User Profile Ratings: What are they rating?

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I've been looking over quite a few user profiles and I'm wondering what the ratings function is for. Some people who post a lot only have five white stars (or no gold stars), others who don't post hardly at all have five gold stars. Some people who post good intelligent posts have five gold stars, but this doesn't seem to be consistent with some others who post intelligently but only have a 1.5 or 3 gold star rating. So, what is this rating system based upon? And who does the rating?

Thanks!

[Mammon]

I've been looking over quite a few user profiles and I'm wondering what the ratings function is for. Some people who post a lot only have five white stars (or no gold stars), others who don't post hardly at all have five gold stars. Some people who post good intelligent posts have five gold stars, but this doesn't seem to be consistent with some others who post intelligently but only have a 1.5 or 3 gold star rating. So, what is this rating system based upon? And who does the rating?

Thanks!

They are rating your awesomeness and how well you appease the Internet gods! You have a one so, obviliously your not on the Internet gods good side latetly.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

They are rating your awesomeness and how well you appease the Internet gods! You have a one so, obviliously your not on the Internet gods good side latetly.

Maybe you are right, since you don't even have a one

Actually, I was going to ask you about your recent avatar change. Didn't you used to have some sort of angel? Why did you switch to a devil? or do I have you confused with someone else?

[Mimpy]

You can rate anybody however you like. The rating is not indicative of the quality of your character or posts. It is arbitrary, and there are many people on this forum who have a rating that they do not deserve.

[DarkWaters]

It is arbitrary, and there are many people on this forum who have a rating that they do not deserve.

You are telling me! A single user, who has evidently volunteered to be my arch-nemesis, gave me a one star rating with several of his accounts.

[softwareNerd]

Since hardly anyone bothers to rate members, the few who do can change the rating quite a bit. Given this, those stars mean nothing at all.

[DavidOdden]

I have to say that when this feature first appeared here, I had this OMG shudder reaction. I'm having a hard time thinking of a less appropriate feature to have on a forum dedicated to objective evaluation of fact as opposed to emotional response by like, uh, who?

[progressiveman1]

You are telling me! A single user, who has evidently volunteered to be my arch-nemesis, gave me a one star rating with several of his accounts.

I had a similar experience. Some yellow punk gave me one star because I said "naughty" words in the chat room.

[aequalsa]

I have to say that when this feature first appeared here, I had this OMG shudder reaction. I'm having a hard time thinking of a less appropriate feature to have on a forum dedicated to objective evaluation of fact as opposed to emotional response by like, uh, who?

It might not be as bad if the voters had their name attached to it. Then we would know who thinks well of who and who thinks poorly. It would serve some purpose that way even if it does seem a bit like high school.

[DarkWaters]

I had a similar experience. Some yellow punk gave me one star because I said "naughty" words in the chat room.

Well, if you directed rude and vulgar language at several of the forum members and then refused to apologize by claiming that you were "blowing off some steam from work", then you deserved it. I doubt that our experiences are similar.

I have to say that when this feature first appeared here, I had this OMG shudder reaction. I'm having a hard time thinking of a less appropriate feature to have on a forum dedicated to objective evaluation of fact as opposed to emotional response by like, uh, who?

I had a similar reaction. Ideally, the feature would distinguish the forum members who are most knowledgeable in Objectivism but it seems to have mixed results in practice.

If the feature is to be sustained, it would be informative to indicate how many ratings each member has received.

Edited November 15, 2007 by DarkWaters

[progressiveman1]

Well, if you directed rude and vulgar language at several of the forum members and then refused to apologize by claiming that you were "blowing off some steam from work", then you deserved it.

That's your opinion. My opinion is that someone who takes completely sarcastic comments over a one/two day period very seriously to the point of rating him horribly and then completely ignoring him is yellow and too uptight. Get over it, man. It was a few insignificant remarks that happened awhile ago.

I doubt that our experiences are similar.

Our experiences were directly related.

[DarkWaters]

That's your opinion. My opinion is that someone who takes completely sarcastic comments over a one/two day period very seriously to the point of rating him horribly and then completely ignoring him is yellow and too uptight. Get over it, man. It was a few insignificant remarks that happened awhile ago.

This is not a matter of opinion, this is a fact. Your feelings will not change it.

I think progressiveman1's response also illustrates another drawback of the current rating system. Nobody really wants to give a hostile user a poor rating knowing that it will surely result in an undeserved, retaliatory low rating. It is very easy to tell who has rated you since the forum records who has recently viewed your profile. Moreover, ratings are infrequent enough where each additional rating visibly impacts one's overall rating.

Would an internet troll who participates on the forum for a matter of days have equal power to rate as a long standing member of the forum? A potential remedy could be to not give permission for rating users until a certain after a sufficiently high number of posts have been made or the account has been active for a sufficiently high number of days. Perhaps something along these lines is already implemented?

[progressiveman1]

This is not a matter of opinion, this is a fact. Your feelings will not change it.

How do you know it's a fact that my comments were rude and vulgar?

[DarkWaters]

How do you know it's a fact that my comments were rude and vulgar?

Rather than continue a pointless online argument that is of no value to me, I will let you answer this question yourself. You are not fooling anybody.

[progressiveman1]

Rather than continue a pointless online argument that is of no value to me, I will let you answer this question yourself. You are not fooling anybody.

That's the typical response from someone when they don't know the answer.

[DavidV]

From my perspective, the value of a user's contribution is not based on his debating talent, correctness, eloquence, or his knowledge of Objectivism, but his efficiency in communicating good ideas relative to his posting volume. The ratings are best at pointing out people who are not good at that. Of course many people participate here for other reasons, and that's fine. I'm not too concerned about unfairly negative ratings because people tend to notice and correct them.

The ratings could be improved in all sorts of ways, but I'm limited by the forum's capabilities. My preference would be a simple Yes/No rating, which goes towards a moving +/- average, but that's unlikely to be implemented.

[K-Mac]

How do you know it's a fact that my comments were rude and vulgar?

Maybe not "fact" but it was the unanimous opinion of the participants in chat that evening. Chat is usually casual and fun and for you to come in and use us all as your whipping boy was, in our opinions, rude. Frankly, I just chose to ignore it, until now, but I certainly understand why others felt the need to speak up about it.

Edited November 16, 2007 by K-Mac

[RationalBiker]

Get over it, man.

It could be that you need to "get over" the fact that actions have consequences, even yours. If you blow off steam or have a laugh at other people's expense, perhaps you need to accept that they may not forgive and forget. Aside from that, if you think their judgement is unnecessarily harsh and poor, why do you want to try to tell them they should associate with you anyway if they are choosing otherwise?

[Clawg]

My preference would be a simple Yes/No rating, which goes towards a moving +/- average, but that's unlikely to be implemented.

That still wouldn't do the job, the rating would be democratic.

The ratings should be presented individually on basis of one's own ratings of others. Only those votes should count whose users you voted for yourself, i.e. those you judged as being rational. (I hope that makes sense )

But that would need some work in the code

[DarkWaters]

Only those votes should count whose users you voted for yourself, i.e. those you judged as being rational.

So you are suggesting that the rating system should only indicate how many individuals approve of you? Obviously, if you give someone a bad rating then you probably do not think they are being rational.

[Clawg]

So you are suggesting that the rating system should only indicate how many individuals approve of you? Obviously, if you give someone a bad rating then you probably do not think they are being rational.

No, sorry if that wasn't clear enough

The rating you see in a user's profile ('person C') should be the sum (or the average) of all your votes (i.e. either '-1', '1' or '0') and of the votes of all other users (who voted for person C) who you rated '1'.

So if person A rates person B '1' and both person A and B rate person C '1' then person C has a rating of '2' in the eyes of person A and '1' in the eyes of person B.

This way you can exclude all people who you have judged 'irrational' from the rating and you would get an incentive to vote carefully (because it would harm your rating system), it would prevent spam and it would prevent new users from getting easily a high rating.

Edited November 17, 2007 by Clawg

[DarkWaters]

The rating you see in a user's profile ('person C') should be the sum (or the average) of all your votes (i.e. either '-1', '1' or '0') and of the votes of all other users (who voted for person C) who you rated '1'.

So if person A rates person B '1' and both person A and B rate person C '1' then person C has a rating of '2' in the eyes of person A and '1' in the eyes of person B.

This way you can exclude all people who you have judged 'irrational' from the rating and you would get an incentive to vote carefully (because it would harm your rating system), it would prevent spam and it would prevent new users from getting easily a high rating.

But then this would be a system where surely only positive approval ratings are displayed. If one user is a jerk, he might receive negative ratings from other users. However, since the jerk probably did not give positive ratings to those who have disapproved of his online behavior, he would not have a publicly viewable negative rating. Correct?

Needless to say, I am not arguing that negative ratings are necessary, I just want to explore how your proposed system would work in practice.

[Thales]

From my perspective, the value of a user's contribution is not based on his debating talent, correctness, eloquence, or his knowledge of Objectivism, but his efficiency in communicating good ideas relative to his posting volume. The ratings are best at pointing out people who are not good at that. Of course many people participate here for other reasons, and that's fine. I'm not too concerned about unfairly negative ratings because people tend to notice and correct them.

The ratings could be improved in all sorts of ways, but I'm limited by the forum's capabilities. My preference would be a simple Yes/No rating, which goes towards a moving +/- average, but that's unlikely to be implemented.

I'm not sure about here on this forum, but on YouTube I argued against a pseudo-scientific environmental video recently (linked from a thread in this forum!) with logic, as did others, and I noted that all of those who did often got a negative rating, while those who pushed the propaganda got positive ratings, because it was a thread environmentalist frequent. People can rate on any subjective criterion they wish.

Now, I have found that these ratings systems work on technical forums, where if someone gives a good answer, they are given points. This allows the best people at answering questions to stand out and gives them incentive to answer questions and show off their talents. And, believe it or not, it helps them with employment. I'm not so sure about a forum like this. The same incentives don't exist, most people aren't all that good at evaluating philosophical arguments, even here.

[Clawg]

But then this would be a system where surely only positive approval ratings are displayed. If one user is a jerk, he might receive negative ratings from other users. However, since the jerk probably did not give positive ratings to those who have disapproved of his online behavior, he would not have a publicly viewable negative rating. Correct?

No. The rating would depend not on the 'jerk' but on the user who is looking at the jerk's profile and on that user's friends (or whatever you want to call those people who you gave a '1').

So if you have rated only rational people (i.e. those from whom you assume that they won't give a positive rating to a jerk) positive then the jerk's score that you will see will never be positive. This way you have split all votes in a trustworthy and in a untrustworthy group and only the votes from the trustworthy group determine what score is displayed on your screen. This would obviously only work if you are logged in, i.e. not useful for guests as they don't know who to trust.

[DarkWaters]

No. The rating would depend not on the 'jerk' but on the user who is looking at the jerk's profile and on that user's friends (or whatever you want to call those people who you gave a '1').

I see, each individual would see different ratings for all of the other forum members.

It seems as if your proposed system is geared towards regular users of the forum as opposed to prospective members. I would guess that the purpose of having a rating system here would primarily be to identify the most knowledgeable members for individuals who are still learning the philosophy. Although your idea is interesting, it is unclear how helpful it would be in this respect.

Building on your idea, perhaps the ratings a user X would see could be a function of both the scores that users in the set Y have issued, where Y is the set of all users whom X has rated as a '1' as well as the ratings of the moderators, who will surely use the rating system justly.

Edited November 17, 2007 by DarkWaters