 |
|
|
UER Store
|
|
sweet UER decals:
|
|
|
 Noah Vale
    
Location: Portland, Or
It's nobler to never get paid, than to bank on shit and dismay
 |  |  |  | Re: User Rating / Voting
<Reply # 80 on 10/2/2003 5:21 PM >
|  | | | So Asher and Ninj complained about the quality of posts? Well for Ninj's sake maybe you could code and automatic grammar and punctuation checker/fixer. As for Asher, it's a bit more complicated...maybe compile a list of her opinions and code the forum so that when someone posts an opinion contrary to the opinions on her list, it automatically deletes that post.
Quality is a subjective term. Someone may not like someone's seemingly pointless post, while the same post could very well make someone else's day.
Not attacking you Av, just fail to see the utility of it.
"Dallas is a magnificent and wide open city, and I'm deeply envious of any urban explorers who have the good fortune to live there." -Ninj. |
|
Servo
| | Re: User Rating / Voting
<Reply # 81 on 10/2/2003 5:21 PM >
| | | | | Thank you jester, this is getting ridiculous. |
Indeed, this IS getting ridiculous. People yelling at Av, Av shouting back...
I'm all for trying new things (I think most of us are, otherwise, why would we have ever gotten into UE). We'll give this a shot, and if it actually raises the "quality" (whatever that is) of posts on the board, and doesn't devolve into a popularity contest, then sure, let's keep it.
But, if that doesn't happen, we shouldn't be hesistant to chuck it. Just comment it out of the code; you can always keep it if your goal is to make this into a marketable (or opensource-able) forum system.
Anyway, my opinion, again, is that it's going to just increase "me too" posts and stop people from posting what they truly think. And, as a die-hard libertarian, I believe free speech is inviolate and paramount to any society's function. If you (not directed at Av-X, but everyone who's been doing it) hound me off the board for saying this, you're just proving my point.
[last edit 10/2/2003 5:22 PM by Servo - edited 1 times]
|
|
Chainsaw
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: Underground, Colorado
Gender: Male
| | | Re: User Rating / Voting
<Reply # 82 on 10/2/2003 5:49 PM >
| | | | Ya know, I kind of like the idea. I'd rather have some uptight person get their fix for jibing me on my post quality by clicking no than having to read some preachy self-serving diatribe about why they think what I said was wrong.
Quid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
|
|
Shane
Moderator
Location: Bronx, NY
Gender: Male
| |  |  | | | Re: User Rating / Voting
<Reply # 83 on 10/2/2003 6:16 PM >
| | | | Posted by Avatar-X
Max: Being an asshole and posting shit will get you banned, just like if anyone else had done it. Registering more user accounts and fucking around is in violation of the user agreement. Grow up.
Tunnelrat: Wake up, there's already a Rating display on the threads page.
Kowalski: Maybe your posts would be more meaningful if you didn't post entire messages which are completly sarcastic. Bitching at me for MY motivation for coding it is retarded : I may have coded it, but it wasn't solely my idea.
Now, i'd like us to stop posting negative shit. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. There's already been 626 votes, and it's been less than 24 hours. Let's give it a try.
|
I'd say thats a pretty negative post Av, and I think bitching about bitching is just as unproductive to the forum as the original bitching was. I also find it odd that even though you imply that Max posts more useless crap, his rating is currently 31 points higher than yours. Maybe the system isn't working out the way it should?
For the record, I don't mind the voting system, it's not gonna affect me in any major way.
"Because there's no possibility of real disaster, real risk, we're left with no chance for real salvation. Real elation. Real excitement. Joy. Discovery. Invention. The laws that keep us safe, these same laws condemn us to boredom. Without access to true chaos, we'll never have true peace. Unless everything can get worse, it won't get any better." -Chuck Palahniuk |
|
Avatar-X
  
Alpha Husky
Location: West Coast
Gender: Male
yay!
| | | Re: User Rating / Voting
<Reply # 84 on 10/2/2003 6:24 PM >
| | | | Of course his rating his higher, he's preaching to the crowd.
Anyway, I've changed it to "is this post relevant", which is more in-line with what I wanted to do in the first place. This way, only off-topic or retarded posts will get a No vote.
huskies - such fluff. |
|
kowalski
| | Re: User Rating / Voting
<Reply # 85 on 10/2/2003 7:22 PM >
|  | | | Av, re: your dig against my sarcasm.
I made one sarcastic post, which I immediately followed up with a serious, well-thought-out one. I see no reason why you shouldn't take me seriously. I think sarcasm is best used, as I did, when it can be deployed to open people's minds to the ridiculousness of something, by showing how its characteristics, when applied to other scenarios, are undeniably ridiculous. If a real-time ratings system is almost undeniably ridiculous when applied to the workplace (well, some may debate me, but we can take that to the other forum), and if a ratings system is ridiculous when taken to the next level of application in the UE online community, why is it a cogent and serious thing when it is deployed in its present context? This is what I want people to think through, because I myself fell into the trap of thinking "well, it's not THAT bad." And then I fell out of it. My point is to cajole people to think critically about this thing, and sarcasm/satire is one way of initiating that sort of thought.
| Anyway, I've changed it to "is this post relevant", which is more in-line with what I wanted to do in the first place. This way, only off-topic or retarded posts will get a No vote. |
But again, is there any use for this information? Does it allow moderators to make some newly-informed decision that they wouldn't have been able to make otherwise? Does it convince people who are going to carry the conversation onto tangents to stay on-topic? In all cases, I think the answer is no.
Av, understand that I'm not attacking you personally. I think you've just fallen into the trap of overcoding and overstructuring something that doesn't need it. This happens all the time in all walks of life, from software programming to Little League baseball, and is understandable. The AvBoard is your baby, and you want to keep developing it, and that's cool. But you hoist a feature like the rating system on us without asking the people here whether they want it or not, and tell us it's going to solve all these problems. That's dictatorial, and it's almost certainly not going to work. It won't solve any of the core problems you wish to address with this, and which I would argue aren't terribly pressing problems to begin with.
You say that other moderators were complaining about post quality. I have three responses for that.
Firstly, the fact that you've changed the wording of that little query line at least three times now indicates you really aren't sure what you're trying to address with this rating system.
Secondly, the fact that Ninj and Asher have both laid plain their indifference for this rating system indicates that neither of them asked you specifically for a rating system, and that you just took a few general comments from them complaining about post quality (and as someone noted in a rather humourous but somewhat unfair way, they were probably each talking about very different aspects of post quality) and coded up a 'solution' without even asking them if this was really what they were looking for.
Thirdly, since the dawn of time, moderators have complained about post-quality. This is what moderators do, the physics and expectations of the job is forever directed towards noticing the negative. They are supposed to moderate discussion on the board - which means they locate the negative stuff and try to alleviate it or, when necessary, remove it. And you go to them and you say, "are there any problems you are noticing?" because that's your job as the administrator and programmer. And they say, because they're expected to report problems (and if they didn't, you might think they weren't paying attention anymore), "well, you know, things are alright, but there's always these kids that are silly and don't know how to type and post dumb things" or whatever. There has never been an online community that doesn't have minor problems of the sort we see here. That's never going to change and certainly isn't going to be fixed by adding levels of merit-based, rationalized structure to the community. Ratings systems sure haven't solved these problems - just look at Slashdot. While this ratings thing you've put together may not have any seriously negative effects on our community (and thankfully there are templates that avoid the nasty-looking stars), it still feels wrong and unnecessary to me. And systems like this often do influence behaviour in very subtle, but negative and mechanistic ways.
I can't speak for the moderators you've mentioned, only they can choose to share or not share what the complaints they gave to you were. But it's pretty clear you didn't really consult with them on this ratings system, and you definitely didn't consult with us.
Why didn't you just ask us, before you implemented the ratings system, whether we thought this was useful? We could have had this debate then and you wouldn't have put yourself in a position where you now feel like you're under attack because we're criticizing the module that you've worked hard to put together. Av, everyone appreciates all the work and energy and money that you direct into making this community possible, but if you really respect the community as it has developed, and recognize that it is worth perpetuating (and yes, arguing about) only because of the continuing contributions of all of its users, you should allow us input into the changes you want to make to it, now and in the future.
|
|
uem-Tux
Iron Wok Jan
Location: Montreal
Gender: Male
UE Geek
| | | | Re: User Rating / Voting
<Reply # 86 on 10/2/2003 7:26 PM >
|  | | | It wouldn't be the forum without a preachy self-serving diatribe every now and then. 
Oh, this post was way late. I wasn't responding to you kowalski. It was way up there.
Actually, *I* seem to remember Av consulting the mods/admins. The reactions may not have been overly welcoming to the ratings idea, but I think everyone wanted SOME way of discouraging people who post just for the sake of upping thier counts.
[last edit 10/2/2003 7:36 PM by uem-Tux - edited 1 times]
Urban Exploration Montreal
Why are you the way that you are? |
|
Avatar-X
Alpha Husky
Location: West Coast
Gender: Male
yay!
| | | Re: User Rating / Voting
<Reply # 87 on 10/2/2003 7:38 PM >
| | | |
posted by kowalski
But you hoist a feature like the rating system on us without asking the people here whether they want it or not, and tell us it's going to solve all these problems.
|
Not true. The rating system wasn't even my idea. There was a long discussion about it a month or two ago.
posted by kowalski
That's dictatorial, and it's almost certainly not going to work. |
This is your opinion, we certainly won't know if it will actually work until we try it.
posted by kowalski
Why didn't you just ask us, before you implemented the ratings system, whether we thought this was useful?
|
There was a discussion about it. As I recall, the general consensus was that it would be an interesting thing to try.
I'm not gonna re-iterate what I've already said 7 times in this thread. Go read it again.
huskies - such fluff. |
|
Ninjalicious
Gone, but always with us
Location: Toronto
| | | Re: User Rating / Voting
<Reply # 88 on 10/2/2003 7:47 PM >
| | | | Av might have given the wrong impression of my opinion. While I *do* always wish a few people would make a little more effort to be coherent and on topic (or at least funny), I'm pretty happy with the forum as a whole. As I recently commented to Av and the other mods, I'm generally happy with the quality of posts on the board, and think things are gradually improving. I think the macho posturing that I used to complain about is getting better, too.
I think I accidentally inspired this new rating system when I mentioned to Av that I thought a handful of people on the forum (like maybe four) posted more low-to-no-content messages simply because they wanted to increase their number of posts, because they were under the mistaken impression that their number of posts measured their worth as a user. I joked to him that it might be a good idea to get rid of the number of posts counter until such time as the board developed AI and could tell if the posts actually said anything or not. I think Av intended the ratings system as a stopgap measure until he finished programming the sentience subroutine.
Ninj
http://www.infiltration.org
|
|
kowalski
| | Re: User Rating / Voting
<Reply # 89 on 10/2/2003 7:48 PM >
| | | | Avatar-X said...
| There was a discussion about it. As I recall, the general consensus was that it would be an interesting thing to try. |
If you will show me the thread where this was discussed, I will be happy to eat my words and rescind my comments about there having been no public input on this.
I, however, cannot find it.
It would be really, really nice to be able to generate more than ten search results, Av. Maybe you could think about finishing the search function. Thank you.
I've read what you've said in this thread, some of it several times, and I don't agree with it. Sorry. But I've said my bit too. It's done.
[last edit 10/2/2003 7:51 PM by kowalski - edited 2 times]
|
|
RobbieKnobbie
Location: Philadelphia PA
Gender: Male
| | | | Re: User Rating / Voting
<Reply # 90 on 10/2/2003 8:30 PM >
| | | | No doubt I'll catch some shit, or at least some X's, for this, but I think this board is most entertaining when it goes wildly off topic. There are generally enough on-topic threads at any given time to keep us grounded, but the silly meandering ones are usually where the fun is to be had.
If silly meandering threads filled with off-topic, but funny none the less, posts are what we're looking to get rid of then I think we're really doing ourselves a disservice.
I may or may not agree with every post in a given thread, but I appreciate the effort that people put into writing them. All and all, I think you guys have a really fantastic board going and by and large all the posters contribute some value in their own way.
Av, I don't want to knock your efforts - god knows I could never put together something like this - but I just can't see the need to try to stifle anyone from this group. That said, I have no problem with this rating system living out its 30 day trial period. Let's see how it fits after a month.
You're shitting me... that's IT? |
|
Chainsaw
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: Underground, Colorado
Gender: Male
| | | Re: User Rating / Voting
<Reply # 91 on 10/2/2003 8:52 PM >
| | | | So, we have a rating system in place. How hard would it be to limit the length of someone post based on their current "relevance" rating - so someone who regularly goes off topic will be limited to 500 characters but someone with a great rating can rant on as long as they like so long as they maintain their high relevance rating?
I hate to be limiting free speech, but really - it's starting to get ridiculous around here.
Maybe uncap a rant thread somewhere so people can fume to their hearts content without drawing the whole conversation down a sewer so nasty that not even Max would raft down it in hip waders using me as a raft and Mochi as a paddle. Then you can just link to your rant in a post in the original thread.
If a highly rated board member abused the privelege mods could then move a lengthy/inappropriate response to a rant thread and hopefully maintain continuity of the original thread - and provide a link where it was in the thread so those interested can stay on top of it...
Quid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
|
|
Ninjalicious
Gone, but always with us
Location: Toronto
| | | Re: User Rating / Voting
<Reply # 92 on 10/2/2003 9:03 PM >
| | | | Chainsaw: I'm not especially fond of that idea, but if it did catch on, I would suggest that it limit not the length of posts per day but the number of posts per day. I'm less annoyed by long posts (even long, off-topic posts) than when I open up a thread eager to see that new message that's been posted and it just says "lol" or "<annoying animated yellow smiley face>". (These are fine and noble convulsions and expressions, of course, but more of a private message thing than a public message thing.)
Ninj
http://www.infiltration.org
[last edit 10/2/2003 9:05 PM by Ninjalicious - edited 1 times]
|
|
Chainsaw
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: Underground, Colorado
Gender: Male
| | | Re: User Rating / Voting
<Reply # 93 on 10/2/2003 9:26 PM >
| | | | Posted by Ninjalicious
Chainsaw: I'm not especially fond of that idea, but if it did catch on, I would suggest that it limit not the length of posts per day but the number of posts per day. I'm less annoyed by long posts (even long, off-topic posts) than when I open up a thread eager to see that new message that's been posted and it just says "lol" or "<annoying animated yellow smiley face>". (These are fine and noble convulsions and expressions, of course, but more of a private message thing than a public message thing.)
Ninj
http://www.infiltration.org
|
That's not a bad idea either. We could still have mods move off long rants to "sub-threads" if they felt it was appropriate.
Of course, this is all theoretical, I'm not the one to asy if it's even possible.
[last edit 10/2/2003 9:26 PM by Chainsaw - edited 1 times]
Quid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
|
|
Mochi
Location: West Jordan, Utah
Gender: Male
Stare deep into a kitty's nose.
| | | Re: User Rating / Voting
<Reply # 94 on 10/2/2003 9:26 PM >
| | | | Just to completely smash all the anger and tension or whatever that's currently floating through the boards right now...
I LOVE YOU ALL.
I really don't give a hoot now about the ratings system, but it sure seems to have quite a few people up in arms over such a trivial little thing. (shrugs) Oh well, life goes on. Av, your coding powers are marvelous. Peace out, all.
>_< Mochi, get in touch with your inner riceball.
JESUS SAVES!!!
(And then he redeems his tickets for free prizes!) |
|
kowalski
| | Re: User Rating / Voting
<Reply # 95 on 10/2/2003 9:44 PM >
| | | | | So, we have a rating system in place. How hard would it be to limit the length of someone post based on their current "relevance" rating - so someone who regularly goes off topic will be limited to 500 characters but someone with a great rating can rant on as long as they like so long as they maintain their high relevance rating? |
This is exactly how people start thinking once you start implementing ratings, and why my sarcasm above was absolutely warranted.
What you are suggesting is both an affront to free speech, as you yourself admit, and absolutely ineffective in dealing with the problem you seek to rectify: off-topic posting. If you take the time to actually go look, most off-topic posting begins with a post much smaller than 500 characters. Moreover, not only do you "supposedly" stifle their ability to go off-topic, which is doubtful, you also stifle their ability to say long, meaningful things on-topic.
What you're talking about isn't constructive, it's gagging. And that's what this ratings system does. It convinces people to make the mistake of looking for ways of making the numbers regulate the community.
I don't really get the fanatical obsession with keeping people on-topic. Yes, it's crappy when an entire thread gets derailed by an off-topic tangent, but natural conversation is about tangents, it's about hopping from one idea to another. Instead of building force-ridden mechanisms designed to discourage people from posting what you don't want them to post, we should be encouraging people to exercise self-judgement and make a new thread when a conversation threatens to go seriously off-topic. Together with encouragement, moderators should have the ability to slice off part of a thread and, like a plant cutting, turn it into its own thread. If that's not something that the current software supports, Av should maybe think about adding that sort of function to the scripting.
For people who dedicate themselves to overcoming fences and other security measures to go where they're not supposed to go, some members seem to be unbelievably interested in enforcing their own systems of control over what can be said and done here.
Obviously, there always need to be guidelines and limits, but I believe that the best are those that remain in the purview of humans, ones that are dynamic and adaptive, rather than hard-coded and totalitarian. We have moderators. We have lots of other users that are committed to sustaining and enriching this community. So let's use their interest and enthusiasm to provide the continuity, regulation and structure that are needed to keep this place strong and (mostly) on-topic, rather than ceding control to some arbitrary program.
[last edit 10/2/2003 9:48 PM by kowalski - edited 2 times]
|
|
Krenta
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Nope, wasn't me.
| | Re: User Rating / Voting
<Reply # 96 on 10/2/2003 11:10 PM >
| | | | Posted by kowalski
For people who dedicate themselves to overcoming fences and other security measures to go where they're not supposed to go, some members seem to be unbelievably interested in enforcing their own systems of control over what can be said and done here.
|
I agree with the sentiment if not the wording. As I see it, everyone who is on this board (except the trolls) is here because they, to different extents, "think outsite the box". Trying to impose rigid structure on them is like trying to herd cats.
On the whole issue of ratings, If this were a democratic environment I'd add my vote to those who fail to see the point. As it is, I just remain largely apathetic to the whole thing. To my eyes, it's a subjective scoring system with ill-defined standards (which keep changing), no penalty for poor performance and no reward for good performance. Post counts were at least objective and factual - how many posts a person had made, good, bad or ugly - with all inference and meaning, if any, left up to the individual. As can clearly be seen, it's causing more confusion, anger, misunderstanding and bitterness than anything else. It'll be fun to see which goes away first - will everyone just settle down and accept the whole thing, or will Avatar-X give in and disable the new feature? Time will tell.
As for enforcing, encouraging, promoting, or creating topicality... urgh. Difficult area. There are dozens of posts made each week that I, for one, would not miss if moderators deleted; the "me too" posts, the "you suck" posts, the one-sentance name calling posts, and a host of similar trivialness. Some of them are completely off topic, some of only marginally so; some of the off-topic posts in threads are actually interesting and/or useful. People are going to digress, to veer off topic, to make dubious analogies. It's what they do, especially here.
People are, to my eyes, reading far too much into this. If people like your posts, you'll know... just as you always have. If people don't like your posts, you'll know... just like before. If you're pissing people off by hijacking threads and swerving off of the road of relevance, you'll know. And if you're neither pissing people off nor really exciting them, you won't hear a thing... just as before.
I now return you to your regularly-scheduled name calling.
Have Speed Graphic, Will Travel. |
|
Freak
Location: Usually Alaska, now MSP.
Gender: Male
Hypocrite
| | | Re: User Rating / Voting
<Reply # 97 on 10/3/2003 2:53 AM >
| | | | I think this is likely a feature I won't use, I'm already ignoring it on most other threads. As a coder I appreciate the effort that went into it, but I dont find it all that useful (I've used it in this thread, ironically usually in support of people who are against it).
Also, Av's dispute with max does seem to be along the lines of "support it or shut the hell up", I'd quote the relevant posts but I'm on my PDA and it can't handle that.
Turn off the internet and go play outside.
http://spamusement...hp/comics/view/137 |
|
Mr. Motts
Noble Donor
Location: Long Island and Brooklyn NY
Gender: Male
| | | Re: User Rating / Voting
<Reply # 98 on 10/3/2003 3:22 AM >
| | | | Posted by Freak
(I've used it in this thread, ironically usually in support of people who are against it). |
That fact worries me, people who dislike an opinion vote against. It doesn't mean the post was off-topic. The wording has changed to include 'relevant' now, but I still foresee this opinion battle happening.
Save the planet... kill yourself.
http://www.opacity.us/ - Abandoned Photography |
|
SPEK Photo
Location: Where you were not.
"Chere cachère!"
| | | Re: User Rating / Voting
<Reply # 99 on 10/3/2003 4:44 AM >
| | | | Av, is there any way to prevent mass negative vote on somebody, let's say I don't like a member, could I vote no on all his post and make him badly rated?
And what about: "I vote yes to all you post, and you'll do the same to me..."
I know we are not in kindergarden, but the no-vote on all the posted message of somebody seems too easy.
Pour fins d'archives.
WWW.EXPLORATIONURBAINE.CA |
|
|
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 109 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 739391933 pages have been generated.
|
|
