Solution to the Ratings War
Insofar as this site's rating scheme is being used in bad faith for a weird practice of discourse-sabotage, I suggest that all those of good faith refrain from any further register of a rating for any post. In this way, we can use an INVERSE rating as a means both of disclosing the virtual identities of the saboteurs and disabling the ratings war.
Just a thought ...
Personally I really
Personally I really appreciate the system because it allows me to see how someone has reacted to a post even if she or he chose not to respond directly.
Dr.McCoy~ Mea culpa. I just
Dr.McCoy~ Mea culpa. I just reacted automatically and gave a rating to Colkoch's contribution to my note on the medieval model. After having just acreed to stop rating altogether for a month. Sorry.
I can get on board with
I can get on board with this. From a merely statistical point of view, the ratings for everyone are being skewed one way or another. I've found myself rating less and less as time has worn on, but I will find it difficult when someone write something that really grabs my attention.
Yes, *col*, me too! Maybe a
Yes, *col*, me too! Maybe a revised, via media, approach could be that, following Dennis' suggestion, we only vote 4's to indicate a desire to promote discussion of a particular thread (as one of particular value to the community) and refrain from any other rating. (???)
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. Let your gentleness be known to everyone. The Lord is near." (Phil 4:4-5)
Dr. McCoy I think that
Dr. McCoy I think that different posters using the rating system for varying agendas will only increase the confusion about what the ratings signify. The rating system on this site is part of the problem. A rating of '0 Not worth reading' is an invitation to abuse and should not be available.
Another poster has mentioned the rating system on the BBC website which apparently allows only appreciative ratings. This seems to me correct. If you disagree with a post, you should have to state why.
May I say how much I appreciate your postings on this site. I have not rated your posts since I do not feel qualified to do so but I find them very thought-provoking.
Jim Houston
Kudos JimH. I agree whole
Kudos JimH.
I agree whole heartedly. Only positive ratings. I like this other site where you get points for your own posts regardless of content. And you donate your points to the posters of posts you appreciate.
That way everything is positive.
The way it is here. Since I've been back, I've been shocked by some posters comments and how then rate others and I cannot resist the temptation to give low ratings to those same posters. I'm ashamed to admit it. But it's right there for everybody to see. Please forgive me. As I get used to the abuse, I'm sure I'll stop reacting emotionally.
I like what Jim says. Kudos JimH.
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
Yes, I like this idea. I've
Yes, I like this idea. I've given the very rabid conservatives 4's when I wanted to see the discussion continued.
Dr McCoy~ As a personal
Dr McCoy~ As a personal response to what I agree is a deliberate and negatively strategic abuse of the rating system I have, for some time now, only rated at 3 and 4, if at all, no zero or ones. Generally, I have used three as an acknowledgement of general respect, agreement or otherwise, for the post; four for complete agreement and respect as well as acknowledgement.
Some who skewer with blunt zeros are also generous with their own articulation which tends over time to stand out and speak for itself.
It would be unfortunate to drop all ratings inspite of their tendency towards elitism and abuse. Some postings are just so complete in themselves that no reply other than some kind of "thumbs-up" is warranted. For good or otherwise a much smaller number of visitors actually post comments. A rating system is beneficial to signal agreement or otherwise to postings but vulnerable.
Perhaps Cafe management could look at accepting only those ratings which accompanying narrative comment.
I am nevertheless willing to go along with your suggestion as of now and reconsider after a month or sooner if an alternative way to deal with the issue looks and has general acceptance.
Yes, Dennis, I see your
Yes, Dennis, I see your point. I wish there were a way to gather some sort of consens (via ratings, e.g.) on the direction of commentary without having thr system abused for partisan disruption.
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. Let your gentleness be known to everyone. The Lord is near." (Phil 4:4-5)
Dr McCoy: I'm still in the
Dr McCoy:
I'm still in the dark about how the system of ratings is being perverted. Could you please explain? You can write to me at my private email if you feel more comfortable.
Thanks.
Kate
Kate, I'm not sure how
Kate, I'm not sure how extensive the ratings sabbotage continues to be, but my impression previously was that people were using rating scores to pot-shoot people with whom they disagreed rather than address specific commentary to that person. It just seemed to be a misuse of the system insofar as I understood the original intent of ratings to be about assessing "value to the community" rather than approval/disapproval of stated opinions.
I have to admit that as I anticipate the torment of the State of the Union Address tonight, this little ratings problem pales. At the time I though I had a solution ... ? In any case my present use of ratings is, as I promised, to use only "4s" to indicate my wish to have discussion continued on certain topics.
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!" (2Cor 5)
Thank you, Dr. McCoy. Now I
Thank you, Dr. McCoy. Now I get it.
Kate
Hi folks: Why have ratings
Hi folks:
Why have ratings become such a big deal? I've read the posts, but I don't really see the problem. Are people being prevented from posting because of ratings? Are the management using them somehow? They are so subjective as to be virtually useless, or am I the only one who holds that opinion? By useless I mean they are completely unscientific. So where is the fuss coming from.
All clarification gladly appreciated.
Kate