Advertisement
with reference to the recent discussions on moderation I thought the following concept might be worth exploring..
would an ability for a tribes members to vote on a post be a good means for a mod to gauge the tribes general view of a post...
i.e a thumps up/thumbs down button and counter.... not only does this show the mod what the tribe thinks but also the poster...
the concept could be taken further so that a reason could be attributed... ie thumbs down reasons.. offensive, off topic, illegible nonsense..
sorry for being so vague but just a concept that pop into my head....
regards
gm23
would an ability for a tribes members to vote on a post be a good means for a mod to gauge the tribes general view of a post...
i.e a thumps up/thumbs down button and counter.... not only does this show the mod what the tribe thinks but also the poster...
the concept could be taken further so that a reason could be attributed... ie thumbs down reasons.. offensive, off topic, illegible nonsense..
sorry for being so vague but just a concept that pop into my head....
regards
gm23
posted by:
|
Unsubscribed |
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: post(al) voting?
Wed, July 22, 2009 - 2:32 AMThis has been talked about over in the brainstorm tribe:
brainstorm.tribe.net/thread/...530cf8ba
Are you thinking of something similar to youtube's rating system? -
-
Unsu...
Re: post(al) voting?
Wed, July 22, 2009 - 6:23 AMah.. I did think of posting there (perhaps I should have..or at least researched) but thought I see what moderators thought first...
as for youtubes ratings system no... this would give an average which is often meaningless.. more a good post /bad post option and a potential sub option as mentioned above....
in this way we would 'democratise the tribe...
in practice a post would only attract a vote if it was exceptional... (blinding light revelation stuff) or offensive.... similarly a mod doesnt necessarily reflect the view of the tribe and whilst a mod or an individual may be offended the tribe itself sees the comment/post as justified.. an optional voting system that was similarly anonomous would potentially encourGE MORE PEOPLE TO TAKE PART IN DISCUSSIONS ,, oh sorry hit caps... or at the least the act of voting/rating is itself taking part
regards
gm23 -
-
Re: post(al) voting?
Wed, July 22, 2009 - 9:19 AMi think ratings are a crap idea for this site -
-
-
Re: post(al) voting?
Wed, July 22, 2009 - 9:43 AMmy opinions are in the thread Denisey posted
(sorry, i know that seems lazy of me
but this has been discussed so many times already) -
-
Re: post(al) voting?
Wed, July 22, 2009 - 10:46 AMReal simply.....controversial topics have two sides. People tend to vote as 'good' the side they are on. They vote 'bad' for the side they're against. Ratings are not reflective of reality, unless the subject is absolute. -
-
Unsu...
Re: post(al) voting?
Wed, July 22, 2009 - 11:10 AM
>>People tend to vote as 'good' the side they are on. They vote 'bad' for the side they're against. <<
surely that is the point?
surely if your in a minority of one in a tribe of hundreds your opinion is pretty much wasted...
>>Ratings are not reflective of reality,<<
no but they are reflective of a tribes view on a specific post.. which I would aver is as near to 'absolute' as you can get....
at the end of the day a like/dislike button tells the poster if their views are welcome.. in my own experience I have found myself in what appears a minority of one.. posting against three or four other posters who hold a different view.. a problem that a theist (such as I) regularly encouters ... only to give up... no point shouting at sheep...
only a month or so later to be PM'd by someone asking why I was no longer posting..... what I elicit from this is that some people like to read arguments rather than write them.. for many of them it is not important that you hold a different view.. they're interested in the argument.. like a debate really... and a tribe gets very boring if it's sycophantic .. (I can kiss my own ass and rimming has never appealed)
but a few thumbs up.. give hope to the vain!
regards
gm23 -
-
Re: post(al) voting?
Thu, July 23, 2009 - 9:20 PMAn up/down system ignores ambiguity. I like ambiguity, since reality is not black and white.
I give your idea only 1 star. ^_^ -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: post(al) voting?
Fri, July 24, 2009 - 7:34 AMif we implement a post rating system it definitely will be on a scale. as discussed before, something closer to slashdot's descriptive ratings and random rating privileges. that is, not everyone can rate posts all the time. -
-
Re: post(al) voting?
Fri, July 24, 2009 - 9:28 AMNah- I dont see the point for a voting system..
the same people vote as post
the same people just read and move on as before..
so the votes would be parallel to the posts.. in opinions and quality..
I'd rather read the posts than see a reduced vote of a subject.. -
-
Unsu...
Re: post(al) voting?
Fri, July 24, 2009 - 7:21 PM>>the same people vote as post
the same people just read and move on as before.. <<
oh I think that little presumptious of you... and I and I would suspect the facts disagree completely
its a bit like saying we should do away with political voting on the same grounds.... that only the voracious politicians bother to vote...
>>so the votes would be parallel to the posts..<<
well one would hope they were on the same page ........
>>in opinions and quality..<<
well no... they would be a reflection of the opinions of the reader on the opinions of the poster
>>I'd rather read the posts than see a reduced vote of a subject.. <<
rating a comment isn't in preference to reading it... it is letting you know if others liked/ disliked it
a good example of the system I imaging is the bbc's have yoir say comments....
there is no distraction (unless you are very easily distracted) by a simple counter....
it adds and in no way could one justify a claim that it distracts from the quality of a post...
regards
GM23
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
