How is the forum rating system doing?

[Tim.Wright]

It might take a bit of juggling to get the thresholds right, but the this case you mentioned:

The problem with that approach is that there are people with enough votes to downvote that do so out of spite.

That in turn is a problem with suggestion 2 where certain members would no doubt target other members they do not like so they can get them banned for a period of time...

There is already a downvote limt which will prevent this from happening too often. Additionally you could calculate the threshold so that the downvotes must be from unique members to further stop this kind of abuse. Anyway, if there is the risk of being banned, even unfairly, in a race thread - it will have the desired effect in that people will avoid them.

On the other hand, a downvote made just to spite very very rarely happenes in a proper technical thread. Certainly not enough to affect a time weighted average threshold. So if you stick to these threads, and make a decent conribution, you will never be banned under this system.

[hollus]

Maybe there are too many downvotes available. For those that don't know, you get 1 downvote per day for each 4 rep points you have. That means that by the time you hit 25, you automatically start with 6 downvotes per day, and it only goes up from there. Maybe it would be good to change it to 1 downvote for each 15-20 rep points, or even some quadratic formula. Who needs 10-20 downvotes per day?

I've mentioned this before, but I've found the downvotes to be a very useful tool because I've seen a perfect correlation between people with negative ratings and people who are a waste of time arguing with.
...
2. Then there needs to be actual consequences of a negative rating for it to have any effect. Given the robustness of the downvote, there should be an automatic 1 month ban if you go over a certain downvote/time density. Every time you get banned, the threshold for the next banning gets halved.

There Tim, you are saying it yourself. There are already consequences of having a negative rating.

However, I've also seen numerous topics where a factual post was made, but because it wasn't liked --no doubt due to thin skin some here have-- and promptly received a downvote for no rational reason...

But how many of those posts kept the negative rating for long? I notice most bogus "-1" (and some "+1") disappear later, that is, unless they included rude language or any other sort of aggressive or disrespectful attitude together with facts.

[flynfrog]

I really haven't noticed any down voting out of spite but I haven't looked that hard.

[Blanchimont]

With the current spam user i would suggest to add some new rules to the rating system, if possible.

Rule: If a user receives more than X downvotes within a time frame of Y, he should automatically be banned for a certain time.
Rule: If a user rating is below Z, he should automatically be banned for a certain time.
Rule: If a user rating is below Z2, he should be banned permanently.

[turbof1]

With the current spam user i would suggest to add some new rules to the rating system, if possible.

Rule: If a user receives more than X downvotes within a time frame of Y, he should automatically be banned for a certain time.
Rule: If a user rating is below Z, he should automatically be banned for a certain time.
Rule: If a user rating is below Z2, he should be banned permanently.

Seconded.

[Steven]

Agreed. Added on todo list

[Pup]

I really haven't noticed any down voting out of spite but I haven't looked that hard.

I think the opposite happens far more often. I see some of the dumbest posts voted up just because someone agrees with the general argument.

Many of those posts being my own.

[flynfrog]

I really haven't noticed any down voting out of spite but I haven't looked that hard.

I think the opposite happens far more often. I see some of the dumbest posts voted up just because someone agrees with the general argument.

Many of those posts being my own.

I second that Pup look no further than the Team or Silly season threads. The only time I tend to down vote is when some one posts something really stupid or two people are typing walls of text arguing with each other off the topic. I feel as a whole its kept most of the threads cleaning and more to the topic with less fan boy arguing. I kinda like the down vote only in race threads maybe have a second tier say 100 + votes to act as a mod or sorts in race threads as they are pretty much unreadable as this point.

[Pup]

Well, I often find myself down voting those up votes, which I guess makes me an ass. So be it.

[turbof1]

maybe have a second tier say 100 + votes to act as a mod or sorts in race threads as they are pretty much unreadable as this point.

I heavily approve to this. someone with 100+ votes surely has proven himself to be competent enough for that kind of responsibility.

That being said, we are been given mod rights when some with a low enough downvote count gets an automatic ban.

[bhall]

maybe have a second tier say 100 + votes to act as a mod or sorts in race threads as they are pretty much unreadable as this point.

I heavily approve to this. someone with 100+ votes surely has proven himself to be competent enough for that kind of responsibility.

[...]

Oh, I don't know about that one.

[Tim.Wright]

maybe have a second tier say 100 + votes to act as a mod or sorts in race threads as they are pretty much unreadable as this point.

I heavily approve to this. someone with 100+ votes surely has proven himself to be competent enough for that kind of responsibility.

[...]

Oh, I don't know about that one.

I'd be hesitant... Giving anyone, upgraded "power" in anything be it a forum, project, business or government, needs to be individually evaluated case by case.

Add to that the trend I have observed in that that the more technically intelligent someone is, the worse they are at managing people and situations.

[SectorOne]

I think making it a public system where you can click on the icon and see who´s voted what would be great.
Then people would have to actually stand for what they believe in.

I particularly like this one. Me and another guy post the single most relevant information you could find about the particular subject and yet someone felt compelled to downvote them as "This post is not useful"

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... =1&t=15552

With a public vote i could PM him and ask for what i assume is going to be one hell of a story on why he felt compelled to downvote things that actually help the forum/thread.

[Tim.Wright]

I particularly like this one. Me and another guy post the single most relevant information you could find about the particular subject and yet someone felt compelled to downvote them as "This post is not useful"

http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... =1&t=15552

With a public vote i could PM him and ask for what i assume is going to be one hell of a story on why he felt compelled to downvote things that actually help the forum/thread.

While I kind of like the idea of putting a name to an opinion, I have to admit that threads like that above don't contribute anything to the forum except a lot of handwaving and fan boy ying yang and deserve any downvotes they get.

[SectorOne]

I disagree, some threads are just not going to be technical.
race threads, silly season, who has scored the most points (presented with facts, not opinions)
Kubica thread i can go on and on and on.