The Promote / Demote thing

[geo]

I will toss in my vote to Roy Harding on this subject.
Didn't think much of the rating system before and don't think much of it now...
WRT the negatives, it's hard to know what post(s) ticked people off and why.
Would I answer differently:  Probably not.... but that's just me.

 

[navymich]

Would I answer differently:  Probably not.... but that's just me.

Not just you geo.  Yes, I do bite my tongue sometimes with my posts, but typically I say what is on my mind.  It's like real life.  If you are always worrying about what somebody thinks of what you say or how you say, nothing would ever get said properly.

 

[ClaytonD]

What about when you accidentally demote someone when you meant to promote them? I kind of feel bad because I did that to someone just now. Is there any way it can be fixed?

 

[George Wallace]

What about when you accidentally demote someone when you meant to promote them? I kind of feel bad because I did that to someone just now. Is there any way it can be fixed?

It's like stepping out the door of a Herc at 30,000 feet.  There's no getting back in. 

You may be nice to them an promote them later, or not worry about it.  It isn't really a popularity contest, although some play it as such when they get mad. 

Like the song says....."Relax.....Don't do it!" ...........  again.  ;D

 

[George Wallace]

Just on another note: 

Many of the people who are so keen on using the demote button, are not the type that the CF would like to have.  They are people who tend to take everything "personal" when in fact it is not.  They will never survive in the military if they allow such emotions to rule their thought processes.  There is no room for that sort of thing in the CF.  It has serious effects on unit morale, and usually brands these people as whiners and complainers and undesirables.  In the end, they are usually the ones who leave the CF with the big chips on their shoulders.  So on that note, what does this say about the ratings system and how to interpret it?  :-\

 

[niceasdrhuxtable]

I'm surprised with the vote the way it stands right now with almost 2/3 being against the rating system. Quite honestly I figured the numbers would be just the opposite.

 

[George Wallace]

I'm surprised with the vote the way it stands right now with almost 2/3 being against the rating system. Quite honestly I figured the numbers would be just the opposite.

I guess 'vanity' isn't as strong a personal trait amongst Army.ca members as elsewhere.  ;D

 

[Bobby Rico]

Question is does the rating system actually serve any other purpose besides allowing those with positive ratings to have some kind of feeling of self-importance?  I don't really think it does, but apparently according to my current rating, nobody gives two shits about my opinions.  Needless stratification.

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

It's not about making people feel anything, it's about giving others an additional data point that they can use to asses your overall contribution here.

 

[Bobby Rico]

I'm sure that's the intent Mike, but as other people have already pointed out, a system this loose can easily become abused- especially given how many guests pop up for one day, and never come back.  I mean, I could be a complete twit right now, create a new account just to go around having a field day lowering people's ratings.  Not only that, but people have disagreements with other people on these boards, and even if someone argues in an intelligent meaningful way, the person or persons who disagree with that person might lower that person's ratings for spite, even if that person has made a good argument.  But according to that person's rating, people will have the impression that that person posts a lot of BS.  And getting back to my original point, whether the system is designed to make someone feel a certain way or isn't, that's likely going to be a natural response people will have.  They'll see people with lower ratings, and think this person is a bad poster and somehow his opinions mean less than mine, and so forth.  And then there may be a load of kiss asses on here who are constantly giving higher ratings to people undeserving.

Frankly, I just think it's not a very good systems for what it's designed to do.  Too many variables to make it unreliable.  People shouldn't need some outside source to be able to assess the (apparent) value of another poster- rather just allow people to figure it out for themselves without something to influence their opinions.

 

[George Wallace]

I'm sure that's the intent Mike, but as other people have already pointed out, a system this loose can easily become abused- especially given how many guests pop up for one day, and never come back.  I mean, I could be a complete twit right now, create a new account just to go around having a field day lowering people's ratings. 

And the Mods would have the pleasure of BANNING you and all your accounts as soon as you made your first such post.   >

Not only that, but people have disagreements with other people on these boards, and even if someone argues in an intelligent meaningful way, the person or persons who disagree with that person might lower that person's ratings for spite, even if that person has made a good argument. 

A chance we all take.  It only shows the pettiness of some people, and then what goes around, usually comes around.  They get caught eventually and suffer worse.

But according to that person's rating, people will have the impression that that person posts a lot of BS.

No one will constantly make good posts.  Everyone of us makes a bad post from time to time.  Even someone with a poor rating can make a good post.  Their rating should not affect their good posts, so judge the post; not the rating.

  And getting back to my original point, whether the system is designed to make someone feel a certain way or isn't, that's likely going to be a natural response people will have.  They'll see people with lower ratings, and think this person is a bad poster and somehow his opinions mean less than mine, and so forth.  And then there may be a load of kiss asses on here who are constantly giving higher ratings to people undeserving.

Again, you are talking about pettiness and people's vanities.  Hopefully, there are very few on this site who fall into that category.  Those that do, usually don't last long here either.

Frankly, I just think it's not a very good systems for what it's designed to do.  Too many variables to make it unreliable.  People shouldn't need some outside source to be able to assess the (apparent) value of another poster- rather just allow people to figure it out for themselves without something to influence their opinions.

Such is life on this planet called Earth and being a member of the Human Race.  No one is perfect.  Mike wants this to work, and only by being honest and truthful in you ratings of people will it work.  This doesn't mean that you have to rate everyone, and every post made on the site.  It means that for those exceptional posts, good or bad, you have an "option" to rate a person.  We are very democratic here.  You don't have to if you don't want to.  You just have the option to if you want to.

 

[freeze_time311]

We are very democratic here.  You don't have to if you don't want to.  You just have the option to if you want to.

Very well put. +1

And this is a perfect example. George made some very good points in this post. In my opinion, that deserves a +1. And it's been said in the past, the people abusing the system will be weeded out eventually. If they are long time users of milnet.ca and still abuse the system, they shouldn't be here anyway, and the mods will let all of us know who they are by placing a nice little BANNED sign right underneath there names.

The system will be accurate, all in good time.

                                              Jimmy

 

[Bobby Rico]

Good rebuttal George.  If nothing else I partly agree with the principal of the system, just not really the execution.  I've been around this ol' internet a few times, and have just found that there is a GROSS majority of people out there that use the anonymity factor of the internet to be shit disturbers.  Mind you, these forums tend to not have many of them here as you've pointed out, but there's no denying they're out there, and would be happy to corrupt a system like this for their own amusement.

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

Bobby,

You need to have 25 posts before you can rate someone else, so your guest account idea has already been dealt with. Also, as has been pointed out, those who rate "against the grain" to be personally malicious or vindictive will be minor in comparison to those who use the system properly. So I expect even the best poster will have some negatives and the worst troll may have the odd positive... but overall the ratings will tell the real story.

 

[Roy Harding]

Personally, I don't care one way or the other, and haven't voted.

I can see that it might turn into a popularity contest (especially amongst the younger crowd here - I'm thinking of the Cadet threads).  I can also see how it MIGHT enable someone new on the site to make a judgement regarding a poster's "credibility".  I'm not sure that any "virtual" credibility I might earn here in any way translates to the real world - but can see it as a minorly useful tool for that purpose.

I'm not a big fan of smilies (although I do use them occasionally), either - but if using smilies gives someone a charge, I don't object to them either.  I don't use the "status" thing Mike put up either - but do find some of the statements found there amusing.  My display is set up to NOT see peoples avatars - but some folks get great joy out of seeing them.

What I'm saying is that Mike offers a great "menu" of choices here - you don't need to use every item on the menu to have a good time participating - and if you don't want to use a certain item - then don't. 

If these little features don't require a great deal of time to manage, and have an appeal to some on the board, then I don't see the harm.

Edit:  Missed a word.

Bobby Rico - just to reemphasize what George has said.

The site owner sees this as an "added value" which some users may enjoy.  No matter my personal opinion regarding its' usefulness to me as an individual - I see his point. 

As moderators, we watch for blatant abuse and will take the appropriate action should that abuse actually happen.  I don't recall that we've seen much abuse - the rating system seems to be settling down into another useful tool for those who wish to use it.

Roy

 

[Bobby Rico]

I see what you're saying.  I'm not 100% convinced for its usefulness or necessarily it's accuracy, but I suppose as simply an 'added value' tool for the forums (similar to say smilies or avatars etc), I can dig it.

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

Bobby, it's not going to be 100% accurate, and we're OK with that. Many won't find it useful, but again, that's OK. The idea is that it's mostly accurate and useful to the majority.

 

[Timmy!]

Mike,
        I just had an idea again. Now this rating system, I find it would be easy to rate someone quickly with this setup.
So my idea is that if you want to rate someone, you must visit their profile and then click your choice. If the person feels that the other person needs that rating, then they"ll go the extra mile and rate. On other note your rating display is fine, you don't need to hide that. Just the voting button.

That's my two cents for the evening,
Regards,
TN2IC

 

[niceasdrhuxtable]

I was originally against the whole rating system idea as I saw it denigrating into a popularity contest. However, after having lived with it for some time, I'm starting to see the democratic principle as I barely ever look at someone's rating. Personally, I'm not really keen on the idea of others personally opinions someone dictating how I'll feel about a given member's post, and it certainly isn't going to make me take their postings less seriously or as gospel because of a rating system. So I suppose that puts me in the indifference category but if it's a feature that people find useful then I certainly don't have any problems with it remaining.



As an addendum to my original post: Sometimes on a controversial thread I'll seek out those with a higher negative rating as I'm sure they'll have something interesting to say that generally goes against the flow. I really enjoy hearing opinions that tend to stray from the norm.

 

[Blakey]

TN2IC, maybe I'm not seeing it but, why would the added click of the mouse change someones views on if they were going to rate someone?

Cheers

Edited to add: I for one, do not use the ratings as a single source when determing if I should read (or contemplate reading) a post. Like others have said, it is a choice that can be used to determine the veracity of the posters words. That, along with other criteria, should give the reader a better understanding of the poster.