On the topic of user ratings

[Brutuskend]

It seems there are some users who think it's funny to trash someones user ratings for no other reason than it gives them a thrill. Or maybe they have so little power in the real word that it makes them feel like a big man.

It seems to me that user rating should mean SOMETHING! There is a thread in Off Topic right now where some one refused to ship first in a trade becuase a user's Rating was too low! So obviously to SOME folks it DOES mean something.

I feel first of all that only people who have THEIR ratings turned on should be able to rate others.
And secondly, I think it would stop a lot of the childish "Spite" ratings if you could know WHO is rating you. Then at least you would have a clue as to why they were rating you either high or low.

I don't know if this suggestion has ever been posed (but I would assume as this has apperantly been an on going problem for some time. That it has) but I think it would be a great idea to implement some controls over the "kids" who I think are doing these childish things.

Just a suggestion......

 

[crypticlogin]

If you're going to carry the flag, you might as well go all the way. Why is the rating an optional feature? If it's to *really* carry any weight, everyone should be judged similary, not just those who have the option enabled. And why is it a one time deal? I might spite you this week and give you a '4' but the next, you deserve a '1' since you insulted my family and dog.

Like you say, the ratings system in its current state is a joke and is really meaningless. There are a few things to work out first, and only afterwards would your gripe be of any real consequence. There are bigger and better things to worry about... the average of a series mostly of 1s and 10s tied to your username isn't one of them.

 

[spanky]

my user rating got raped for no apparent reason, thus i turned it off. but it would be nice to know who violated my profile. i'm all for ur idea brutus

 

[Wolfsraider]

my user rating got raped for no apparent reason, thus i turned it off. but it would be nice to know who violated my profile. i'm all for ur idea brutus


ditto for a great idea

 

[narzy]

yes this is not a scientific method of capturing peoples views on you, however it is an option you have the ability to control. don't like your rating? or what others are doing to it? turn the feature off .

 

[GeoffS]

Since we're on the topic, is 1 good or bad? Maybe your profile didn't get raped intentionally... perhaps someone thought that 1 was good when you think 10 is good, or vice versa.

Geoff

 

[Azraele]

ForumFAQ



<< 8. The "user rating" feature is based on a scale of 1 to 10, with "1" being the lowest and "10" being the highest. >>

 

[Rainguy]

Personally, I think that the user rating should not be something that is entered by other forum users but a direct link to the Heatware evaluations database. It would show three numbers (postives, neagatives, and neutrals,and those numbrs would link to the Heatware evals where you can open them up to see more details. That is the accepted rating system at the AT FS/FT anyway. I also see no reasons other than FS/FT where someone would need to "rate" a person. It just becomes a toy to "1" someone when you don't like what they say.

 

[GeoffS]

Azraele -

 

[Brutuskend]

<< yes this is not a scientific method of capturing peoples views on you, however it is an option you have the ability to control. don't like your rating? or what others are doing to it? turn the feature off . >>



Then why even bother HAVING a rating system? If it becomes a "toy" for the immature among us to play with arbitrarily?

 

[narzy]

hey I dont know why the heck they decided to put it in

 

[kuk]

<< And secondly, I think it would stop a lot of the childish "Spite" ratings if you could know WHO is rating you. Then at least you would have a clue as to why they were rating you either high or low. >>



To put it as in Zuni's words: It won't be happening.

If all else fails, the reason gets down to technical issues. The rating probably works like this: there two database fields, one named RATING_TOTAL and the other RATING_VOTES. Each time someone rates a member, that rating is summed up in the RATING_TOTAL field, while the RATING_VOTES is incremented by one. Divide RATING_TOTAL by RATING_VOTES and you get your average. Now imagine if the database had to store information as on WHO rated you, and WHAT rating it was? The forum would be bogged down to "sub-usable" levels, and that's not what everyone wants, right?

Kuk

 

[NewCompGeek]

i agree and i think that the person giving someone a rating should be required to give their name and a reason or comment why

 

[Daniel]

I've never checked a person's rating for any reason, nor have I voted in someone's profile either. The whole thing seems pointless really. And as for that thread on the guy that wouldn't sell because of it I think there was more going on than just that.

 

[Rand]

I enabled my rating once, and I've nevr glanced at it since. It's probably around 1-2 just the like majority are.
It's a wasted feature as people just indiscriminately go around rating 1's pretty much at random.

To add in who rated you, and what they rated would probably cause too much unnecessary data to record and keep track of... their are always compliants about the forum being bogged down enough as it is.

Personally, I think the rating scheme should be removed entirely.
It's too much overhead to properly track who rates what, and to manually police the rating syste, would probably need a few people just for that job... so there are no simple solutions.
It's a wasted feature taking up bandwidth that could be better utilized elsewhere.

 

[jfunk]

If you don't like it, shut it off.

Problem solved.

Seriously, what is wrong with people on here? Have you guys absolutely nothing better to do?



j

 

[nirgis]

I don't know why people care about their rating. The whole system seems like a joke and a lot of bandwidth and hd could be saved by scrapping the whole system. That said, what is far worse are the people that actually care or whine about it

 

[dmk11]

How about scrap the rating field and upped the PM limit!

 

[crobusa]

<< The rating probably works like this: there two database fields, one named RATING_TOTAL and the other RATING_VOTES. >>


What would prevent someone from voting twice for the same person? Maybe a temp log file is kept preventing the same person from voting twice for the same person in 24 hrs. If so, maybe an email stating who voted. AT then wouldn't need to store the info on it's server.

 

[spanky]

<< If you don't like it, shut it off.

Problem solved.

Seriously, what is wrong with people on here? Have you guys absolutely nothing better to do?



j >>




yes

 

[bsobel]

Since this topic came up (and I didn't want to start a new thread just for this). Perhaps alot of the rating confusion could be fixed if a) the rating drop down didn't default to 1 (should default to something like 'choose a rating') and b) if the 1=bad 10=good where somehow on that same screen.

My 2 cents,
Bill