View Full Version : To Make the Holonet a Better Place

22 April 2002, 05:05 PM
I noticed something that Dgwsen pointed out. People get lower rating then they like. I think anyone who has a rating less then 3 we should vote higher on them. Everyone who is a member of this site is an above average gamer. And be kind don't shout. If we did this people would be happier which would lead to more Productive Posts.

"Don't rate low, rate high"

Chris Curtis
22 April 2002, 07:53 PM
On the contrary, I think that when you're voting for someone you should vote what they deserve. If the posts they make are average for the members of the HoloNet, then give them a 3. If they're particularly helpful, polite, knowledgeable, etc., then vote a 4 or 5. Conversely, if they're unhelpful, rude, and don't seem to contribute much, then they may deserve a 2 or even 1.

Don't vote higher (or lower) for a person just to help compensate for what you think their rating should be. Either vote what they rightfully deserve or don't vote at all. In the end, though, the ratings really aren't that important and are more just "fluff" than anything else. Nice to have, certainly, but not absolutely necessary.

Oh, and as for everyone on the HoloNet being an "above average gamer", that may well be so. However, that just means that a "3" here would be better than the same "3" somewhere else. :D

Aaron B'Aviv
22 April 2002, 07:54 PM
Ratings aren't designed to pad egos. They're designed to comment on the quality of people's posting.

I don't give ratings too often. I haven't had cause to give any low ratings, thankfully, but I've given fives to people I consider to make consistent exceptionally valuable contribution to the HoloNet. If a person doesn't meet that subjective standard, I don't give them a rating, but merely let them stay where they are.

If a person is below a 3, he obviously has made some posts that people felt were inconsiderate or unhelpful. If you haven't seen the posts that inspired the rating, don't feel obligated to boost the person's rating without cause. In fact, it'll be useful for new members to see that the majority of the HoloNet considers the person's posts below average. They wouldn't otherwise know that, for example, Rigil Kent gives excellent advice, or that somebody tends to trollish behavior. ( I say somebody for two reasons. Firstly, because I can't think of anybody like this. Secondly because even if I did, I wouldn't want to insult them)

Talonne Hauk
22 April 2002, 08:10 PM
I agree. So long as you rank someone honestly, they deserve what you give them. After all, it shows that they have room to improve. Having said that, if you give someone a low ranking, I think it's incumbent upon you to follow that person up to see if they improve, and rerank them accordingly.

23 April 2002, 06:09 PM
But people don't.

23 April 2002, 06:41 PM
Au contraire. That's what I've done. Usually, I only rate someone down if I see them flaming someone else -- calling them a moron, telling them to get a clue, whatever. I won't mod someone down because I disagree with them or don't like their ideas.

However, if I do see someone who makes a really great, insightful post, I will bump them up one, because a truly insightful post goes a long way in my view. If I see their name again, next to another insightful post -- or several -- I'll check my rating for them, and if it's already at Good, I might bump them up to Great. It depends.

I try to use the Golden Rule when voting for users -- I treat them as I would like to be treated.

Reverend Strone
23 April 2002, 11:13 PM
dgswensen put it very nicely. That's been my policy from the outset here. Someone has to really honk me off to get anything below a 3 from me, and the only way to do that would be if they were rude, unpleasant or a menace. The only person I've ever voted low was banned, so I figure I must be thinking on similar lines to the Webmasters regarding my vote policy.

The votes are a feedback tool, and I generally encourage generous voting, but there's a point at which if you start handing out top marks all the time to anyone, it takes the value away from those who really do raise the bar with their contributions.

In the end, as has been pointed out, it's not worth fretting too much over the ratings. They serve a purpose, but they're not designed to affect one's self-esteem and should never be interpreted as seriously as that.

Talonne Hauk
24 April 2002, 02:12 AM
Exactly. I don't mean to single you out Rouge8, but you started this thread. There was a time when you were deserving of a low ranking, IMHO, because you asked for help and then turned around and lambasted people for offering constructive criticism. But lately you've been offering more insightful posts and engendering a more pleasant demeanor. I still think you might have room to improve, (Don't we all?) but I've reranked you accordingly.

24 April 2002, 06:02 PM
No, I get angry to easy and had a bad day. O.K. Who wants to punch me besides me? I got angry again.