How is the forum rating system doing?

[wesley123]

I find that in a lot of cases they are being rated because they agree with a post, or find a post in some way funny rather than that the post was informative.

Also this still is a number, it doesnt indicate anything, and I dont even take a note at the numbers, wehether they are under 0 or not, I dont bother. They dont indicate a good thread, they dont indicate a good poster they dont indicate anything.

Also since it's introduction it has been removed from a few categories already, which makes its effectiviness, if that is even there, even lesser.

[bhall]

I think the voting system seems to be rather superfluous. I don't see much difference in the "quality" of posts now as opposed to before. In that regard, it's neither helped nor hurt.

That said, I've found it somewhat helpful personally, especially recently. Rather than engage in lengthy, bitter bouts of Tug of War that don't accomplish anything, I just vote down opinions disguised as fact as well as other "facts" and analysis I know to be - and have been proven - false or misleading. It's certainly a lot easier than the alternative, and it means I've managed to convey my thoughts without getting dirty in the process. I imagine it's made for a more user-friendly experience for everyone else, too.

[WhiteBlue]

I just vote down opinions disguised as fact as well as other "facts" and analysis I know to be - and have been proven - false or misleading.

That is intellectually dishonest. You disqualify any opinion that is deviating from your point of view as false or misleading. Typically there is more than one view about complex technical, economical or political issues, let alone issues of taste and personal preference. When it becomes clear that no result is available through dispute people should agree to disagree until new aspects have been discovered through news or events that justify further debate or make it clear that one of the debated opinions is supported by the outcome in reality. That usually is the way reasonable people debate controversial issues. It shows that I respect the other users. Throwing a bunch of negative votes indiscriminately at someone who simply doesn't agree with me is neither in accordance with the rules of this site nor is it supported by a code of personal conduct that I would agree with. In my view it simply constitutes abuse of the reputation system. The fact that such behaviour is publicly supported by a member with high reputation score just highlights what has gone wrong.

[bhall]

That's an excellent example of the sort of stuff I've been voting down lately. Divorced from its preamble, that "quote" is misleading, because it doesn't reflect the reality of what I said.

I thank you for the demonstration. It's very much appreciated.

[WhiteBlue]

That's an excellent example of the sort of stuff I've been voting down lately.

I know. And many of your votes have been deleted by mods because your practise has been deemed abusive. And you continue the abuse. Your rationalizing is a thinly veiled attempt to hide the fact that you are continually violating the sites guide lines.

[turbof1]

I think the voting system seems to be rather superfluous. I don't see much difference in the "quality" of posts now as opposed to before. In that regard, it's neither helped nor hurt.

That said, I've found it somewhat helpful personally, especially recently. Rather than engage in lengthy, bitter bouts of Tug of War that don't accomplish anything, I just vote down opinions disguised as fact as well as other "facts" and analysis I know to be - and have been proven - false or misleading. It's certainly a lot easier than the alternative, and it means I've managed to convey my thoughts without getting dirty in the process. I imagine it's made for a more user-friendly experience for everyone else, too.

How many of these posts were more to belief then fact?
Imo, you are ironically stepping on your own rule: you take it automatically as a fact that what other people belief as a fact. Just assuming that people wanted to present their ideas as fact is blatantly wrong and imo is the same principle as religious fanaticism. Even if they really intended to present it as a fact, downvoting isn't leading to anything productive. This is a discussion forum; you are supposed to present your own view on things and perhaps try to convince the other person where he was wrong, or like whiteblue said "agree to disagree". Downvoting is meant for posts that are none-constructive, like personal attacks or insistingly staying off topic. But that also means you have to try. Just assuming it will end up in a fued is never going to get you anywhere; I think you would be suprised how many people would actually be willing to be reasoned with as long as you don't step on anybodies toes. And even when that fails, there is no shame in showing to be the better man and walking away.
I am guessing I get a downvote for that?

[WhiteBlue]

I give an up vote for it. Only that here in this thread we cannot award real votes.

[turbof1]

That's fine. Its the tought that counts.
Imo, the voting system is made to encourage productive pieces of text. Downvoting should be sparingly used to keep rather highly negative input away. If downvoting is used in such a manner like him, it will scare off people to participate. It blocks them from actually learning. Imo downvoting should stand close to interventions from moderators: only when it really is necessary.

[bhall]

How many of these posts were more to belief then fact?
Imo, you are ironically stepping on your own rule: you take it automatically as a fact that what other people belief as a fact. Just assuming that people wanted to present their ideas as fact is blatantly wrong and imo is the same principle as religious fanaticism. Even if they really intended to present it as a fact, downvoting isn't leading to anything productive. This is a discussion forum; you are supposed to present your own view on things and perhaps try to convince the other person where he was wrong, or like whiteblue said "agree to disagree". Downvoting is meant for posts that are none-constructive, like personal attacks or insistingly staying off topic. But that also means you have to try. Just assuming it will end up in a fued is never going to get you anywhere; I think you would be suprised how many people would actually be willing to be reasoned with as long as you don't step on anybodies toes. And even when that fails, there is no shame in showing to be the better man and walking away.
I am guessing I get a downvote for that?

Aside from the fact that there are no votes here, not at all. Your statement was clearly expressed; it considered the facts in hand; and it contributed to the discussion.

It was in no way belligerent, nor did it willfully ignore or conveniently forget the views expressed by others. It didn't seek to obfuscate the issue, nor was it biased. You didn't even make any "intellectual leaps of faith" or invent a "truth" or two. In other words, your statement was entirely reasonable.

My posts have been voted down dozens of times for one reason or another. I was perplexed by them at first - we all think we know best - but I never felt the need to create a thread and continually bitch about it. (That's not to say you do, by the way.) Instead, I learned that some of my character traits aren't necessarily appreciated here and that sometimes you just can't win no matter what. Either way, it's not a big deal. We're not curing cancer here; we're talking about grown-ass men and their expensive toys.

Besides, it's not like votes are immutable. If anyone sees something they think is helpful, they can vote it up even if it's already been voted down.

It's funny how people react when free will doesn't exactly go the way they'd like it to.

[turbof1]

Of course we aren't doing any relevant around here. It would be a suprise if anything we discuss here, would have an impact on the real world, even on the "big men toys".

That said, we still take it seriously. Imo, that puts a demand on the manner we discuss. Everybody is supposed to follow a set of ethical rules. And that's sometimes hard; you can't just put people inbetween such brackets. I mean in no way I am the best person at that front myself. But you know, even if what we say has no relevance, I think we'll have to try our best to conform. You'll always have sore people at discussion places like these, and they will try to take the conversation down and they will try to harm you even when they know they absoltely can't do anything. But you know, placing our pride into a complete different perspective and it is much easier to just ignore the wrong pieces and to filter the contructive elements out of it.

[bhall]

I tend to roughly agree with what you said, especially with regard to that which should probably be ignored. Trust me on this: I don't vote down everything I personally feel should be voted down. There's simply too much, and I don't have that many votes. I just look around and use my votes for whatever I feel helps a conversation move forward or for whatever holds it back. Simple.

[Jersey Tom]

Is it perfect? No. Is it useful? I think so. Been a number of good nuggets of info or interesting points which get positive ratings. Does it make the quality of information better? No, but it can draw attention to good stuff rather than it being lost. Only been a handful of things I've seen down-voted, generally for good reason.

Ultimately it's just putting an evaluation tool in the hands of the users... so it's "effectiveness" is completely contingent on the maturity of everyone on the aggregate. Again - I'd see that as not perfect, but generally good.

[strad]

It's funny how people react when free will doesn't exactly go the way they'd like it to.

=D>

[i70q7m7ghw]

While I can understand the reason for not voting, there are simply too few votes being cast at the moment to make it democratic. There are currently about 10 people voting regularly, something I think is not enough.

Surely a case to just allow everyone to upvote/downvote freely? The system isn't being used because people can't use it, it's far too limited.

[Steven]

Hmm perhaps. Are you constantly hitting your maximum daily voting limit then?

On the other hand, the issue is not so much that good content is not upvoted, it's perhaps that it's not upvoted a lot. Given that everyone has a maximum of one vote per post, it's a matter of getting more people to use the system. Although admittedly this has already improved since I posted what you quoted from me.