Distinguished Road?
- Thread starter Tld
- Start date
R
Roger, Roger
Guest
Thank you, kind sir.
z987k
Well-Known Member
It says Latest reputation received, and then your point total, and the post it was for but no mention of who or any comments as was discussed earlier in this thread. Am I missing something?
SurferLucas
Southern Gentleman
Hmmmm...Bryan, you might want to consult your medical healthcare professional about that. I mean, I know that JC is a place to talk about lots of things...but I got nothing for ya there buddy! (I keed, I keed!)
BeRich
Very Special Agent
Hey, have you been reading the stuff Wacko's been posting lately? :bandit:
WacoFan
Bigly
I wish there was a way to make yourself known and not be anonymous when rating. Right now, I put "Waco - ...." and my comment. This should be optional of course, but I would hesitate to "approve" or "disapprove" of a message without letting the user know who it was and why - almost seems like talking behind someone's back. Again, it is fine if someone wants to remain anonymous - whatever they are comfortable with - but sometimes being anonymous creates discomfort. Nothing I would do behind someone than to their face.
z987k
Well-Known Member
I noticed that you must leave a comment for negative feedback.
Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
Social experiment or not.. this seems like it encourages a sort of group think. Are we not all stronger for expressing our ideas and then letting the feedback determine how we feel and about it? On the other hand- social cohesion can be helped by understanding how what we say is received. Is there really a way to glean what we want to learn from an anonymous points system?
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
"Peer review" is a generally accepted technique for assessing validity in many fields of study and profession.
coa787
Unknown Member
The biggest problem that I have with this system is that it, of course, relies heavily on the collective subjectivity of the entire group. I have, as I'm sure that you have, as well, seen the countless times where users have had to be told to "grow up" and "be mature" and stuff like that on this site. It still continues to this day. Now, you've got these kinds of people running around and rating others?
Take a group of one hundred people, for instance, on a Web site called life (this Web site revolves around life experience, of course). Five of them are highly experienced fifty-year-old's, ten are average-experienced thirty-year-old's, and eighty-five are prepubescent teenagers. The teenagers make up the majority, so the ratings of all one hundred people will be biased towards them (assuming that everyone rates in the same amount). What the highly experienced fifty-year-old's see as a good post, due to the content and maturity of the post and regardless of whether or not they agree with or like the poster, will be seen as a bad post by the teenagers because they don't agree with it or because they have personal issues with the poster. In this case, the ratings will lean towards the negative side.
This is, more or less, what I feel may happen on JC (due to the number of users that have to constantly be reminded of their less-than-acceptable behavior, as well as others that give out random reputations or people that hold grudges against others). If these people are in the majority of the people that actively rate others, then the green and red bars will be biased towards the way that they view things. A new user showing up and seeing three green bars might assume that this particular person is knowledgeable and experienced, yet the green bars that the person accumulated were because the majority just really liked the person, kind of like how people seem to just like Chuck Norris.
As always, I may very well be wrong, so I'll throw this out there as food for thought and just sit back and watch how this reputation system plays out on this site. I don't really have a solution because a large portion of my thoughts and time are being used to ensure a successful completion of a busy-as-hell college semester.
z987k
Well-Known Member
Peer review is, but the way this is set up, it's anonymous and offers no constructive criticism.... or any real feedback at all in the positive or negative. At least within a thread you have to stand behind what you say(and say something), even if it is your username standing behind it.
This basically boils down to just anonymously clicking - you suck or I like this with absolutely nothing of any substance behind it.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
I know the board can have the peer raters identities attached to the ratings. I don't know why the JC one isn't set up that way.
How does it offer "no constructive criticism"? There is a place for the rater to put a narrative about why they rated the way they did...what exactly are you looking for here?
It's a pretty big leap to go from the circumstance where a rater's identity isn't published to the determination that there is "absolutely nothing of substance behind it." That's NOT a direct cause-and-effect link.
How does it offer "no constructive criticism"? There is a place for the rater to put a narrative about why they rated the way they did...what exactly are you looking for here?
It's a pretty big leap to go from the circumstance where a rater's identity isn't published to the determination that there is "absolutely nothing of substance behind it." That's NOT a direct cause-and-effect link.
WacoFan
Bigly
The anonymity DOES create the potential for what COA787 mentions, and perhaps the "groupthink" that Firebird mentions. I'd be firmly in favor of non-anonymity but there is a way around that as well - simply start your "remarks" by identifying yourself. Another really important aspect to this feature I think is this: Don't let it make or ruin your day. Yesterday I started the day with a "Positive" rating and two green bars...then, later in the day I got crossways with the groupthink of the moderates/Stepfords and also called another user "brittle, weak, and illiterate" (except I made the mistake of doing it directly instead of couching it in terms that could say the same thing, but not really "on a technicality)...and after this transgression my cherished "two green bars" and "positive" rating degraded to one green bar and only a "trending positive" rating. Then, at some point in the day I went back to two green bars and "Positive".
After my roller-coaster of a day popularity-wise yesterday you can imagine how spent I was! Except I wasn't. I pretty much ate and pooped on schedule with no disruption and also was able to destroy my daughter at Mario Cart. See...this is just for fun. I would just keep on doing what you're doing. If it is anonymous, then REALLY don't worry about it. If you have to identify yourself (which I prefer) - then it allows for a chance to communicate with the user that hates you and build a bridge...or it allows you to return invective if you so desire. Either way, don't let this effect your enjoyment of JC or your day in general. Over time (a long time) the popularity will work itself out and be quite accurate whether it is anonymous or not. Just have to have a large enough sample.
After my roller-coaster of a day popularity-wise yesterday you can imagine how spent I was! Except I wasn't. I pretty much ate and pooped on schedule with no disruption and also was able to destroy my daughter at Mario Cart. See...this is just for fun. I would just keep on doing what you're doing. If it is anonymous, then REALLY don't worry about it. If you have to identify yourself (which I prefer) - then it allows for a chance to communicate with the user that hates you and build a bridge...or it allows you to return invective if you so desire. Either way, don't let this effect your enjoyment of JC or your day in general. Over time (a long time) the popularity will work itself out and be quite accurate whether it is anonymous or not. Just have to have a large enough sample.
gne in prog
Well-Known Member
The comment doesn't have to mean anything, apparently. My latest reputation was -4 points for posting the photo of the month contest theme (http://forums.jetcareers.com/pictures-road/121181-mar-photo-contest-theme.html#post1677260).
The comment was "/". Just a slant. Guess someone doesn't like the photo of the month contest.
WacoFan
Bigly
You photographers are complete bastards and particularly photographers that share. If I could give you a million negative points I would.
Everyone still gets a negative. Me included. In fact I hated my post so much, I gave myself a negative.
Equal opportunity.
Autothrust Blue
Welcome aboard the Washington State Ferries
Yeah, that. I see what's being said, but we (pilots) already have a severe case of group think
Firebird2XC
Well-Known Member
This is more or less the issue, I think. Those who would not be bothered by this would not notice it much after the initial novelty wears off. Beyond that, some folks might consider it highly important. They're likely the most sensitive to peer pressure. It's really just a barometer of self-esteem as far as the rated person goes. The problem for the community is that when you've got things like "I Hate RJs" in the social groups or "Shiny Jets is the Coolest The Rest of Your Are Noobz!" mentalities, you risk creating chasms of mob psychology. When an anonymous rating system is used to determine someone's supposed credibility, you risk giving power to ideas that are simply popular or comfortable without the effort of critical thinking. The ability to 'pile on' a rating already going a certain way risks feeding that sort of mob.
Popularity's a poor barometer in a community that prides itself on thinking outside the box. It allows people to tell the rest of the community which box certain people belong in. If things remain relatively stable, that might be mostly harmless. If not, it could be a fiasco.
Asking for responsibility of people hiding behind supposed anonymity seems a little foolhardy, in my opinion. Granted, I like Waco's idea- if you're going to post feedback through the Facebook-ish "Like/Dislike" button, at least have the guts to own it. If we don't, well, great- a place of community and ideas becomes even more of a brainless joy-buzzer experience than Facebook. (Firebird officially does not like this idea at this point, but is willing to be convinced otherwise if a cogent counter-argument is made. Or you could just rate me with lots of negatives, and I'll continue to think that way anyhow.)