Voting and/or Rating Threads

Nic Name · 01-15-2002, 05:25 AM

Any thoughts about voting and/or rating threads?

Could this be done easily using the polling feature?

What if there was a standard default poll for all threads, and the polling feature otherwise disabled. It doesn't seem to be used much.

Nic Name · 01-15-2002, 05:56 AM

Threads that reach a predetermined denigration threshold of some number could be "moved" to a Forum called Trash by the Administrator.

We've seen how the "move" feature works on the current IotD. In the case of a thread that is "moved to trash" it might be marked "Trashed" rather than moved, to discourage Guests from wasting their time following that thread to it's new location. The members who are still interested in the trashed thread because they are involved, or otherwise are already familiar with the content, can still get to that thread from its original location for a short time, while they are on "notice" that it has been trashed.

Such a thread could still be "followed" by those interested, but it would move down the page and off the page of the forum relatively quickly. Admittedly bad threads with high posting rates would not be misrepresented to Guests and Members as the "best of the Cellar" by implication of the multiple pages and high posting and page view numbers.

This would keep stale and worthless threads from "cycling" at the top of the forum longer, the more people rant and complain on the thread. Now, even if someone posts to a thread the opinion that it is the worst piece of trash they've ever seen, it goes right to the top of the pile and takes forever to get off the page, especially in IotD.

I think that this approach is quite democratic.

And, like most democracies, you don't even have to vote, and you can only vote if you are in the thread. Administrator can discount flagrant voting abuse, so there is no incentive to stuff the polling ballot.

Voting could be available only to "citizens" i.e. members, and not Guests, who would not even see the Rating Polls. Maybe it could be programmed so that Guests don't even see the trashed threads, except in Trash. (That's not essential and might take some special programming, though.)

Nic Name · 01-15-2002, 06:11 AM

I made a small mistake when I set up this thread, because each member on this thread can only vote once. (Unless UT were to change that.)

In the default poll that I'm advocating for every thread, a member should be able vote in the thread only once in every separate "login session" in which he/she opens that thread. Any voting abuse would be apparent to the Administrator, as I've said.

That way, a members opinion of a thread could change as the posts to that thread change his/her rating, or opinion of the value of the thread to the forum.

01-15-2002, 08:55 AM

I voted "OK", mainly because I don't agree with your implementation. I would rather have a rating scale listed and not have any threads moved. That is if we were going to implement any ranking system whatsoever. If it were implemented like <b>that</b>, I think it would be a cool idea - one could sort threads by rank, etc.

As far as voting multiple times - No. The ability to go back and change your vote, yes. We'd need to come up with some system of determining the "rank" - say it was out of 5, with 5 being the highest. Do we want just an average? Do we want to throw away the extremes, if there are any, and then vote? Should there be some other formula applied to the votes to determine its "rank"?

Anyway. I don't really agree with the way you're wanting to do it, but I definitely think it a) could be done and b) could serve a real value, especially for new people coming in.

Nic Name · 01-15-2002, 09:18 AM

The reason for suggesting that a member be able to "rate" the thread multiple times is valid, I think, because the thread changes with each post.

A well conceived initial post can deteriorate into drivel.

A mediocre threat might take on a new vibrant life.

I don't mind that you don't agree with me, at this time.

Perhaps you might change your evaluation of even this thread when others add different ideas that you might like a lot more than mine.

Should you then have an opportunity to re-evaluate, or should you be stuck with your orignial assessment of a completely different series of posts?

As far as a rating system, with nothing happening as a result, what is the point of voting if it doesn't change the status quo?

Members will only vote if their votes effect change, one way or the other.

Nic Name · 01-15-2002, 09:26 AM

The implementation that I'm suggesting is exactly the reverse of K5 and other community sites, where the threads don't get published up front, until they have the weight of positive votes.

In this implementation, every voice gets a hearing ... but if it is nonsense to start with, or turns into a garbage thread, in the judgment of the members, not me, not the site Administrator alone ... why should it be at the top of the pile?

I say, if the proposed rating system shows that a vast majority of the members thinks a thread is horrible ... by all means get it off the forum.

Why make the members and guests wade through the garbage in search of the nuggets?

I trust the members to create their own environment by natual selection.

It is, perhaps, just semantics whether a thread is moved off the forum to Trash or just moved to the bottom of the forum, by a sorting by ranking idea, as you suggest, dhamsaic.

01-15-2002, 09:36 AM

I think you missed something in my original post -

Quote:

As far as voting multiple times - No. The ability to go back and change your vote, yes.

I say that because I think that it gives a fairer representation as to the quality of the thread. For example - suppose this thread got ranked a "1" because someone thought it sucked. But it turned out to be a great discussion, so they vote it a "5". Now their median is "3", aka - "alright, but don't waste your time on it if there's a 4 or a 5 around". This makes it harder for the ratings to actually change on a thread. However, if the person can change their vote, more weight is given to that one vote. Now their median is a 5, because that's their only vote. Coupled with the other votes, we see what the actual rating is.

I agree that the rating of a thread should change as the thread does, but I don't agree that each person should be able to vote multiple times. It makes it more difficult for the thread to change "positions", if you will - therefore, a thread that got marked initially as a "1" might turn into a great conversation but only be represented by a "3".

Nic Name · 01-15-2002, 09:39 AM

Ok, I agree with that.

The above system is just a 1-5 rating, with 3 being a "positively weighted median" but I think it adds meaning to put WORDS beside the choices, because that's how people think.

Nic Name · 01-15-2002, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Origninally posted by UT in Home Base > Why The Cellar ...
There is one thing about K5 that I would like to implement, and that is community voting on the IotD. I hope to do that sometime this month.

and that's what got me thinking about this ... so I thought we might like to discuss this in a separate thread here.

And I got thinking that's a good idea that might work for all the forums, if handled in a way different from K5.

MaggieL · 01-15-2002, 10:01 AM

I think there's way too much Slashdottishness and k5itude here already. I'd hate to think the only way for the Cellar to survive is by doing crap like that. Moderation and karma have become issues of their own at /. , and are blown way out of proportion.

I don't happen to think that the majority opinion about a thread has much to do with its value to me personally, especially as the user population here grows and broadens.

01-15-2002, 10:32 AM

Right. But what I'm saying (and what I think he's saying) is that it could be of some value to new people. I read everything that's posted here, period. So I don't really care about ratings. And I'm great at taking threads off topic, as we all know. But I think that having a "rating of threads" thing could be useful, if implemented properly.

As far as karma and all that shit - We definitely don't need that. I'll be glad to fight that for as long as I'm here.

Nic Name · 01-15-2002, 10:58 AM

Guys, I read everything that's posted here, too. I don't really want to, though. I'm just looking for the best stuff.

It's not all good stuff. Problem is ... one has to read through the crap, to find out for oneself that some of it was a waste of time. Then there's the good stuff, that keeps one coming back ... to a point. Eventually, it will get to be too much trouble to sort through the weeds.

If the members who have already read the threads could note, positively or negatively, the value of the thread in the "membership's" opinion ... that would be of value to all members, not just new members and guests. God knows, everyone here has an opinion on everything ... why not an opinion on the thread itself?

Nothing in this proposed rating system takes away Maggie's or dham's or anyone's right to read it all ... even if to judge for themselves what's the value. I'm sure that even some of the drivel here is interesting when you know well the poster. But even you guys will lose interest in this, if strangers start going on and on about poutine or some other exotic foodstuff.

(And then the core group will start to think seriously about starting over with the original founding group, like CitizenX is doing. That wasn't their plan for their community, but CX didn't put in place a system that works for a growing audience and scales for a larger membership.)

I fear that this community will lose members and miss out on attracting the right new members if the existing members don't soon take an active role in sorting through the growing number of posts ... and telling the broader audience out there just what's so good here.

If the core group doesn't want a growing membership, and is happy with the Cellar exactly the way it is ... just put the site behind a password login page and call it a private community that only has to worry about attrition.

Undertoad · 01-15-2002, 11:02 AM

I'd weigh in on this with a great deal of thought but I'm real busy right now.

01-15-2002, 11:27 AM

Nic - I agree with you. A lot. Kinda.

Don't be offended or anything. All I'm saying is that something like that would need to go through a period where we, as a community, figured out exactly what we wanted and then implemented it. 'Sallgood.

Nic Name · 01-15-2002, 11:51 AM

I'm not offended or anything.

btw, the question in the "poll" is How would you rate this thread? not How do you like this idea?

I agree with you that we as a community have to think this through and discuss it and figure out what would likely work ... and that's exactly what this thread is about.

I find it hard to believe that this is a Horrible thread that we should not be discussing here.

Of course, if it really is, we should get off this thread soon ... and that's the point.

View Poll Results: How would you rate this thread?
Awesome	1	14.29%
Excellent	0	0%
OK	1	14.29%
Bad	0	0%
Horrible	5	71.43%
Voters: 7. You may not vote on this poll

01-15-2002, 05:25 AM	#1
Nic Name retired Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,930	Voting and/or Rating Threads Any thoughts about voting and/or rating threads? Could this be done easily using the polling feature? What if there was a standard default poll for all threads, and the polling feature otherwise disabled. It doesn't seem to be used much.

01-15-2002, 06:11 AM	#3
Nic Name retired Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,930	I made a small mistake when I set up this thread, because each member on this thread can only vote once. (Unless UT were to change that.) In the default poll that I'm advocating for every thread, a member should be able vote in the thread only once in every separate "login session" in which he/she opens that thread. Any voting abuse would be apparent to the Administrator, as I've said. That way, a members opinion of a thread could change as the posts to that thread change his/her rating, or opinion of the value of the thread to the forum. Last edited by Nic Name; 01-15-2002 at 06:13 AM.

01-15-2002, 09:18 AM	#5
Nic Name retired Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,930	The reason for suggesting that a member be able to "rate" the thread multiple times is valid, I think, because the thread changes with each post. A well conceived initial post can deteriorate into drivel. A mediocre threat might take on a new vibrant life. I don't mind that you don't agree with me, at this time. Perhaps you might change your evaluation of even this thread when others add different ideas that you might like a lot more than mine. Should you then have an opportunity to re-evaluate, or should you be stuck with your orignial assessment of a completely different series of posts? As far as a rating system, with nothing happening as a result, what is the point of voting if it doesn't change the status quo? Members will only vote if their votes effect change, one way or the other. Last edited by Nic Name; 01-15-2002 at 09:20 AM.

01-15-2002, 09:26 AM	#6
Nic Name retired Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,930	The implementation that I'm suggesting is exactly the reverse of K5 and other community sites, where the threads don't get published up front, until they have the weight of positive votes. In this implementation, every voice gets a hearing ... but if it is nonsense to start with, or turns into a garbage thread, in the judgment of the members, not me, not the site Administrator alone ... why should it be at the top of the pile? I say, if the proposed rating system shows that a vast majority of the members thinks a thread is horrible ... by all means get it off the forum. Why make the members and guests wade through the garbage in search of the nuggets? I trust the members to create their own environment by natual selection. It is, perhaps, just semantics whether a thread is moved off the forum to Trash or just moved to the bottom of the forum, by a sorting by ranking idea, as you suggest, dhamsaic. Last edited by Nic Name; 01-15-2002 at 09:29 AM.

01-15-2002, 05:56 AM	#2
Nic Name retired Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,930	Threads that reach a predetermined denigration threshold of some number could be "moved" to a Forum called Trash by the Administrator. We've seen how the "move" feature works on the current IotD. In the case of a thread that is "moved to trash" it might be marked "Trashed" rather than moved, to discourage Guests from wasting their time following that thread to it's new location. The members who are still interested in the trashed thread because they are involved, or otherwise are already familiar with the content, can still get to that thread from its original location for a short time, while they are on "notice" that it has been trashed. Such a thread could still be "followed" by those interested, but it would move down the page and off the page of the forum relatively quickly. Admittedly bad threads with high posting rates would not be misrepresented to Guests and Members as the "best of the Cellar" by implication of the multiple pages and high posting and page view numbers. This would keep stale and worthless threads from "cycling" at the top of the forum longer, the more people rant and complain on the thread. Now, even if someone posts to a thread the opinion that it is the worst piece of trash they've ever seen, it goes right to the top of the pile and takes forever to get off the page, especially in IotD. I think that this approach is quite democratic. And, like most democracies, you don't even have to vote, and you can only vote if you are in the thread. Administrator can discount flagrant voting abuse, so there is no incentive to stuff the polling ballot. Voting could be available only to "citizens" i.e. members, and not Guests, who would not even see the Rating Polls. Maybe it could be programmed so that Guests don't even see the trashed threads, except in Trash. (That's not essential and might take some special programming, though.)

01-15-2002, 08:55 AM	#4
dave Guest Posts: n/a	I voted "OK", mainly because I don't agree with your implementation. I would rather have a rating scale listed and not have any threads moved. That is if we were going to implement any ranking system whatsoever. If it were implemented like <b>that</b>, I think it would be a cool idea - one could sort threads by rank, etc. As far as voting multiple times - No. The ability to go back and change your vote, yes. We'd need to come up with some system of determining the "rank" - say it was out of 5, with 5 being the highest. Do we want just an average? Do we want to throw away the extremes, if there are any, and then vote? Should there be some other formula applied to the votes to determine its "rank"? Anyway. I don't really agree with the way you're wanting to do it, but I definitely think it a) could be done and b) could serve a real value, especially for new people coming in.

01-15-2002, 09:39 AM	#8
Nic Name retired Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,930	Ok, I agree with that. The above system is just a 1-5 rating, with 3 being a "positively weighted median" but I think it adds meaning to put WORDS beside the choices, because that's how people think. Last edited by Nic Name; 01-15-2002 at 09:42 AM.

01-15-2002, 10:01 AM	#10
MaggieL in the Hour of Scampering Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Jeffersonville PA (15 mi NW of Philadelphia) Posts: 4,060	I think there's way too much Slashdottishness and k5itude here already. I'd hate to think the only way for the Cellar to survive is by doing crap like that. Moderation and karma have become issues of their own at /. , and are blown way out of proportion. I don't happen to think that the majority opinion about a thread has much to do with its value to me personally, especially as the user population here grows and broadens. __________________ "Neither can his Mind be thought to be in Tune,whose words do jarre; nor his reason In frame, whose sentence is preposterous..."

01-15-2002, 10:32 AM	#11
dave Guest Posts: n/a	Right. But what I'm saying (and what I think he's saying) is that it could be of some value to new people. I read everything that's posted here, period. So I don't really care about ratings. And I'm great at taking threads off topic, as we all know. But I think that having a "rating of threads" thing could be useful, if implemented properly. As far as karma and all that shit - We definitely don't need that. I'll be glad to fight that for as long as I'm here.

01-15-2002, 10:58 AM	#12
Nic Name retired Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,930	Guys, I read everything that's posted here, too. I don't really want to, though. I'm just looking for the best stuff. It's not all good stuff. Problem is ... one has to read through the crap, to find out for oneself that some of it was a waste of time. Then there's the good stuff, that keeps one coming back ... to a point. Eventually, it will get to be too much trouble to sort through the weeds. If the members who have already read the threads could note, positively or negatively, the value of the thread in the "membership's" opinion ... that would be of value to all members, not just new members and guests. God knows, everyone here has an opinion on everything ... why not an opinion on the thread itself? Nothing in this proposed rating system takes away Maggie's or dham's or anyone's right to read it all ... even if to judge for themselves what's the value. I'm sure that even some of the drivel here is interesting when you know well the poster. But even you guys will lose interest in this, if strangers start going on and on about poutine or some other exotic foodstuff. (And then the core group will start to think seriously about starting over with the original founding group, like CitizenX is doing. That wasn't their plan for their community, but CX didn't put in place a system that works for a growing audience and scales for a larger membership.) I fear that this community will lose members and miss out on attracting the right new members if the existing members don't soon take an active role in sorting through the growing number of posts ... and telling the broader audience out there just what's so good here. If the core group doesn't want a growing membership, and is happy with the Cellar exactly the way it is ... just put the site behind a password login page and call it a private community that only has to worry about attrition.

01-15-2002, 11:02 AM	#13
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	I'd weigh in on this with a great deal of thought but I'm real busy right now.

01-15-2002, 11:27 AM	#14
dave Guest Posts: n/a	Nic - I agree with you. A lot. Kinda. Don't be offended or anything. All I'm saying is that something like that would need to go through a period where we, as a community, figured out exactly what we wanted and then implemented it. 'Sallgood.

01-15-2002, 11:51 AM	#15
Nic Name retired Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,930	I'm not offended or anything. btw, the question in the "poll" is How would you rate this thread? not How do you like this idea? I agree with you that we as a community have to think this through and discuss it and figure out what would likely work ... and that's exactly what this thread is about. I find it hard to believe that this is a Horrible thread that we should not be discussing here. Of course, if it really is, we should get off this thread soon ... and that's the point. Last edited by Nic Name; 01-15-2002 at 11:58 AM.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)