How is the forum rating system doing?

[Pup]

I think this brings us right back to my opinion that the only way to successfully mediate the agree/disagree problem is to use a slashdot style system where the voter is forced to chose among preset descriptions, such as 'informative', 'insightful', and the like. It sets up a psychological barrier to just saying 'I agree', or rather 'this person agrees with me' which is really what they're saying. The other thing worth doing is to take away the incentive to reward or punish members through voting by having the votes only affect the post itself. Of course, no system will prevent the +1 vote 100%, but then it probably doesn't need to.

I do think there are benefits to the "thanks" system over the +1/-1. It's a nicely done mod - far better than what's been adopted here. It might help increase voting if nothing else, since the user rating includes votes given as well as received.

I think the real problem in switching to a slashdot style system is finding a mod that does it. The only one I can find has been abandoned, but then, that was only a cursory glance at what's out there.

My suggestion, if there isn't a way to do a slashdot-style system, is to try the 'thanks' mod and if that doesn't solve the problem, then toss the idea in the bin. I find it hard to believe that anyone honestly thinks that swapping icons will make any difference whatsoever.

[i70q7m7ghw]

I think the biggest issue is that people don't know that its not an I agree with the post button but rather this is a good technical post.

We've talked this through thoroughly within the moderator group before the introduction of the system, and it was clear that a +1 would not do. Hence there is the popup that immediately shows when you hover over the +1 button, to show you what you're going to do. It allows people not to click it, as they will see the message before that. Personally I really think this should be more than enough to make it clear, although I have indeed had to point out the FAQ to several members who still misunderstood the system.

To help this, of course there will be the change of icons. Perhaps we should change the tooltip text as well?

Tomba, if you truly only want people to cast votes for technical posts, why not try this...

No negative voting, only the mods can do this to make corrections, and the ability for members to award a post "1 cog", cogs being an award for technical insight. You can even make the icon the same as the cog in the forum logo. Change the user rep to cogs as well. Make it very clear everywhere, that cogs are awarded for technical insight. Provide more technical insight, gain the ability to award more cogs for technical insight (because in theory your more informed). Everywhere cogs are mentioned, have a link to an FAQ explaining what cogs are, and why they are awarded.

I can see now that what you are after is not a conventional voting system, so lets not make it look like one.

[Pup]

The idea of making it something technical isn't bad - though a cog means 'settings' pretty much every where else in computer land, so maybe something else is a better choice.

Not that I think changing an icon will make a difference, but if you do - that's certainly a better path than thumbs.

[bhall]

[Pup]

If I'm choosing between pudding and twinkies, I'll take the pudding.

[bhall]

Commie.

[i70q7m7ghw]

The idea of making it something technical isn't bad - though a cog means 'settings' pretty much every where else in computer land, so maybe something else is a better choice.

Not that I think changing an icon will make a difference, but if you do - that's certainly a better path than thumbs.

Good point... perhaps a trophy? Basically we've got to drop the idea it's a vote, because it's not, it's an award.

[ecapox]

Are there any consequences for having a rating of....say.... -20?

[Pierce89]

Are there any consequences for having a rating of....say.... -20?

I think mircea mclaren (or whatever the heII his name is) is proof there aren't.


Edit: I left out Neno, last I checked he was like -22

[Steven]

Are there any consequences for having a rating of....say.... -20?

None on paper (yet).

Usually the people who end up at -20 will have made contact with one mod some time before that

[Steven]

Note: there have been a number of vote corrections in the Pirelli 2013 thread. It seems someone abused the system, triggering a bunch of correctional votes and complaint posts. All those votes have been removed, and the posts that are about this voting were deleted as well.

[abw]

I only recently stopped lurking and joined as a member. I have voted four times. One of the votes was against the spirit of the system ("I like this" instead of "this is informative from a technical standpoint"). For the others, I uprated because they were informative. I never look at a comment's rating--I just read down the threads and that's that. I do look at the reputation of a commenter when I read something outside my area of expertise that seems wrong to me.

I feel the rating system is working okay for me personally. I have niche technical knowledge and it's earned me a reputation that I consider is fair--especially given how infrequently I speak up. I do not mind that I don't have permission to downrate, and would almost certainly not use the power even if I had it.

Off-topic:
If this were my forum and I wanted the rating system to reflect technical informativeness, I would have a button on every comment with the word "Informative" (no icon, no ambiguity) that anyone could click to uprate for technical helpfulness. Data collected through this input would go toward user reputation. Meanwhile, to prevent fanboy/"this is hilarious" etc. nonsense from contaminating the data collected by the "Informative" button, I would keep the +1/-1 system on each comment and encourage people to use it for fanboy/like/dislke/etc. ratings. Data from the fanboy buttons would have no bearing on forum-user reputation. (I know some people would be childish with these buttons, but I'd prefer that over them being childish with the "informative" button or leaving rude comments. And whatever... if people want to abuse a -1 button that has no bearing on anything, let them be whiners. It won't impress anyone who is here to be informed.)

[variante]

I've been on this forum for a while, thus i can say that this rating system is NOT doing well.
I have seen many good posts being ignored by the rating system, other useless and often wrong posts (but made by popular users) being upvoted, and other good posts being downvoted for no apparent reason.

I know the system will never be perfect, but i suggest, as a countermeasure to wild and unjustified downvotes (the main problem IMO), to force people who want to downvote something to write a post where the reasons for the downvote are clarified.
Basically i'm suggesting an automation that links the downvoted post to the justification for the downvote, the which gets ignored if no justification is made.
This will discurage downvotes, which is a pretty useless mean in most cases.
The downsides are the complexity of the system and the lost of anonymity.
If this is impossible to make, i suggest, for the credibility of this system, to get rid of downvotes (as many suggested before me).

I don't even want to mention directly my own experience, though it has been pretty annoying recently...i would have many "good" examples...

[Pierce89]

The rating system is fine. It forces people to think before they make a stupid post. Without downvotes, I'd be over the "magical 25", but I've made plenty of stupid posts, so I don't deserve to be over 25. Having the down vote available forces a level accountability. I think any further changes would be an unjustified waste of Tomba's time and effort and I'm sure he's busy enough already.

Edit: I think people have wildly over exaggerated the instances of people voting in favor of their "friends" and voting against their "enemies". After all, you don't get to 25 without a fairly sizable positive contribution to F1T.

[variante]

Pierce89, the point is: have your downvotes always been justified?

For instance, none of my 4 downvotes has ever been justified. I admit that a couple of my downvoted posts could be questionable, but, since no explanation to the downvotes were given, the downvotes themselves should have no meaning at all.
I see plenty of similar cases, and, as i said before, it is very annoying as well as degrading for the reputation of the forum.

The elimination of the downvote is only the extrema ratio for the problem (because there IS such a problem). I suggested something different: please, read my previous post.

I think any further changes would be an unjustified waste of Tomba's time and effort and I'm sure he's busy enough already.

It is especially in the interest of Tomba to correct problems on this forum.