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