonder why that is? Pianomahn, my point is that knowing who voted you low might lead you to some kind of personal enlightenment rather that just shrugging it off. For example if you see that it was only people like PTPP and newbieclimber who voted you a zero you probably wouldn't care. But if it was people who you respected who voted you a zero than it might be a different story. I also think there would be higher overall ratings for the users if all the other users were accountable for their votes. I am guessing that there are a lot of either 0 or 10 votes and not alot in between.
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Dec 24, 2001, 8:06 PM
Post #6 of 13
(2113 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
Just a reminder, the Q-rating is recalculated nightly, so if the Q-rating changed since a message was posted, that would mean that the calculation was done sometime between the posting times of the two messages. It's unlikely that someone read your first post, and then entered a low rating for you by the time of your second post on this thread. I would suspect a time difference or lag from the time of the nightly calculation and its appearance on the website.
Your point is well-taken, but I think it opens the door for wide abuse. I think I'd like to reconsider the assignation of points at all for the users of the site. Other than perhaps supplying a little motivation for people to visit and to contribute to the posts, and to the Route database, I'm beginning to think that the points are sort of becoming somewhat of a pissin' contest.
I would hope that people would contribute to the site because they want to, and they like the site. But, obviously by some more recent threads on route info and guidebooks, and by some critical thinking posted by a newer visitor
http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=5258&forum=23&6
and some of my own experiences, it's seeming more to me that quite a number of people are focussed more on the points than they are on the substance.
[ This Message was edited by: jds100 on 2001-12-24 13:31 ]
|
|
|
|
|
kagunkie
Dec 24, 2001, 8:15 PM
Post #7 of 13
(2113 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2000
Posts: 731
|
I know this rating system took a lot of work but I just don't like the fact that it enables users to vote negatively. This seems counterproductive to me. I won't vote negatively although I may vote positively if I think there is some great need for it. I just don't see the usefullness of such a free for all. I vote negatively for voting negatively. heh heh heh.
|
|
|
|
|
wigglestick
Dec 24, 2001, 8:17 PM
Post #8 of 13
(2113 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 1235
|
jds100- I agree 100%. I have always been opposed to the Q-rating. My point is that if we have the Q-ratings than people should be accountable for their votes, rather than anonymously taking a stab at others.
|
|
|
|
|
climberchic
Dec 24, 2001, 8:48 PM
Post #9 of 13
(2113 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2000
Posts: 2077
|
I agree with wigglestick.
What if I had a good rating, but a disagreement with someone that a vindictive persona, I would lose points due to one person. On the flip side, someone gave me a really good score and I'd like to thank them, but I don't know who it is.
A few suggestions....make the value or worth of someones vote based on their own Q-rating. Example: If someone had a Q-rating of 10 and he/she gave someone a vote of 4, that would hold more weight than someone with a Q-rating of 9. Also, maybe we should be able to see a list of WHO voted for us, but not there scores. It would still be somewhat anonymous, but being that your held accountable for voting for that person, you might give someone a more honest score.
In conjunction with kagunkie's line of thinking, what if we have a system where if you feel someone is outstanding, you can give them a point, and make the point that they hold a lot of weight and should not be used lightly. We can only give one point to each user, so there will be no abuse and it will eliminate negative feedback from other users.
Possibly save the Q-ratings for moderators only in order praise useful information or friendly, courteous behavior or to reprimand false information, broadband width abuse or aggressive behavior. What do you think?
[ This Message was edited by: climberchic on 2001-12-24 13:00 ]
|
|
|
|
|
greyghost
Dec 24, 2001, 9:08 PM
Post #10 of 13
(2113 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2001
Posts: 164
|
What keeps people from voting more than once? It seems as soon as a little conflict happens that would usually just go away after alittle time will be kept around longer with these peer evaluations. Not to mention in the heat of the moment someone will just go give someone a zero out of spite. I bet you have the ratings come out of spite. On that note I would like to wish everyone a merry Christmas and happy safe New Year, and say to who ever took the time to give me a single 1 vote thanks for letting me know you were thinking of me.
matt
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Dec 24, 2001, 9:17 PM
Post #11 of 13
(2113 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
Again, I would suggest that we perhaps reconsider and discuss the purpose of assigning points at all, whether for Q-Ratings, manageing a state, moderating a forum, visiting, or whatever. I visit the site because it's interesting, and I contribute Area, Section and Route info because I want to, and I manage Missouri because I can and I want to. It's already been mentioned on numerous occasions by quite a few people that it often seems that some people are only "in it" for the points, and it's easy to accumulate points for entering poor quality data, etc. etc.
If there were no points given, then the work being done here would be, I think, of at least the same general high quality, and the problem of lame Route database info, and worries about Q-Rating points would become things of the past.
I don't want to be reading about people's concerns over popularity ratings, nor about problems with people scarfing up points by putting in bad and/or incomplete database info anymore. If we can just be a website about climbing, and not about website status, I think a fair number of "problems" and forum threads would dry up, and we could get on with talking about climbing. We really should be spending our time on climbing issues, not website issues.
[ This Message was edited by: jds100 on 2001-12-24 13:18 ]
|
|
|
|
|
greyghost
Dec 24, 2001, 10:38 PM
Post #12 of 13
(2113 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2001
Posts: 164
|
Well said.
|
|
|
|
|
pianomahnn
Dec 25, 2001, 12:37 AM
Post #13 of 13
(2113 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2001
Posts: 3779
|
Most of you have a higher rating than me anyways, so don't worry about a thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
