NEW: Members feedback/ratings

ap-bot

31st March 2006 - 10:47 AM

To encourage members to contribute and build up a reputation in the community, PhysOrg Forum introduces a feedback rating system. Feedback ratings are used to determine each member's feedback score. A positive rating adds 1 to the score, a negative rating decreases it by 1.

Once posted, feedback cannot be edited or deleted by anyone except PhysOrg Moderators. If you change your mind about something you posted, post a retraction.

Rules concerning Members Ratings/Feedback:

Only registered members can rate each other.
Member Ratings can only be seen by other members.
When giving feedback stick to the facts.
Refrain from personal attacks.
Obscenities and insults are not permitted.

To submit a new feedback for a member simply click View/Add Feedback link.
PhysOrg Forum Moderators regularly review your feedbacks and will make decisions based on your submissions.

555Joshua

31st March 2006 - 02:14 PM

Since most everyone here hates me, I can't see how my reputation will be helped from this.

Forum Reader

31st March 2006 - 03:59 PM

You've got already 1 positive feedback, so it is not that bad in the end ...

"THEY"

31st March 2006 - 06:30 PM

Great idea. Maybe it will make people be more accountable for themselves. But then the people who are jerks here will probably continue to be a jerk to see how poor of a score they can get. But then hopefully, for the youth (and older farts like me) who come here for some education, we can easily figure out who is full of crap and who is genuine in their knowledge. Hopefully the immature won't take advantage of this either...........

Who loves ya baby?!!

jal

31st March 2006 - 07:17 PM

I would expect that, in my threads, a posting which impedes the flow of information, would be edited by the offending person, when I so request it. Otherwise, I would give a negative rating.

Editing would eliminate the conspiracy of shutting off the flow of knowledge. Not all computer users want to wait for the download of pictures. If they do, they only get to see something totally irrelevant.

editing can be done anytime.
jal

edit: I have no objections to someone leaving a "go to" link to get more information on their ideas/presentations

Drude

1st April 2006 - 01:26 AM

It would simply create what some might view as forum "alliances" where ppl of the same nationality, political, or religious views would unite to form a sort of a hostile, childish forum dynamic that is the inevitable result of such classification. I dont care what you people think it might serve, IMO it is just a lable. Might as well start hanging out david star lables to the jews while we are at it!

QUOTE

Great idea. Maybe it will make people be more accountable for themselves.

If any member here wants to misbehave they can simply post under the "guest" name; why then do you think this new system can have any effect on their so called un"accountable" behavior?

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Great idea. Maybe it will make people be more accountable for themselves.

If any member here wants to misbehave they can simply post under the "guest" name; why then do you think this new system can have any effect on their so called un"accountable" behavior?

we can easily figure out who is full of crap and who is genuine in their knowledge.

that is of course if you are not full of it urself. The point is it is all in the eyes of the beholder. Arguments sometimes are not clear cut right or wrong (well at least to a neutral observer).

Oh, and it is flawed, you can give yourself points negative or positive.

QUOTE

Rules concerning Members Ratings/Feedback:
Only registered members can rate each other.
Member Ratings can only be seen by other members.
When giving feedback stick to the facts.
Refrain from personal attacks.
Obscenities and insults are not permitted.

Does not say I cant rate myself.

jal

1st April 2006 - 01:59 AM

Drude,....

You are comming from a very negative point of view. We are living in a arena where freedom of expression is allowed. You have someone using that system to our disadvantage. They are surpressing our very liberty, by twisting and by overpowering the thread with their ideas. You will lose this freedom of expression if you do not act to prevent the missuse of our freedom. If you want freedom you must be constantly on the watch to prevent those who would turn the table on you.
jal

Drude

1st April 2006 - 02:43 AM

QUOTE

You will lose this freedom of expression if you do not act to prevent the missuse of our freedom. If you want freedom you must be constantly on the watch to prevent those who would turn the table on you.

yes, lets blow the whole world up because one day they might come across to disagree with us. Spoken like a true American.

jal

1st April 2006 - 02:47 AM

I'm not American

I just enjoy freedom
jal

Drude

1st April 2006 - 02:52 AM

sure you do. Anyways, since this system shows no sign to the outsides, only the members can read the flaws I found with it. Anyhow, I am off to work, cant bother here any longer.

p.s. no offense to the admins or anybody who is in any form or shape associated with this.

ap-bot

1st April 2006 - 02:04 PM

Few bugs have been fixed, like from now on you cannot rate yourself (thanks for the hint Drude

)

Confused2

1st April 2006 - 03:50 PM

Howzabout diluting it a bit by giving everybody 10 free brownie points to start off with. Otherwise I fear I doomed to live a pointless existence

.

-C2.

Would anybody like to, er, gain a brownie point, for, er , like a positive gesture.. it will be worth it

Confused2

1st April 2006 - 04:20 PM

We've been tricked

.. I look to see who's given me the brownie point and it says 'You can't rate yourself'

so I can't see who gave me the brownie point and I can't, er, thank them

. A PM is required here... quick before the brownie point monitors block that route too.

-C2.

ap-bot

1st April 2006 - 05:26 PM

QUOTE

We've been tricked .. I look to see who's given me the brownie point and it says 'You can't rate yourself' so I can't see who gave me the brownie point and I can't, er, thank them

Thank you for feedback, Confused2.

This has been fixed: you may look, but cannot vote

newguy

2nd April 2006 - 02:30 AM

I had posted a question, but I found the answer myself. Never mind. Sorry.

Drude

2nd April 2006 - 03:52 AM

QUOTE

thanks for the hint Drude

thank u for taking it into consideration.

Confused2

2nd April 2006 - 06:44 PM

Could we have a few clues about the intended use of these brownie points please.

Examples (pointworthy or not pointworthy?)

1/ Someone has obviously spent a great deal of time on a single reply .. it clarifies.. it illuminates..

2/ Someone has obviously spent a great deal of time on a single reply .. it clarifies the fact that they have no real understanding of the subject.. but they've worked hard on it.

3/ Someone consistently posts happy, cheerful posts .. no great advance but always a welcome contribution..

Be generous or be mean?

5/Give one point away every three years

6/ Give a point maybe every day .. probably (ultimately) to every member you deal with who is not consistently 'negative'?

C2

jal

3rd April 2006 - 03:09 AM

Can I give repeated good ratings to my girlfriend?
How about giving repeated bad ratings to the guy who stole my girlfriend?
Do you really want to hear/read the same thing over and over?
jal

ap-bot

3rd April 2006 - 08:55 AM

QUOTE

How about giving repeated bad ratings to the guy who stole my girlfriend?
Do you really want to hear/read the same thing over and over?

Hi jal,

You may give repeated ratings, but we also count number of unique feebacks.

So if one will decide that it would be fun try to abuse this service with repeated bad/good ratings, he/she will be banned temporarily or permanently from this forum

555Joshua

3rd April 2006 - 11:05 AM

QUOTE (Drude+Mar 31 2006, 09:43 PM)

QUOTE

yes, lets blow the whole world up because one day they might come across to disagree with us. Spoken like a true American.

Hey!

I'm American.

555Joshua

3rd April 2006 - 11:09 AM

Okay, I have one person who without a doubt hates me. If he hates me enough, he could give me -1000 points.

555Joshua

3rd April 2006 - 02:12 PM

It looks like I've gone hyper.

Okay, what if members can only rate a specific person once a day, week or month? That would stop a lot of nonesense, wouldn't it?

ap-bot

3rd April 2006 - 04:51 PM

QUOTE

Okay, what if members can only rate a specific person once a day, week or month? That would stop a lot of nonesense, wouldn't it?

Due to unforeseen popularity of the feedback rating service, you may rate a specific person once a week from now on....

Thanks, 555Joshua

Zephir

6th April 2006 - 11:18 AM

QUOTE (ap-bot+Apr 3 2006, 07:51 PM)

Due to unforeseen popularity of the feedback rating service, you may rate a specific person once a week from now on..

Hello!

Your forum is simply excellent and comfortable, especially with respect of luxurious spell checker service, which I've found very useful, personally! It has a very good Google SEO rating, which is very useful, too (I'm using a Google as a full-text search engine, here).

Well done job, guys!

Concerning the Members feedback/ratings, I would recommend to weight the percents given by membership level, because I'm rated by some members (like ULTRA ) with no relevant posts, here (i.e. by anonyms, in fact).

Maybe more detailed percent level in rating would be useful, too.

TRoc

6th April 2006 - 04:16 PM

admin

Also, a negative from my view, is that the "typical" person who might deserve a negative rating would only respond to a negative rating by going to that persons score, and post a negative reply. A tit for a tat, and quite pointless, as far as someone trying to use the score for evaluation.

This encourages an abundance of positive reviews: you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours kind of thing.

Anonymity among member ratings would seem to evoke more honest evaluations, and the limit of one evaluation per member (by same member) would keep ever body on a level playing field among peers.

just 2 cents...

T.Roc

Kaeroll

6th April 2006 - 05:10 PM

QUOTE (TRoc+Apr 6 2006, 05:16 PM)

That occurred to me too. I disagree on one point, though - multiple ratings should be allowed, I feel, as opinions change.

Kaeroll

ap-bot

7th April 2006 - 08:46 AM

QUOTE

I disagree on one point, though - multiple ratings should be allowed, I feel, as opinions change.

Multiple ratings are allowed, but you are not allowed to rate the same member more than once within 1 week period.

555Joshua

7th April 2006 - 12:46 PM

QUOTE (ap-bot+)

Multiple ratings are allowed, but you are not allowed to rate the same member more than once within 1 week period.

Yeah, this prevents people like me from stalking.

ourmanflint

11th April 2006 - 06:14 PM

QUOTE (Zephir+Apr 6 2006, 11:18 AM)

QUOTE (ap-bot+Apr 3 2006, 07:51 PM)

Due to unforeseen popularity of the feedback rating service, you may rate a specific person once a week from now on..

I second everything Zephir has said... particularly the non-posting "Ultra"

I suggest a minimum 50 posts before being able to give feedback to stop these pointless attacks. They do no harm, but then thay are not funny either!!!

newton

19th April 2006 - 06:36 AM

i find this system brings personal bias into a science forum for no good reason.
is this 'peer review'? really?
the tit for tat thing is a good point. i was hoping my 'score' would sit at zero, no compliments, no attacks. o well, lol.
however, as soon as i am 'attacked', or i see other good people attacked by the same posters, i feel i need to 'balance' the perception a 'lurker'(ie. member, but not active in a long thread/discussion/concept war) would get by reading the comments, by adding positive scores for the 'good' guys, and giving negatives to my 'assailants'.
this wastes time which could be better spent thinking.
this forum should stand on science, not on who thinks who else is an arse, imho.

i prefer insults to be up close and personal. the rating system just feels 'dirty' to me. a social mudpit. yuck.

Confused2

19th April 2006 - 10:59 AM

It may not be immediately obvious but .. the rating says as much about the person giving the rating as it does about the person being rated.

If you read several carefully prepared and thoughtful responses from someone and you see they are unrated .. this is more a failure of the people doing the rating rather than the rating system itself... there is an obvious way to rectify the omission.

-C2.

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.