Rating threads.

[Art]

So, I just turned on the rate threads option for a couple of forums that didn't have it. This is a way for you to rate a thread you're reading. If you guys use it, threads that are highly ranked can be ordered by you to appear at the top where lower ranked threads can be on the bottom. This gives you guys a chance to quickly lowly rate a thread that is a duplicate or is stupid so people who have the forums displayed by rating might not even see some of those threads.

Give it a shot. Maybe we'll think about adding reputation as well.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Awesome, thanks!

[Blue Collar Skins]

This will be great!

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Seems like a cool feature!

[jwpanic]

the evolution of extremeskins continues...

[flexxskins]

You mods are making the addiction of coming to this board harder and harder beat. :mad:

[Audible_Red40]

Great idea. Thanks!! Now back to the grass thread.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Any thread started by Bulldog should get an automatic 5

[c4man5282]

awesome idea Art!

[Art]

Any thread started by Bulldog should get an automatic 5

Save "5" for me. :)

[illone]

Art, stop posting on ES and get your butt over to TW.

:laugh:

[authentic]

yes sir!! thank you!

[Major Harris]

Art, stop posting on ES and get your butt over to TW.

:laugh:
that gets a 5!

[RedskinzOwnU]

It's awfully distracting. This thread only gets 1 star.

just kidding

[flexxskins]

Great idea. Thanks!! Now back to the grass thread.First place I tried it out at. :D

[CPortJGibbs89]

Great idea hope it works well..

[U C S D SkinsFan]

love the idea...will be using it Art

[Sarge]

I like this!

Can we get :pooh: symbols for really crappy threads?

[Isifhan]

Excellent idea. Kudos.

[[[ghost]]]

You know, there's a ton of noobs on this board. This kind of power is definately gonna be abused.

[flexxskins]

I guess that I am kind of slow and therefore need some type of brief explanation as to how this is supposed to work. For instance, no offense to the original poster, but the neighboring grass thread...well, kind of sucks IMO. So why does it already have 3 rating stars? Are people just diggin the thread that much?

[redskin48]

Great idea !

[bubba9497]

Any thread started by Bulldog should get an automatic 5



AHEM! :mad:

[The Rook]

This is a good idea and if people are truthful in its application it can be a useful tool. BUT will this group do that? Time will tell.





:helmet: The Rook

[SkinsHokieFan]

AHEM! :mad:


And Bubba also :thumbsup:

[spanishomelette]

So if a thread has no star at all, is it worse than terrible? I'm trying to decide what to do in the case of a "worse than terrible" thread ...rate it 1 star or leave it untouched?

[Henry]

Excellent idea Art. I give this thread five stars. :)

[More Complete]

I think this idea is terrible. 1 star. Really, it's distracting and I don't really care what star rating a thread has. I can look at the title and even move my mouse over it to see the first few sentences. I don't need no stinking stars! Sorry. Just not diggin it. It looks ugly and adds clutter and is of little value IMHO. :(

[Buford]

Awesome. what's next? uploading our own avatars? :)

[Peregrine]

Im rating this thread a 1. Boooorrriiinnnggg.

[pvkeeper19]

So if a thread has no star at all, is it worse than terrible? I'm trying to decide what to do in the case of a "worse than terrible" thread ...rate it 1 star or leave it untouched?
I think that just means it hasn't been rated yet.

[flexxskins]

Im rating this thread a 1. Boooorrriiinnnggg.Umm, I don't think that it was meant to be exciting. :doh:

[spanishomelette]

I think that just means it hasn't been rated yet.
Unrated...The kiss of death to a threadstarter.
But pure joy to "threadkiller" (you know who you are).

[ALLWORLD]

Couldnt hurt to see how it goes!

[Art]

I think this idea is terrible. 1 star. Really, it's distracting and I don't really care what star rating a thread has. I can look at the title and even move my mouse over it to see the first few sentences. I don't need no stinking stars! Sorry. Just not diggin it. It looks ugly and adds clutter and is of little value IMHO. :(

We'll do this for now. Maybe we'll implement a reputation system where members themselves have ratings :). For now, we'll see how this looks and how this goes and go from there.

[Om]

Mixed feelings.

Like that it might encourage people to post thoughtful threads.

Like that thoughtful threads might have a way to be distinguished from crap.

Don't particularly like that the friggin' stars are so big and bold. People have different esthetic senses obviously. To some it’s cool flashy stars ... to others garish clutter. Guess I’m somewhere in the middle. Maybe there’s an option to make them a little less in your face?

Bottom line, just not convinced yet that enough people will use it thoughtfully enough to have it work as intended. On other boards I’ve seen it becomes a vehicle for some posters to pimp their friends threads and ideas they support, and also a way trash their non-friends threads and ideas they disagree with. We’re a huge, loud, opinionated and often contentious group these days. An anonymous “rating” system like this can only as honest a reflection of a given thread’s actual content as the honesty of those doing the rating.

We’ll just have to see how it evolves.

[jsharrin55]

I think this is a great idea

[iheartskins]

I guess the next question should really be should each person's vote count for the same value?

[Art]

I guess the next question should really be should each person's vote count for the same value?

No. If you are a Tailgate poster, we will exclude your votes :).

Ok, not all of them, but, Unsonny for sure.

[Rocky21]

Is the plan to be able to sort the columns by the headings like thread, rating, thread starter, replies, etc.?

[MRMADD]

So, I just turned on the rate threads option for a couple of forums that didn't have it. This is a way for you to rate a thread you're reading. If you guys use it, threads that are highly ranked can be ordered by you to appear at the top where lower ranked threads can be on the bottom. This gives you guys a chance to quickly lowly rate a thread that is a duplicate or is stupid so people who have the forums displayed by rating might not even see some of those threads.

Give it a shot. Maybe we'll think about adding reputation as well.

It's about time!

[Art]

It's not working for me. None of the categories sort properly except the thread one.

You hit the Rating button at the top of the screen? It didn't resort? It does for me so I'd have to see a screen shot of where you are going. You can send it to Art with the at symbol and extremeskins.com in it.

[Rocky21]

You hit the Rating button at the top of the screen? It didn't resort? It does for me so I'd have to see a screen shot of where you are going. You can send it to Art with the at symbol and extremeskins.com in it.Yes that's what I'm doing and no worky for me.

[Die Hard]

It's a useless idea... and the results are showing themselves. People don't know how to vote for threads.

You have quality news and rumor threads being voted 2 stars because fans don't like the concept of the information... regardless of the quality of the content.

And then you have a thread like "Antonio Pierce thinks Smoot is the best trash-talker" with 5 stars... and go see the quality of discussion in that thread. Pitiful.

Like I said... people don't get the purpose of voting for threads. Make the feature useless.

[Art]

It's a useless idea... and the results are showing themselves. People don't know how to vote for threads.

You have quality news and rumor threads being voted 2 stars because fans don't like the concept of the information... regardless of the quality of the content.

And then you have a thread like "Antonio Pierce thinks Smoot is the best trash-talker" with 5 stars... and go see the quality of discussion in that thread. Pitiful.

Like I said... people don't get the purpose of voting for threads. Make the feature useless.

Frankly, a rating system should be meaningful to the people who take the time to vote. If people rate the Smoot thread a 5, even if it something we may not, it probably means the rating system is working exactly as anticipated. It identifies what the community feels are good posts and posts it wants to focus on. Without comment as to our individual preferences which tend a bit differently, the rating system is not supposed to reflect what you and I think, but, what the community thinks.

[Henry]

Did you vote in any of those threads, Die Hard? :)

[Yusuf06]

I suggested this option for individual posters some time ago. I think it's a great idea for threads as well.

The bottom line is that if most of us are dingleberries and vote stupidly, we'll get the forum we deserve.

Of course, you all realize this may do permanent damage to the Nazi mods myth. :)

[Jumbo]

Pretty stars. Pretty.




Pretty.

[HapHaszard]

Great Option Art, I can see it saving a lot of time.

[rick1796]

i don't like it. i'm pretty much just a grumpy bastard though!

[flexxskins]

I guess that I am kind of slow and therefore need some type of brief explanation as to how this is supposed to work. For instance, no offense to the original poster, but the neighboring grass thread...well, kind of sucks IMO. So why does it already have 3 rating stars? Are people just diggin the thread that much?I guess no one was going to help my dumb ass out as to how this thing is really supposed work. :(

But that's ok, as I read on I figured it out and it is pretty simple. :D

I guess people are diggin the grass thread then. :confused:

[monkforhall]

Smoot thread only had 25 people participate in it, but it's a 4 star thread, didn't lead to much of a "discussion" either.

[flexxskins]

Smoot thread only had 25 people participate in it, but it's a 4 star thread, didn't lead to much of a "discussion" either.Thus my confusion. :)

[Art]

Guys,

In depth discussion threads are not the only ones that have to be highly rated. Threads that just make people feel good and laugh can be the same. Threads that make people sad, like the death of Wayne, can be there. It is the mood of the thread and the room. What is well rated is individual. The dream thread was going to be a 1 rating for me after reading the first post, but, after reading a few funny one liners, I gave it a three.

A "delete me" thread that becomes, "Hot Asian babes you'd love to fu....talk to," might make it. It just depends on what is going on, when people enter it and the like. That's the potential good of the thing. Not every "good" thread meets a set criteria. In fact, NO thread does. You make it what you feel it is and that feel will change as you evolve, feel good, angry, sick whatever. It's merely a way to help people identify topics of interest versus those that are not as interesting to some.

[monkforhall]

Thus my confusion. :)

I started a thread a long time ago, led to hardly any discussion and a little bit of participation, maybe it was a great 4 or 5 type thread. I feel better.:)

[Burgold]

I find it a bit offputting right now, but I'll get used to it. I do wonder why all threads are Generals. Shouldn't a couple of threads be colonels. I know a couple of mine that have deserved the bird and no stars. :)

[SkinsWizCubsDukes]

:doh:If I could only start new threads...

[Jumbo]

:doh:If I could only start new threads...


Check your PMs :)

[Yusuf06]

I find it a bit offputting right now, but I'll get used to it. I do wonder why all threads are Generals. Shouldn't a couple of threads be colonels. I know a couple of mine that have deserved the bird and no stars. :)

Now that's the kind of post that can up a thread's rating. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[SkinsFTW]

I like this!

Can we get :pooh: symbols for really crappy threads?


Great idea there.

[mardi gras skin]

It's a useless idea... and the results are showing themselves. People don't know how to vote for threads.

I haven't read the whole thread so this may have been suggested and dismissed already, but how about limiting thread rating privileges to a few people...the mods for example. Or maybe the mods and 20 or so regular posters that have proven to be a cut above. I don't know what the number should be but a limited and trusted pool should address Die Hard's concerns.

With the explosion of new threads over the past few years I can see how this tool can help elevate the quality of threads and steer conversation in the right direction. Thank you for trying the rating system out. :cheers:

[DOOG]

Unfortunately stars wont stop the "1" star posts from happening. Its just going to get a ton of "1" star votes. I'm also sure it won’t stop others from telling someone how stupid their thread is when they don’t like the post for any reason.



As for only a few getting to use the system...bad idea. Some of the "real intellectuals" around here really don’t care for some of the direct and to the point answers that some of us feel are appropriate. I personally don’t feel the need to write a 1000000 word essay to make my point that Lavar is injury prone and overrated. I'm also pretty content with using words with no more than 5 or 6 letters; other may deem that as unintelligent.:2cents:

I'm not necessarily bashing the idea, hell anything at this point cant hurt, but I definitely see some of the downside as well. Give it a shot and if it gets out of control it's just as easy to remove.:logo:

[Thirtyfive2seven]

This thread sucks!














j/k great idea!

[TK]

Damnit Art!

This is inexcusable. Stars are for Cowboys.

[DieselPwr44]

I always thought descriptive thread titles combined with amount of post pages were a pretty good indicator in making the decision as to what's good to read and what's not?

:whoknows:

[Die Hard]

Hey Art,

I just wanted you to know I gave this thread 5 stars because I agree (not really). And not because the content of the post or discussion is of any value. Seems like everyone else is doing it.

[Blondie]

Are the stars averaged?

Let's say........I give a thread 3 stars......and 10 give it 2 and 5 give it 4.

How does this work?

[Rdskns2000]

cool :gaintsuck :eaglesuck :dallasuck :applause: :cheers: :laugh:

[Art]

I always thought descriptive thread titles combined with amount of post pages were a pretty good indicator in making the decision as to what's good to read and what's not?

:whoknows:

Sometimes. Other times it's dozens of pages of people hammering an idiot. The main advantage to rating systems is you can come in after a long day and sort by rating and perhaps sit down with some of the better threads of the day at the top rather than scrolling through others to find it.

[Art]

DH and Blondie. This thread has 75 votes for a 3.65 average rating. The system rounds up. You can see how many votes and the average by hovering over the stars for a moment.

[Peregrine]

Frankly, a rating system should be meaningful to the people who take the time to vote. If people rate the Smoot thread a 5, even if it something we may not, it probably means the rating system is working exactly as anticipated. It identifies what the community feels are good posts and posts it wants to focus on. Without comment as to our individual preferences which tend a bit differently, the rating system is not supposed to reflect what you and I think, but, what the community thinks.

Good point there. People that rate are the people that are going to use it, and thus if the stars is a service for them, then it should reflect their opinions on threads.

That said, I think at least some consideration might be given to who can rate. It is something to think about, giving only higher members rating privledges(maybe given with how long they have been members) to rate, and new members no ability to rate. Might work, might not.

Also, there should be an expected abnormal period. Anytime something new is introduced, there is an adjustment period, and thus things will not happen as expected. For instance, the new rating system may tend to get unused, or misused, or both. Why? Because its new. Things have to settle down to get a real feel for how well it is working.

[Om]

One thing people will want to keep in mind on this ... all it takes is one poster to rate a thread. So don't assume a five-star thread necessarily means Jason Campbell's in there taking questions live, or that a one-star thread is a drive-by troll's "Skinz suk" debut.

Case in point: http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=193056

That thread has over 50 replies and over 2500 views. Two people have voted, and thus given it it's average rating.

So just a tip: if, like some have suggested, you're intending to choose what to read or not read based on these ratings, do yourself a favor and at least hover your pointer over the stars on a thread for a couple seconds before making that call, and see exactly what kind of sample it's based on.

Just sayin'.

[Reic]

Does this mean I get my mysterious No New Threads title taken away from me?

[skinsman4u]

“Redskin fan here coming in from Afghanistan (fragment). “

Art this will be great but I'm just an Ol country boy from D.C. and even worse South East at that, so you know I'm confused (joke). Can you provide more guidance? How do you order a thread to be ranked so it will appear at the top of your forum and others not so popular aren't seen. But again I'm "Kuntry" with a K from D.C. so you know I'm confused. Sorry for dumb question. People on my staff are hovering around my shoulder going wow now that's a great thread...I'm like come on join around the camp fire, we have plenty of room for more Redskin fans! Where am I located? I'm in Bagram, Afghanistan in a Joint Operations Center. Who's here? Koreans, Poland’s, Egyptians, Netherlands, British, Australia is also here but just a myriad of coalition forces are here. Don't suppose you'll have time to respond to this post after all you are a Mega Super Mod! Not sarcasm. Just wondering if you could provide more guidance.

[obiemills]

Art, you got a 5 star rating from me and my undying gratitude. This is an excellent move. Thank you, thank you, and thank you.

[Kosher Ham]

I personally never want to see the reputation crap. It becomes a "who's your boy" type of thing, where the same people get rep passed back and forth regardless of what they say. I have seen it on several boards and some of the posters with the highest rep are as dumb as a rock, based on one good post, or one good thread, over their years on the forum. Even if you did a negative rep it wouldnt work, because inevitably some jackass would continue to try to get negative rep.

As far as this whole rate the thread stuff, I agree with Die Hard and OM. Dont think it will make any difference (or work), and just clutters the look of the board. But giving it a try doesnt hurt. One guy starts a thread thats flat out stupid, the first person that reads in rates it a 5, others click to read but dont rate. And say I start a researched thread about some random topic, and the first few people that read it is some of the very many rival fans that may not post much, but certainly are here frequently. Ehhh...

I appreciate your efforts, but certainly dont truly support this idea.

[CooleyNaMean]

I know what I'm rating this one

[JimmyConway]

nice & finally.

[Art]

Terps.

If we enable reputations, the ultimate point would be we'd likely try to put in numbers that essentially banned members based on score. Obviously this wouldn't be automated as you could have 10 Eagle fans gang up on TR1 in Around the NFL to knock him out of here, and we'd ultimately review and have to approve reputation entries, but, if they are right, fair and reasonable, your negative rep will lead to an explusion, not a perpetual negative rep :).

As you can see, there are complexities to work out before that is fully embraced.

[the burgundy and gold]

this is kinda cool, now if i'm low on time i can just click on the highly rated ones rather than wasting time on the bad ones. good idea by the mods...

[Mooka]

For the repuation thing, how about giving people a certin number of votes per day, week, month, whatever. It could be based on your post count, or time you've been a member on this site. That would eliminate people just voting a billion times.

As for the rating threads... the stars make the board look too crowded. :silly:

[flexxskins]

I don't understand the complaint about the stars making the board appear cluttered. Whoever has complained about that, could you possibly take a sec and explain that concept to me and why it bothers you? Thanks.

P.S. While you are at it, could you explain "Fung Shway?"

[jrockster21]

Great idea. One question - is there any way to keep your sorting permanently? I rank the threads by rating, but then once I enter and leave a thread again, it goes back to the default ranking system (by time).


It's a useless idea... and the results are showing themselves. People don't know how to vote for threads.

You have quality news and rumor threads being voted 2 stars because fans don't like the concept of the information... regardless of the quality of the content.


Give it some time, bro! :laugh:

[Mooka]

I don't understand the complaint about the stars making the board appear cluttered. Whoever has complained about that, could you possibly take a sec and explain that concept to me and why it bothers you? Thanks.

P.S. While you are at it, could you explain "Fung Shway?" I dunno, looks kinda stupid to me. Can we change them to Redskin symbols or somtin?

[G-Prime]

This thread is terrible! ;p

[Taurus82]

awesome, sounds cool.

[JMBozell]

hgkjhjhjhhgj;lkjhkjgkj

[DOOG]

Everyones Siskal and Ebert now....:rolleyes:

So now we are going from...

"In before close" or "4,3,2,1..."


to


" I give this 3 stars" or "judges please"



you guys will never win!:doh: :logo:

[Tarhog]

Screw rating threads, I wanna rate the mods.

Then its on to Dan Snyder and the D-Line.

Beware bitches. :evil:

[DOOG]

Screw rating threads, I wanna rate the mods.

Then its on to Dan Snyder and the D-Line.

Beware bitches.


put that devil smiley in there TAR...Im with ya.:D :logo:

[SkinnedAussie]

One thing that needs to be looked at is that a thread cannot be voted on more than once by the same member.

I have lodged my vote for this thread, and when the page refreshed, I still have the ability to vote again (and possibly again and again and again .......).

For anyone who decides to cheat the system, continued low voting would give a false indication to the true rating of any given thread.

[Art]

One thing that needs to be looked at is that a thread cannot be voted on more than once by the same member.

I have lodged my vote for this thread, and when the page refreshed, I still have the ability to vote again (and possibly again and again and again .......).

For anyone who decides to cheat the system, continued low voting would give a false indication to the true rating of any given thread.

Send your vote through. See what happens :).

[SkinnedAussie]

OK, I see there is something in place, but I didn't try to vote a second time before my earlier post as voting more than once its just not the done thing.

[TK]

Screw rating threads, I wanna rate the mods nipples.

Then its on to Dan Snyder and the D-Line.

Beware bitches. :evil:
:paranoid:

[flexxskins]

:paranoid:Nipples? Boowahaha :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

[Buford]

Now only if threads rated a 2 stars or below are bumped from the 1st page after a hour or so. that would be lovely.

[Die Hard]

Now only if threads rated a 2 stars or below are bumped from the 1st page after a hour or so. that would be lovely.

If it wasn't built into the default software - which that feature isn't - don't count on it. Just the way it is now.

[Buford]

How come I can't see your avatar Mr. Hard?

[Die Hard]

How come I can't see your avatar Mr. Hard?

No idea... I've noticed this glitch for the past 2 days. I'm not in a position to do anything about it.

Then again, I couldn't care less about avatars or post counts either. I simply stand by my horrible reputation my moniker has earned :)

[SkinsFTW]

I think some of the avatars were missing. I can see yours now though but Buffords is gone.

Maybe its a new way for the Redskins to save bandwidth, randomly removing avatars, lol.

[Mark The Homer]

I like these ideas. Here's another one:

Just below the Avatar is a "Merged/Moved Threads" number, keeping track of the number of threads a member created that were merged with existing threads, combined with the number of threads a member created that were placed in the wrong forum. This number would be known among the regulars as "The Idiot Factor." I suspect this would greatly reduce bad threads.

Of course, when the member quits the site and comes back under another name, he would be tracked by his IP, and his "Idiot Factor" total would remain intact. :)

[Thinking Skins]

We'll do this for now. Maybe we'll implement a reputation system where members themselves have ratings :). For now, we'll see how this looks and how this goes and go from there.

I really like the thread rating idea, and I'd be interested in seeing how it would go if we could actually rate members. I think that could cut back on a lot of the spam posts where the people just want to get in and say "this is a terrible thread" before the thread is closed.

[Park City Skins]

Haven't much use for the ratings system myself. Like anything else, that's subjective. In this case, 5 out 7 people can rate a thread with 2 stars yet the same thread could be getting hundreds of views and a couple of dozen replies,(or vice versa). Of course, there is personal bias, (working both ways), that can come into play as well. In other words, I don't pay attention to the ratings myself. Same goes for the rating posters idea as well.

[Thinking Skins]

Haven't much use for the ratings system myself. Like anything else, that's subjective. In this case, 5 out 7 people can rate a thread with 2 stars yet the same thread could be getting hundreds of views and a couple of dozen replies,(or vice versa). Of course, there is personal bias, (working both ways), that can come into play as well. In other words, I don't pay attention to the ratings myself. Same goes for the rating posters idea as well.

But I think that with the ability to rate threads, and the ability to sort threads by rating, all the posters who post comments like "this thread is stupid" can be told (via PM), "well if you believe that then give this a rating of 1 star, and don't bother posting because posting just keeps it at the top of the MB".

[Thinking Skins]

One thing I've noticed about the rating threads is that when I sort threads by rating, I'm not sure if the date is taken into account, but I'm not sure if I want to see a 5 star post that was put out in January before I see a 4 star post that was put out 10 minutes ago.

But I'm definately not here to criticize. I enjoy the thread rating system as it allows me to see which threads are filled with fluff and little content.

[Park City Skins]

But I think that with the ability to rate threads, and the ability to sort threads by rating, all the posters who post comments like "this thread is stupid" can be told (via PM), "well if you believe that then give this a rating of 1 star, and don't bother posting because posting just keeps it at the top of the MB".
Maybe that is part of the system in place, but that still doesn't address what I said. What I said, (and I believe this), is part and parcel of the whole idea. The rating of threads can be and is subject to the particular interest of the individuals reading and rating the threads. Put it this way. As I've stated many times in the past, it's like looking at art work in a gallery. Some people will look at a painting and call it "brilliant." Some will look at it and say "Who spilled the paint?"

[Thinking Skins]

I guess the next question should really be should each person's vote count for the same value?

As a longtime member who doesn't post too often, I wonder if the length of time you've been a member of extremeskins should be used instead of the number of posts you have. Because what I see is people trying to change their avator, and thus doing direct violations of the rules where they post spam messages just to increase their post count. Maybe we should use a combination of the time you've been a member at Extremeskins and the number of posts you have, but I know there are many people who have been here since the beginning of extremeskins who don't have 10,000 posts to their name, but who are very concerned with the direction that these new members are taking this message board.

[Thinking Skins]

Maybe that is part of the system in place, but that still doesn't address what I said. What I said, (and I believe this), is part and parcel of the whole idea. The rating of threads can be and is subject to the particular interest of the individuals reading and rating the threads. Put it this way. As I've stated many times in the past, it's like looking at art work in a gallery. Some people will look at a painting and call it "brilliant." Some will look at it and say "Who spilled the paint?"

haha, I definately understand your point. I guess the hope is that the rating will just give a sample space of what the people here at extremeskins think about the thread. Just like EVERYBODY is not going to say that M.C. Escher's works are great, but they can still be rated, and tell you what a subset of the entire set of people think of Escher's work. I guess the hope is that it will balance itself out, as far as the subjectivity on the different extremes.

But I guess a good thing about the rating system right now is that it hasn't taken away the conventional ways of analyzing a thread, like number of posts, or the quality of the first few posts.

[Park City Skins]

But I guess a good thing about the rating system right now is that it hasn't taken away the conventional ways of analyzing a thread, like number of posts, or the quality of the first few posts.

Like everything else in this world, nothings perfect. The rating system has its flaws,(imho), but that's part of the deal. No solution is going to be the perfect answer. We live in an imperfect world and we're imperfect people,( I just know what's coming on that one), living in it. Of course, it's not fair to sit here as a member of this community and offer criticism of something without really offering some help in the solution department. That said, I've always been a fan of the "conventional" ways of analyzing a thread. I think that combined with the NNT policy has done a decent job of helping keep the clutter down some. What we can do as well,(aside from not being lazy and using the Search feature), is make some time for going back a page or 2 and finding some threads we may think are good topics of discussion and participating in them. We've all seen examples of some decent threads, (keeping in mind that whole subjective thing), getting buried fairly fast.

What we can also do is,( especially in certain obvious cases), not respond to threads we deem "stupid" or "dumb" or repetive. Instead of giving it a bump and keeping it at the top of the page by saying those kind of things or "in before the close", just don't say anything,(threads by trolls are of course exempt from this ;) ). Keeping in mind I've been as guilty of that as others in the past myself. Find another thread that we do like and post a response in it. In other words, let's use some common sense,restraint and patience. And then use the same in helping those who seem to be lacking in those areas along.

[Thinking Skins]

What we can do as well,(aside from not being lazy and using the Search feature), is make some time for going back a page or 2 and finding some threads we may think are good topics of discussion and participating in them. We've all seen examples of some decent threads, (keeping in mind that whole subjective thing), getting buried fairly fast.

In regards to this, I remember Jumbo getting mad at me about a year ago because I was restoring threads that were too old. So I even hesitated in replying to this thread. I need to know what's considered "too old" for a thread so that I don't get into this position again.

[glikster04]

if it has relevance, then i dont think its too old. if you have something good to say about that specific topic. dont bump it tho just to bump it

[ALLWORLD]

if it has relevance, then i dont think its too old. if you have something good to say about that specific topic. dont bump it tho just to bump it

Yeah I agree with you. Also its always good to have the older posts reviewed like say people who down a certain draft pick or acquistion and you bring that thread back in say, week 12 when CJ is doing great/poorly or G Adams/A Branch are/arent turning out to be what they were supposed to be or Springs is on another team tearing it up etc etc

[SKINS FAN #56]

sounds cool! :applause:

[Park City Skins]

Also its always good to have the older posts reviewed like say people who down a certain draft pick or acquistion and you bring that thread back in say, week 12 when CJ is doing great/poorly or G Adams/A Branch are/arent turning out to be what they were supposed to be or Springs is on another team tearing it up etc etc

The "I told you so bumps" as they're sometimes called. Someone's 50% chance of being right turns out good for them and next thing you know several other's 50% chance of being wrong comes back to haunt them. Those have been around on the board since I can remember.

[Om]

As I mentioned earlier ... be an educated consumer on this stuff.

When looking at a "rating," be sure to hover your mouse pointer over it to see how many people have voted . Given that thread starters can rate their own threads, a 5-star rating may mean nothing more than the OP wasn't shy about pimping his own work. :)

Same with a 1-star rating obviously. Poster X posts a thread. Poster Y, who happens to think Poster X is a serial moron, automatically rates the thread 1 star just to stick a finger in Poster X's cybereye.

We are not a fully evolved species yet.

As a general rule, the more ratings "votes" a given thread gets, the more meaningful (subjectively, of course) the rating becomes.

[Monte51Coleman]

sounds cool! :applause:

This type of post is exactly what is being discussed.

Good timing.

(Mine too, probably.) :laugh:

[Die Hard]

How about rating replies? :)

[Jumbo]

In regards to this, I remember Jumbo getting mad at me about a year ago because I was restoring threads that were too old. So I even hesitated in replying to this thread. I need to know what's considered "too old" for a thread so that I don't get into this position again.


I remember that---I like the "getting mad" thing :laugh: ---but I didn't do anything to you except make a comment, right? :D

I still have that issue, too :laugh:

But you are a great ES'er TS :cool:

There is no official "too old". But we are all free to make editorial comments as members, and there are possible board behaviors that can't be expected to be accounted for in the rules. Even the law books don't cover everything and require judgement and interpretation sometimes :) . Say you bumped a dozen old threads over a few hours, I'd ask "wtf are you doing?" and maybe freeze you 'till I know :laugh:

[InsaneBoost]

We should have a rating system for users. On one of the forums im on you can give reputation to people. Pretty cool idea, unless you are hated big time.

[Om]

We should have a rating system for users. On one of the forums im on you can give reputation to people. Pretty cool idea, unless you are hated big time.
I disagree. ES history has shown we have many users here who would wear a low "user rating" like a badge of honor, claiming they're being singled out and persecuted for "speaking the truth."

[InsaneBoost]

I disagree. ES history has shown we have many users here who would wear a low "user rating" like a badge of honor, claiming they're being singled out and persecuted for "speaking the truth."


You're probably right now that I think about it.

[Thinking Skins]

I disagree. ES history has shown we have many users here who would wear a low "user rating" like a badge of honor, claiming they're being singled out and persecuted for "speaking the truth."

Yeah, I agree with this too. I can only think that a poster like MrMadd would have an extremely low rating because of some of the arguments he gets into in his threads, even though he does normally post very logical arguments.

[SkinsNatsFan]

I disagree. ES history has shown we have many users here who would wear a low "user rating" like a badge of honor, claiming they're being singled out and persecuted for "speaking the truth."

I say stone em!

[Om]

I say stone em!
Not a bad idea actually.

Hard to type up vitriolic rants when you're on a munchie raid.

[HoyaSkins28]

this will be fun :)

[TorresA]

So, I just turned on the rate threads option for a couple of forums that didn't have it. This is a way for you to rate a thread you're reading. If you guys use it, threads that are highly ranked can be ordered by you to appear at the top where lower ranked threads can be on the bottom. This gives you guys a chance to quickly lowly rate a thread that is a duplicate or is stupid so people who have the forums displayed by rating might not even see some of those threads.

Give it a shot. Maybe we'll think about adding reputation as well.

Great Post.. I gave it 5 stars

[Major Harris]

We are not a fully evolved species yet.

now that's the truth.