🔒 Locked

Proposed changes to rating threshold system

Started by Avatar God Oct 8, 2007 at 8:41 AM 6 replies 2.1k views

Original Post

Oct 8, 2007 at 8:41 AM

The "Can we ban..." thread reminded me of an old issue that was never solved to my liking: the rating threshold. Besides confusing the occasional user, anecdotal evidence suggests that many or most users don't activate this setting - Why? The current system: - Allows you to completely ignore posts by users below a certain rating. - Relies heavily on the effectiveness of the rating system. Problems and limitations of the current system: - There is nothing to clue you in that you're missing a post. - You may forget that you have a threshold set. - You ignore posts that you would like to see (posters you like under your threshold). - You don't ignore posts you would rather not see (idiot posters over your threshold). - The rating system does not necessarily reflect the posts you want to read. As a result, most of us see the best choice as one that doesn't use the threshold system at all. Now, we can't ignore posts on an individual basis because we don't have the AI to guess which post is too stupid be seen by the general public. But that does not mean that the rating system is the next most specific solution. Proposed solution: - Allow users to ignore specific posters with an easy link written on every post and in the profile. - Show ignored posts as minimized boxes with the ignored poster's username, and include a maximize button that will easily show the entire post. Also include a 'Stop ignoring this poster' link. This allows a user to see that an ignored post exists, to read it if it seems important, and to easily un-ignore the poster if merited. - Keep a list of ignored posters in the user's control panel, again with links to 'Stop ignoring this poster.' It appears to be a less clumsy, more targeted system. Thus, I could largely ignore a few of the more idiotic users while retaining the joys of RSC_x, but with a quick, simple option to read a given ignored post if people keep referring to it as useful. So. Is this workable? Do you have different suggestions to improve the rating threshold system? Do you have suggestions to improve the proposed system? Have I left anything blatantly, stupidly obvious out of my quick analysis? Do you like the proposed system?

Ahnfelt

Oct 11, 2007 at 4:06 PM

On some sites, the rating is more specific, and tied to posts rather than people.

For example, on newz.dk I have the following rating options for a post:
Informative, interesting, relevant, repetition, funny, irrelevant and flame bait (as well as neutral).

If the post is rated negatively by a lot of users, it will be folded so you actively have to click to open it.

The user rating calculated based on the ratings on his individual posts. Posts by low rated people will be hidden too.

The specific ratings above are probably not a good fit for GDev, but I'm sure others would be.

(This reply is a result of you whining (:P) on that other thread. Apparently, there's just no such thing as bad attention)

superpig

Oct 11, 2007 at 5:58 PM

Disclaimer: I agree that the thresholding system as it currently stands is not terribly usable. I'm not sure how much effort can/will be put into improving it, partly because very few people use it (yes, this is self-fulfilling), partly because I'm not sure that many people would use it, and partly because the rating system will be replaced in the not-too-distant future. That said, I'm always up for a design discussion...

Quote:
Original post by Avatar God
- Allow users to ignore specific posters with an easy link written on every post and in the profile.
- Keep a list of ignored posters in the user's control panel, again with links to 'Stop ignoring this poster.'

The logical choice for these would be to extend the PM block/friend list.

Quote:

- Show ignored posts as minimized boxes with the ignored poster's username, and include a maximize button that will easily show the entire post. Also include a 'Stop ignoring this poster' link. This allows a user to see that an ignored post exists, to read it if it seems important, and to easily un-ignore the poster if merited.

It appears to be a less clumsy, more targeted system.

Yes.

Quote:

Is this workable?

Probably. People would still get their bandwidth used up by posts they probably won't read, unless we do some AJAXy stuff, but it's really not a big issue.

Quote:
Do you have different suggestions to improve the rating threshold system?

Replace the ratings with 'tags' for users - i.e. you can tag a user with 'C++,' 'graphics,' 'incoherent,' or whatever - and then let people view threads based both on tags applied to the thread content and tags applied to the users posting in a thread. So you can search for threads that not only are about C++ but also have users who are strongly tagged 'C++' (i.e. people worth listening to) posting in them. We'd need a straightforward blacklist user system as well, but that's independent of any rating stuff.

Quote:
Do you have suggestions to improve the proposed system?

Any thoughts on how to handle people replying to (i.e. quoting) posts below your threshold?

Quote:
Have I left anything blatantly, stupidly obvious out of my quick analysis?

Well, I don't really agree with your statement that "we don't have the AI to guess which post is too stupid be seen by the general public." I guess it's true that we don't have AI, but we do have the opinions of the people who read that post before you did. That's the principle that systems like Slashdot work on.

Quote:
Do you like the proposed system?

Personally I never use the threshold system because I need to be able to see every piece of user content on the site for moderation reasons. If I didn't need that... I dunno, the ability to ignore somebody for the duration of an individual thread might be nice.

gunning

Oct 11, 2007 at 6:24 PM

Quote:
Original post by superpig
Quote:
Do you have different suggestions to improve the rating threshold system?
Replace the ratings with 'tags' for users - i.e. you can tag a user with 'C++,' 'graphics,' 'incoherent,' or whatever - and then let people view threads based both on tags applied to the thread content and tags applied to the users posting in a thread. So you can search for threads that not only are about C++ but also have users who are strongly tagged 'C++' (i.e. people worth listening to) posting in them. We'd need a straightforward blacklist user system as well, but that's independent of any rating stuff.

I vaguely remember the idea of tags being thrown around before, and thought very positively of them. As you see it now, would the tags be completely pre-defined or could users add new ones as new technologies emerge? Also, is this an idea that might be implemented in the near future? ... because I really like it ...

pinacolada

Oct 11, 2007 at 6:42 PM

Quote:
Original post by Avatar God
Show ignored posts as minimized boxes with the ignored poster's username, and include a maximize button that will easily show the entire post.

Great suggestion. The other improvements would be nice too, but having this one feature would make me start using the threshold system again.

superpig

Oct 11, 2007 at 7:06 PM

Quote:
Original post by think_different
As you see it now, would the tags be completely pre-defined or could users add new ones as new technologies emerge?

Tags would be user-defined. There might need to be some behind-the-scenes maintenance of 'synonyms,' fixing tags that are spelt wrong etc, but the general principle is that no tag is special. We'd populate the system with some tags to get things going but we'd be doing that through the same mechanism everyone else would be using for tagging.

Quote:
Also, is this an idea that might be implemented in the near future?

It's a core component of the next version of the site. Define "near future..."

gunning

Oct 11, 2007 at 8:13 PM

Quote:
Original post by superpig
Quote:
Original post by think_different
As you see it now, would the tags be completely pre-defined or could users add new ones as new technologies emerge?
Tags would be user-defined. There might need to be some behind-the-scenes maintenance of 'synonyms,' fixing tags that are spelt wrong etc, but the general principle is that no tag is special. We'd populate the system with some tags to get things going but we'd be doing that through the same mechanism everyone else would be using for tagging.

Cool. To save on the back-end maintenance of synomyms, when the user is typing a tag you could use AJAX to automatically populate a dropdown list below a text field with tags that closely match what the user is currently typing.

Quote:
Quote:
Also, is this an idea that might be implemented in the near future?
Define "near future..."

How about the next six months?

superpig

Oct 11, 2007 at 8:47 PM

Quote:
Original post by think_different
To save on the back-end maintenance of synomyms, when the user is typing a tag you could use AJAX to automatically populate a dropdown list below a text field with tags that closely match what the user is currently typing.

Indeed, though I was planning on going a step further and have an AJAX system that was retrieving a list of suggested tags based on the user's actual content, such that by the time they get to tagging they can just click a couple of suggested tags.

Quote:
Quote:
Also, is this an idea that might be implemented in the near future?
Define "near future..."

How about the next six months?[/quote]Probably not. You might see some prototype stuff, maybe very early alpha.

Topic Locked

This topic has been locked by a moderator. New replies are not allowed.