Maximizing Engagement: The Power of Message-Rating Polls

  • Thread starter Thread starter hemmul
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the need for a message-ranking system, with concerns raised about potential misuse by unreliable users. Some participants argue that such a system could devolve into a popularity contest and complicate the current rating process. Suggestions include modifying the existing thread rating system to improve clarity, as the current star ratings are deemed confusing. There is a consensus that credible posts are already recognized by knowledgeable users, making a new ranking system unnecessary. Overall, the conversation highlights the importance of maintaining a straightforward and effective method for evaluating posts.

do we need a [url=http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=330560&postcount=26][b]


  • Total voters
    8
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't want cranks and crazies ranking my posts...is there some way we can identify and tag them ?
 
Gokul43201 said:
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! :smile:

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Yes, those two intermediate stars just make the system totally incomprehensible. :confused:

- Warren
 
Are you being sarcastic?
 
chroot said:
Yes, those two intermediate stars just make the system totally incomprehensible. :confused:

- 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. :biggrin:
 
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?
 

Similar threads

Replies
102
Views
10K
Replies
90
Views
8K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
30
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
2K
Replies
147
Views
18K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Back
Top