How is the forum rating system doing?

[wesley123]

a rating above 0 allows you to upvote, above 25 allows you to downvote

[muhammadtalha-13]

a rating above 0 allows you to upvote, above 25 allows you to downvote

Ahh Thank You wesley...

[xpensive]

I get down voted quite a lot because I'm such an opinonated old bugger.
...

In all honesty, I think you get downvoted for presenting fanciful theories that often contradicts accepted newtonial laws of nature.

Not that I would ever do it of course.

[Tim.Wright]

Thought Id give my two cents on the subject since Ive kept an eye on it from the start. Ive realised 2 pretty hard and fast rules...

1. Negative rating = knob. Almost without exception
2. Positive rating != !knob Some knobs keep a positive rating by discussing things with other knobs who of course agree

In other words, the rating system made it easier to spot some knobs, but not all of them. So I think its at least working in the right direction. It was better than the old system of just displaying a post count because I noticed that there seemed to be a bit of a positive correlation between #posts and knobbery.

[WhiteBlue]

I get down voted quite a lot because I'm such an opinonated old bugger....

In all honesty, I think you get downvoted for presenting fanciful theories that often contradicts accepted newtonial laws of nature. Not that I would ever do it of course.

I would say that we can leave it to the voters who has a better understanding of the laws of nature. I'm not concerned as long as there is a fair discussion that refrains from argumenta ad hominem. There are some difference in English and American language about scientific terms but generally the board seems to be able to sort out even the most complicated issues if the discussion is conducted along Tomba's guide lines. And as I have said before I don't mind the occasional populist inspired down vote as long as we have a fair chance to all have our say.

[rjsa]

I get down voted quite a lot because I'm such an opinonated old bugger....

In all honesty, I think you get downvoted for presenting fanciful theories that often contradicts accepted newtonial laws of nature. Not that I would ever do it of course.

I would say that we can leave it to the voters who has a better understanding of the laws of nature. I'm not concerned as long as there is a fair discussion that refrains from argumenta ad hominem. There are some difference in English and American language about scientific terms but generally the board seems to be able to sort out even the most complicated issues if the discussion is conducted along Tomba's guide lines. And as I have said before I don't mind the occasional populist inspired down vote as long as we have a fair chance to all have our say.

Oh you do mind, you even harass by PM and downvote yourself in retaliation, even those who can't downvote

Don't play mr nice guy.

[WhiteBlue]

you even harass by PM and downvote yourself in retaliation, even those who can't downvote.

Objections! I do not harrass by PM. I do use PM only if an issue is inappropriate to post because privacy is the better option. Generally I prefer to clear the air by public discussion.

Naturally I occasionally down vote posts that are particularly unhelpful to sort out an issue, posts that are just plainly fanboism or that are full of antagonism and unfair bias. Some times I have to admit that I would like to tell people that they are idiots but in his wisdom Tomba has decided that this is not the way we are to communicate here.

[xpensive]

you even harass by PM and downvote yourself in retaliation, even those who can't downvote.

Objections! I do not harrass by PM. I do use PM only if an issue is inappropriate to post because privacy is the better option. Generally I prefer to clear the air by public discussion.

Naturally I occasionally down vote posts that are particularly unhelpful to sort out an issue, posts that are just plainly fanboism or that are full of antagonism and unfair bias. Some times I have to admit that I would like to tell people that they are idiots but in his wisdom Tomba has decided that this is not the way we are to communicate here.

Sure you do, didn't you downvote those who didn't agree with your groundbreaking idea that torque was a form of energy?

[Gaz.]

Thought Id give my two cents on the subject since Ive kept an eye on it from the start. Ive realised 2 pretty hard and fast rules...

1. Negative rating = knob. Almost without exception
2. Positive rating != !knob Some knobs keep a positive rating by discussing things with other knobs who of course agree

In other words, the rating system made it easier to spot some knobs, but not all of them. So I think its at least working in the right direction. It was better than the old system of just displaying a post count because I noticed that there seemed to be a bit of a positive correlation between #posts and knobbery.

I read this forum daily and have done for a few years but as I have nothing technical to add I hardly ever post, but to further your point I have noticed that as there is no rating system in the race & team threads some of the more antagonistic members are more colourful in areas where they cannot be rated and tone their opinions down considerably where the rating system is live. I understand the rating system for the race threads was disabled because it was being abused but perhaps a half way house solution would be to enable people with 50 points (or higher?) to use the rating system in those areas?

[strad]

strad said...

Mon May 21, 2012 11:07 am

I agree..I don't think it will show any real value and in time will be dropped.

Well I guess I was way off on that one.

[Pup]

You were right in the first part, but pride will forever prevent the system from being dropped.

[GitanesBlondes]

This system needs to be re-worked.

Posters should be able to see who downvotes them as I am getting tired of being downvoted by people for stating an OPINION.

People here don't seem to differentiate the whole concept of opinions. I was downvoted for expressing a desire to see tobacco sponsorship back in F1 and saying that allowing alcohol to sponsor is hypocritical?

[rjsa]

This system needs to be re-worked.

Posters should be able to see who downvotes them as I am getting tired of being downvoted by people for stating an OPINION.

People here don't seem to differentiate the whole concept of opinions. I was downvoted for expressing a desire to see tobacco sponsorship back in F1 and saying that allowing alcohol to sponsor is hypocritical?

Quoted for support since I can't upvote it.

[GitanesBlondes]

This system needs to be re-worked.

Posters should be able to see who downvotes them as I am getting tired of being downvoted by people for stating an OPINION.

People here don't seem to differentiate the whole concept of opinions. I was downvoted for expressing a desire to see tobacco sponsorship back in F1 and saying that allowing alcohol to sponsor is hypocritical?

Quoted for support since I can't upvote it.

In the whopping 50 minutes or so since I posted this I received another downvote to a topic that isn't even on the main page in the General section.

[turbof1]

I agree with some kind of system. A random downvote should be anonymous, but if a member keeps downvoting an other specific member in a relative short time, the disadvantaged person should atleast be notified who his downvoter is. Maybe something like 5 downvotes in a week?

I also think an option should be available to voluntarily reveal your name when you downvote someone, with an additional textbox to explain why you downvoted for him. So these options should be free to use, but available.

With that being said: downvoting when decently used, should remain anonymous when the member wants it so; if not the downvoted can just retaliate and the whole intention behind the voting system fails its purpose.