Thumbs Up System

[Adam007]

Edit: Idea is changed, simply, to a system where you can click a +1 or thumbs up by someone's post/reply. If you think someone made a post that's above average, you can click on that. You're given 1-5 thumbs ups a day you can give out. This way above average posting is encouraged and rewarded, overall benefiting the forum quality and community.

[Cowman_133]

I can already see users ganging up on one user and hiding his post even if it was legit. The mods do an absolutely splendid job already. This would be more work. I feel it will be used to judge the person rather than their post. To encourage positive, constructive messages, people should post that they agree manually. A + is almost like a +1 button.

 

 

 

Anyways just my personal thoughts.

 

 

 

~The Cow~

[Cruiser]

A +/- rating system is no different than the karma system. It can and will be abused and will not stop people from posting spam or other crap. We have moderators for a reason. It's their job to keep the forums clean so we don't have to deal with users abusing a rating system.

[-Devoted12-]

I agree, it can easily be abused, so it wouldn't work out. Report the spam posts and we will take care of them. Usually, anything with ratings can be easily abused and will be abused, so it wouldn't be good to implement.

 

 

 

Great intentions though. :D

[Adam007]

The hiding feature isn't essential. If that became a problem, we would disable the hiding of a post if it got too many thumb-downs. I figured one person would reply with that, but I really don't think that would be a problem. People have better things to do than group up on one member and search all of his posts to bury. These systems work on sites with much larger member bases with a much bigger chance of abuse. I don't think that would be something to worry about.

 

 

 

As for the second point, Cowman, I think someone replying to a thread "Agreed," or someone quoting someone replying "+1" gets pretty spammy. Most people don't elaborate on how they agree, so this system would be great in allowing people to praise a post they really agree with. And who knows, it could just trigger a new wave in people really genuinely trying to make intelligent, well thought out posts. We used to have a lot more users like that, and if we can do anything to bring us closer to how things used to be in that regard, why not try?

 

 

 

Cruiser, I think this does differ a lot from karma. Rather than rating a person, an idea is rated. That way people can't gang up on users and rate them down. It also doesn't have that air of "I have a higher rating than you so I'm a better member" or anything like that. Each reply, rather than member, is individually rated, so there isn't really room for that kind of abuse.

 

 

 

Devoted, I don't see this in any way being a replacement for mods. I see it as a system to encourage a type of posting. It just has the side effect of making the job for mods easier.

[-Devoted12-]

Ha ha, I love how you say side effect like it would be a bad thing. :lol:

 

By the way, +1 posts and agreed posts are considered spam and can be reported and dealt with.

 

 

 

If the thread was not to be hidden, what would be the point of the system? Just to maybe overlook some posts if they are given a bad rating?

[Adam007]

Heh, I mean it's just an added bonus, but not the real point of it. The main point of it is to encourage intelligent posting. We could still implement it without hiding replies that reach a certain negative number. But also like you said, you could skim past a reply if it had a low rating.

[tryto]

Ha ha, I love how you say side effect like it would be a bad thing. :lol:

 

By the way, +1 posts and agreed posts are considered spam and can be reported and dealt with.

 

 

 

If the thread was not to be hidden, what would be the point of the system? Just to maybe overlook some posts if they are given a bad rating?

 

 

 

 

 

I hate this idea, but it could be like Slashdot : on slashdot, you can set a threshold, so you only see posts rated above or at a certain level.

 

 

 

EDIT: The reason I hate this idea has been rehashed over and over again, and most of my reasons have already been posted.

[Adam007]

Ha ha, I love how you say side effect like it would be a bad thing. :lol:

 

By the way, +1 posts and agreed posts are considered spam and can be reported and dealt with.

 

 

 

If the thread was not to be hidden, what would be the point of the system? Just to maybe overlook some posts if they are given a bad rating?

 

 

 

 

 

I hate this idea, but it could be like Slashdot : on slashdot, you can set a threshold, so you only see posts rated above or at a certain level.

 

 

 

EDIT: The reason I hate this idea has been rehashed over and over again, and most of my reasons have already been posted.

 

Could you explain why? I haven't used slashdot, but what would be wrong with the individual choosing their own threshold of viewable replies? If people have a choice, what's to complain about? Some people would just rather have the choice to not view borderline spam.

 

 

 

But again, you guys are missing my point. While I find the thumbs down button to be really useful, if you guys see it as a problem, would there be anything wrong with having a single thumbs up button? That way we could still have friendly competition between members trying to post witty, insightful remarks. If no other part of my idea comes through, I see no reason not to try this part.

[Cruiser]

Cruiser, I think this does differ a lot from karma. Rather than rating a person, an idea is rated. That way people can't gang up on users and rate them down. It also doesn't have that air of "I have a higher rating than you so I'm a better member" or anything like that. Each reply, rather than member, is individually rated, so there isn't really room for that kind of abuse.

 

 

 

Rating a person or an idea doesn't matter. If someone or a group of people doesn't like another user, they WILL rate them down regardless of how thought out the post is. Instead of it being tagged to the user you're distributing that karma to each individual post and if a user is rated down enough by a group of people, others will notice and apply their opinion accordingly. Given the user base here some users might believe a correct post that got rated down by abuse is actually wrong because of it as well.

 

 

 

Rating systems like you suggest are in place on larger sites because they have hundreds of thousands if not a million or more users that are registered, using the comments and rating things. Yes it works there because that's the only way to make any kind of discussion system work. You couldn't hire enough moderators to keep track of that many posts without incurring large costs to pay for the time it would take to oversee it in any sensible fashion. The fact they have several hundred thousand users flowing through the discussion also does away with said abuse because of the shear number of people with a bit of common sense (even on a site like Digg that isn't always the case). That is not the case with Tip.It who's main user base are teenagers that couldn't care less. Tip.It also doesn't have the large number of users correcting any small groups that may choose to abuse less seen threads. If a group of users were to decide to abuse the ratings on a less used board there would be absolutely nothing the regular posters of that board could do about because there simply wouldn't be enough of them to override the problem.

 

 

 

Rating system aren't needed here, don't belong here and simply won't work here. As I said, we have moderators for a reason.

[Cowman_133]

I don't really have much to say after what Cruiser has said. I can't see the need for a rating system either. We've done without it for years and all it will do is destroy people's reputation if a certain group of users sets out to - as many posts of one user as possible.

 

 

 

~The Cow~

[InkofDeath]

As Cruiser stepped on, Rating Systems work best, and only with large amount of users. Tip.It comparing to other forums, or 'posting related sites', is probably in the 'high' small scale area. It would seem that only those who are in the high scale use the rating system, but the forums who use it, have a max of 2 ups or downs per day. Also some of those forums or commenting sites aren't always about the person posting. The idea of posting on the forums is to give your idea, your opinion, and we all know how that works on other sites that will flame you and then harass you till you leave. Then the idea about 'commenting' on YouTube or Digg, is to either flame the person, or two word post. There's no community on those sites. Without a community there's no hatred, or social statuses being created. On a community, especially a small one like Tip.It, there is a social ladder on here, it appears on every topic, and how one and another treats those who have posted on topics, whether to challenge their opinion ridiculously, or extremely hard. That's off-topic anyways.

 

 

 

A rating system could work though with the limit of +2/-2 'ratings' a day per person to give out on whatever post. But I really don't want to see a -2 on a post that is crude, and impersonal, but still stands as a great opinion, or has a large amount of discussion value.

 

 

 

I Could also name 5 people who would get so many ratings in the negatives it wouldn't be funny, and then about 30 who would commonly be the 'fun people to pick on'.

[Adam007]

I guess we're not reading the same forums. I can't imagine people having the motivation to gang up on certain users, find their posts, and selectively bury each one. Then message all their friends who use tip it and tell them to do the same. This could be circumvented by only allowing one person to bury a maximum of one post per another person a day. Taking precautions to the worst possible degree never made sense to me, because you're missing out on a good thing. It does seem I'm in the minority in thinking this would help the forums though. And I do suppose the idea of giving a "thumbs-down" isn't very conducive to the best atmosphere.

 

 

 

However, I'd still like to try to implement a system that you can give a +1 to a post. I don't know if phbpbb3 has any 'props' system, but that's the idea. If you think someone gave a worthy reply, you just click a thumbs up by the post or something. It will still promote quality posts, and I see no downsides.

[tripsis]

I guess we're not reading the same forums. I can't imagine people having the motivation to gang up on certain users, find their posts, and selectively bury each one. Then message all their friends who use tip it and tell them to do the same. This could be circumvented by only allowing one person to bury a maximum of one post per another person a day. Taking precautions to the worst possible degree never made sense to me, because you're missing out on a good thing. It does seem I'm in the minority in thinking this would help the forums though. And I do suppose the idea of giving a "thumbs-down" isn't very conducive to the best atmosphere.

 

 

 

However, I'd still like to try to implement a system that you can give a +1 to a post. I don't know if phbpbb3 has any 'props' system, but that's the idea. If you think someone gave a worthy reply, you just click a thumbs up by the post or something. It will still promote quality posts, and I see no downsides.

 

 

 

Unfortunately people do that.. and act similarly already. Because we can't have a rate system, they can't exactly do that. But people and their friends do already gang up on certain users. Some even go to the extent of following them around wherever they post just to put them down, humiliate them, insult them, etc.

 

 

 

I don't have a problem with giving users the ability to positively rate a post. I'm honestly not sure how popular it would be, but I don't have a problem with it as long as it isn't too much of an effort to put together.

[n_odie]

I think a major part of Tip.it community is that we are close. We don't need a rating system imo but I do see where it would be beneficial. It would give many of those who deserve credit, well credit. Were I see a down side is that we all have our opinions of right and wrong, silly and dumb, tomato tomato thing. There are some forum goers that have individual personalities and qualities. A rating system would be extreamly almost racist. What makes you any better then me visa versa! I can have quirks that annoy you but appeal to others. Ratings take away that.

 

 

 

There is users that all of us could come up to mind that we have annoyances towards. We should not have to rely on a rating system to be mature. If we have a problem, with someone, ignore it. If you can't ignore them, talk to them. Don't go to them saying this is your fault but along the lines of: I have something that I am working on, would you mind slowing down for a while, it is really starting to get to me. I think this, if applied, would help users in a much larger way than a rating system ever would. ;)

 

 

 

The thing that it comes down to is spam. Spam is not tolerated on Tip.it. One gets warnings and is treated accordingly if it does not diciest. The thing with spam is that it is user definable. The trick is to just ignore it..... so on and so on.

 

 

 

:) Nic

[D. V. Devnull]

Expanding on what Madam Tripsis has said, and what N_Odie has hinted to... I can see a critical way in which such a "Give '+ Rate' ONLY" system can be abused. Imagine, a group of users sets out to totally make someone completely useless, even though they have the right answer and/or thought, by giving rating points to someone that does not. This can cause a user who isn't that great to have an awful reputation, while someone who's a total [bleep] could have such a good reputation, and to quite the extent that the good user gets ignored. :cry:

 

 

 

I hate to say it, but I'm backing Cruiser on this one. TOTAL NON-SUPPORT on this idea, in any and all forms. (TBH, it takes a serious downside to cause me to be against an idea.) :notalk:

 

 

 

~Mr. Delta Varuna Devnull

 

(Tip.It's ultimate last defense, and ultimate bad nightmare against bad ideas...)

[-Devoted12-]

Also, step into the Rate This! forum which is purely popularity. A user can be rated horribly for the same achievement one user was rated 10/10 down the line. Why? Mostly because people on this forum hold grudges and do not think of the consequences. You would be surprised by how many topics get flamed due to the user. If the user is getting flamed, what is to stop them from giving them a bad rating? It just won't work out. Runescape makes this unable to occur because there is so much hostility among some groups of members.

[dsavi]

My karma system was just a theoretical system, I was hoping someone would come up with something better.

 

I don't know about this one either...

[Adam007]

D_V, other people have raised legitimate concerns, and I've edited my idea, but realistically how can you see something like that occur? Who's feelings would be hurt if they didn't get a +1 while others did? It would just tell them that they have room to improve their posting. The point of this system is that it isn't contextual. An individual post is rated - not compared. Besides, if people were limited to only one +1 per hour or something, they wouldn't be able to do what you described.

 

 

 

Devoted: I changed the idea to only +1, so that wouldn't be a problem anymore.

[D. V. Devnull]

D_V, other people have raised legitimate concerns, and I've edited my idea, but realistically how can you see something like that occur? Who's feelings would be hurt if they didn't get a +1 while others did? It would just tell them that they have room to improve their posting. The point of this system is that it isn't contextual. An individual post is rated - not compared. Besides, if people were limited to only one +1 per hour or something, they wouldn't be able to do what you described.

 

I know how they could do it, sad to say... this kind of thing happened to me at least once. :wall:

 

 

 

Described simply, there are cliques of people out there, and they don't give a [bleep] where their plus rating goes, long as it doesn't go to a person they commonly hate, even if that person which they hate is a really nice person. Further, they will then use their unused points to make that person which they hate look bad constantly, compared to other users whose posts aren't as great. This leads to situations where some of the best users are made to look like useless trolls, and leaves those users with no choice but to leave the forums, as their words and advice will go permanently unheeded.

 

 

 

Now, I'm sure you don't want people leaving TIF, right? If you don't, please let this idea die the death it deserves, before it turns into the nightmare monster that I know it will. I can already feel it knocking, and that sends shivers down my spinal column as I shudder in a closet nearby. :?

 

 

 

~Mr. D. V. Devnull

[Laikrob]

Having read the previous two posts, I'm actually starting to think the +1 thing isn't such a bad idea.

[Adam007]

D_V, other people have raised legitimate concerns, and I've edited my idea, but realistically how can you see something like that occur? Who's feelings would be hurt if they didn't get a +1 while others did? It would just tell them that they have room to improve their posting. The point of this system is that it isn't contextual. An individual post is rated - not compared. Besides, if people were limited to only one +1 per hour or something, they wouldn't be able to do what you described.

 

I know how they could do it, sad to say... this kind of thing happened to me at least once. :wall:

 

 

 

Described simply, there are cliques of people out there, and they don't give a [bleep] where their plus rating goes, long as it doesn't go to a person they commonly hate, even if that person which they hate is a really nice person. Further, they will then use their unused points to make that person which they hate look bad constantly, compared to other users whose posts aren't as great. This leads to situations where some of the best users are made to look like useless trolls, and leaves those users with no choice but to leave the forums, as their words and advice will go permanently unheeded.

 

 

 

Now, I'm sure you don't want people leaving TIF, right? If you don't, please let this idea die the death it deserves, before it turns into the nightmare monster that I know it will. I can already feel it knocking, and that sends shivers down my spinal column as I shudder in a closet nearby. :?

 

 

 

~Mr. D. V. Devnull

 

Could you explain how this kind of thing happened to you? If one person can only give out 1-5+'s a day, there's really no way of spamming a thread to make one other specific person seem like a worse poster by comparison. With a limit to +1's, your described scenario can't really happen.

[Barihawk]

Seeing how much drama has been caused by the mere theory of this practice, the application of said practice meets my disapproval.

 

 

 

I mean, honestly. We are getting this riled up over the suggestion. It's going to be screaming bloody murder if we actually implement this.

[D. V. Devnull]

Adam007, I'm NOT threatening to leave over not getting any rating. I'm very surprised you misinterpreted my post in that manner. The only way I would ever completely leave here is if it hit a point where I could tell some group of users was out to force me off the forums, or something happened that could never be healed. :shame:

 

 

 

Now, for a history lesson, a long time ago, there was a forum I was pointed at. After signing up, one of my posts I put up (or more, I forget exactly how many, but I do remember there was a particular one) was edited by people who abuse their power and get away with it. (This included the site's admins and such.) Further, they literally handed out power to people who were also just as jerk-like and rude as they were. Anywho, they intentionally pushed it to the point where I could tell all they were out to do was to just simply be rude to me, and that's when I left. I haven't been back since, and the site in question is now dead, and has been replaced by something that might try to hijack your PC, so I won't be putting the URL here. :|

 

 

 

Now, imagine on those same lines, a group of 5-15 people who all decide to go after one person. (That's really all the size they'd need.) Even if all they can do is to give 5 '+'s to anyone else other than that person, as identified by your example above, those will eventually add up to such a point as to make someone, other than a person (that they're targeting) with a correct and proper answer, look like an "Absolute SuperGeek"... Your idea just opens the floodgates. If this gets implemented, watch and wait, for this will happen, just as I fear. :boohoo:

 

 

 

 

 

I really wish I could make the thoughts in my mind easier for you to understand, but unluckily I have hit the limits of my mental capacity. :wall: ... (Exiting the thread at this point, too. There's a point where I become too frustrated to discuss a subject further.)

 

 

 

~Mr. D. V. Devnull

[Adam007]

Bari, you're right. There's no use getting riled up about an idea, and the discussion alone sometimes seems to derail the idea because there isn't enough of a consensus. Still, D_V, I think your idea of what could happen is a pretty far-fetched stretch of the imagination. Your example was on a forum that sounds like it just had a bad community. I think this community can handle this add-on without any of those kinds of problems. Really, if one person not getting +'s while others do is the biggest problem (a problem that, again, is easily fixed), I still see no cons, and plenty of pros.