Thread Rating:

AcesAndEights
AcesAndEights
Joined: Jan 5, 2012
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 4299
February 26th, 2014 at 4:38:17 PM permalink
Quote: sodawater

Yes. The best forums on the Web all have ways to reward good posts. A thumbs up/thumbs down button is a must.


Babs seems to think the opposite:
Quote: beachbumbabs

I'm glad that thread ranking gets almost no use. And member and/or post rankings can and will get horribly abused if implemented, with lots of hard feelings; been there, done it, had to disable it or nuke the forum, it got so bad. I would suggest we leave the rankings part alone.


Personally I don't care.
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer
Face
Administrator
Face
Joined: Dec 27, 2010
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 4448
February 26th, 2014 at 6:54:14 PM permalink
Quote: sodawater

Yes. The best forums on the Web all have ways to reward good posts. A thumbs up/thumbs down button is a must.



I think, if it were to work, it would have to be tied directly to the poster.

We have a thread rater here already. It is rarely used. As Doc pointed out, even his hugely popular thread has only 6 votes. And with so few voters, it is easy to skew. Remember when Varmenti went and 5 starred all his stuff? Then other people went in to counteract him? The thread stars mean little.

But if said stars or +1's went directly to an accumulating total for the poster, maybe it'd be something. A sort of "rep counter".

But you'd have to disclude -1's or thumbs down, because the butthurt would be epic.

(Damn Mission, got me using odd words without thinking about it)
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
February 26th, 2014 at 7:26:40 PM permalink
Quote: Face

I think, if it were to work, it would have to be tied directly to the poster.

We have a thread rater here already. It is rarely used. As Doc pointed out, even his hugely popular thread has only 6 votes. And with so few voters, it is easy to skew. Remember when Varmenti went and 5 starred all his stuff? Then other people went in to counteract him? The thread stars mean little.

But if said stars or +1's went directly to an accumulating total for the poster, maybe it'd be something. A sort of "rep counter".

But you'd have to disclude -1's or thumbs down, because the butthurt would be epic.

(Damn Mission, got me using odd words without thinking about it)



In fairness, it took me several months to find the little "rate" thing for threads.

I still haven't figured out how to block somebody with fewer than this many clicks:

Preferences > Click here to manage blocked members > Click here to browse list of all members

Then sift through the list off all members looking for the person you want to block, and then click block.

Is there a faster way?
aceofspades
aceofspades
Joined: Apr 4, 2012
  • Threads: 366
  • Posts: 6506
February 26th, 2014 at 8:20:11 PM permalink
Quote: GH

I don't know what forum software Mike uses, but I noticed some sites use software that allows members to "vote" on the quality of a person's posts; which affects their ranking.




They had this on a fitness forum I used to post on and all it did was create drama and "rep trading" (rep = reputation points)
miplet
miplet
Joined: Dec 1, 2009
  • Threads: 5
  • Posts: 2042
February 26th, 2014 at 8:37:38 PM permalink
Quote: AxiomOfChoice

In fairness, it took me several months to find the little "rate" thing for threads.

I still haven't figured out how to block somebody with fewer than this many clicks:

Preferences > Click here to manage blocked members > Click here to browse list of all members

Then sift through the list off all members looking for the person you want to block, and then click block.

Is there a faster way?


Click on user name. Change the word member to block in the URL.
“Man Babes” #AxelFabulous
AxiomOfChoice
AxiomOfChoice
Joined: Sep 12, 2012
  • Threads: 32
  • Posts: 5761
February 26th, 2014 at 8:42:06 PM permalink
Quote: miplet

Click on user name. Change the word member to block in the URL.



Nice! That works really well. There was someone who I had been meaning to block for a while but I hadn't gotten around to it because I was too lazy.
Buzzard
Buzzard
Joined: Oct 28, 2012
  • Threads: 90
  • Posts: 6814
February 26th, 2014 at 8:48:20 PM permalink
Is it alright if people just post ? Oh, what a silly question. We absolutely must quantify and qualify everything.

Otherwise this will just turn into a gambling forum !
Shed not for her the bitter tear Nor give the heart to vain regret Tis but the casket that lies here, The gem that filled it Sparkles yet
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
  • Threads: 212
  • Posts: 8277
February 26th, 2014 at 8:52:46 PM permalink
None of it means anything to me. I really could care less about how many posts anyone has including myself. Reputations are just as phoney. Thumbs up, thumbs down, stupid and just a popularity contest.
I am a robot.
kubikulann
kubikulann
Joined: Jun 28, 2011
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 905
February 27th, 2014 at 6:54:58 AM permalink
Quote: Buzzard

Is it alright if people just post ? Oh, what a silly question. We absolutely must quantify and qualify everything.

Otherwise this will just turn into a gambling forum !


+1

There, I got one more post! -- how silly --
Reperiet qui quaesiverit
kubikulann
kubikulann
Joined: Jun 28, 2011
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 905
February 27th, 2014 at 7:05:07 AM permalink
So, the situation seems to be:
1) Newest members is a feature only useful for admins. I guess it can be made available to them alone.
2) Top Contributors, Top Threads, etc does not seem to bring useful info to a majority of members, but appears desirable to another minority.
One default: putting too much emphasis on it might create incentive to overpost. Solution: make it available but not conspicuous.
Other default: it does not discriminate between older threads / ancient-or-disappeared members and present threads / contributors. Solution: some sort of weighting according to time elapsed (like in sports or chess rankings). That shouldn't be difficult to add to the code, I'm assuming.
Reperiet qui quaesiverit

  • Jump to: