Rate Thread: Meaning & Effect Explained

  • Thread starter Thread starter nvn
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The "Rate thread" feature allows users to give feedback on a discussion, but its specific impact and functionality are unclear. It's uncertain whether the rating applies only to the original post or to all replies within the thread. Users express skepticism about the effectiveness of thread ratings, suggesting they might not accurately reflect the quality of the content. There is also speculation that the rating system was once active but has since been disabled, leading to inconsistencies in older threads. Overall, the consensus leans towards the belief that threads should be evaluated based on their content rather than subjective ratings.
nvn
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
2,128
Reaction score
32
When we reply to a thread, there is a "Rate thread" pull-down menu. What does it mean? And if we select a rating, what effect does it have?

Also, does the rating apply only to post 1? Or does (can) it apply to a specific non-OP reply post within the thread? Or, instead, does it apply to all previous replies plus post 1?

Also, is there any way to see which threads have a high rating, and which threads have a low rating, or something like that? Just wondering what this menu means, and its effect.

I did a quick search, but did not find instructions about this menu yet.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think the ability to rate a thread overall is inbuilt to the software we use but it has been disabled. I suspect this is why very old threads sometimes have a 1-5 scale next to their name perhaps from when the site was young and this feature was enabled. Personally I think that thread rating is a bad idea and that threads should stand on their own merits rather than the possibly flawed* opinion of it's readers.

*by flawed opinion I mean the metrics by which a user rates a thread which could be unrelated to how good the science in it is.
 
Ryan_m_b said:
I think that thread rating is a bad idea and that threads should stand on their own merits rather than the possibly flawed* opinion of it's readers.

*by flawed opinion I mean the metrics by which a user rates a thread which could be unrelated to how good the science in it is.

Yeah, especially with a certain user lurks about whose ID ends in "wuino", his threads would all be self-rated very high, lol.

Rhody...
 
I want to thank those members who interacted with me a couple of years ago in two Optics Forum threads. They were @Drakkith, @hutchphd, @Gleb1964, and @KAHR-Alpha. I had something I wanted the scientific community to know and slipped a new idea in against the rules. Thank you also to @berkeman for suggesting paths to meet with academia. Anyway, I finally got a paper on the same matter as discussed in those forum threads, the fat lens model, got it peer-reviewed, and IJRAP...
About 20 years ago, in my mid-30s (and with a BA in economics and a master's in business), I started taking night classes in physics hoping to eventually earn the science degree I'd always wanted but never pursued. I found physics forums and used it to ask questions I was unable to get answered from my textbooks or class lectures. Unfortunately, work and life got in the way and I never got further the freshman courses. Well, here it is 20 years later. I'm in my mid-50s now, and in a...

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
71
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top