View Poll Results: do we need a [url=http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=330560&postcount=26][b]
Yes 4 44.44%
No 5 55.56%
Voters: 9. You may not vote on this poll

[SOLVED] message-rating poll


by hemmul
Tags: messagerating, poll, solved
hemmul
#1
Oct2-04, 05:02 PM
P: n/a
do we need a message-ranking system?
Please, refer to a member ranking system thread for more details
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Better thermal-imaging lens from waste sulfur
Hackathon team's GoogolPlex gives Siri extra powers
Bright points in Sun's atmosphere mark patterns deep in its interior
Gokul43201
Gokul43201 is offline
#2
Oct2-04, 06:41 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Gokul43201's Avatar
P: 11,154
I don't want cranks and crazies ranking my posts...is there some way we can identify and tag them ?
Moonbear
Moonbear is offline
#3
Oct2-04, 06:54 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Moonbear's Avatar
P: 12,257
Quote Quote by Gokul43201
I don't want cranks and crazies ranking my posts...is there some way we can identify and tag them ?
Now that would be a useful feature!

I think such a system for ranking individual messages is unnecessary, and likely to turn into more of a popularity contest. And, yeah, I don't want the p-ed off cranks rating my posts either!

It also seems like such a plan to rank individual posts would be overly complicated to implement, and probably wouldn't add much value.

Chronos
Chronos is offline
#4
Oct4-04, 01:59 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Chronos's Avatar
P: 9,178

[SOLVED] message-rating poll


The current system works just fine. Credible posts are easily recognized by those who understand the topic. Medals just identify those who give consistently reliable information.
Bystander
Bystander is offline
#5
Oct12-04, 09:17 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
P: 1,382
Might be worth modifying the thread rating system --- one star bad to five stars good isn't too clear. Good (thumb up), bad (thumb down), and so-so (??) might come closer to being used, and to being easily interpreted. Just a thought.
chroot
chroot is offline
#6
Oct12-04, 09:19 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
chroot's Avatar
P: 10,424
Yes, those two intermediate stars just make the system totally incomprehensible.

- Warren
Bystander
Bystander is offline
#7
Oct12-04, 09:43 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
P: 1,382
Are you being sarcastic?
Moonbear
Moonbear is offline
#8
Oct12-04, 11:33 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Moonbear's Avatar
P: 12,257
Quote Quote by chroot
Yes, those two intermediate stars just make the system totally incomprehensible.

- Warren
I think what he was suggesting, if there's no static on the mind-reading frequency, is that a thread that gets a "bad" rating (one star) looks like it's better than an un-rated thread (no stars). So, I think he's suggesting to come up with symbols other than stars for threads rated lower than average (or whatever the middle stars are). It's one of those things meaningful to those of us conditioned by our primary school teachers to do extraordinary amounts of work to get the coveted prize of a gold star.
Bystander
Bystander is offline
#9
Oct13-04, 02:04 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
P: 1,382
Give that man (woman?) a cigar!

We're rid of the "doublespeak" re. crackpots and TD --- let's stop throwing flowers to both good and bad threads. ---and, what? three stars equals no stars?


Register to reply

Related Discussions
[SOLVED] straw poll: please indicate your current assessment of the General Physics 0
Bush approval rating rebounds in new poll Current Events 22
[SOLVED] Featured Poll Forum Feedback & Announcements 1
[SOLVED] poll: lord of creation General Discussion 1