Ratings on posts.

Service: Narrative

Can someone explain this to me because there is obviously not simple math going on.

I have a post, it has two votes.  Since the options are either Up or Down I *should* be at 100%, 50%, or 0%. 

It's at 1%...

Given this, I'm assuming that votes are weighted  which sets up an elite class of users who can completely wipe a user out for no real reason other than they can.

Original Post

Activity Stream

VC Nickels posted:

I see...  

OK. That sets up an elite class of users since voting is anonymous and thus there is no recourse or consequence to actions.


It simply means that users with higher reputation - in other words, users who have earned the trust of the Narrative community - carry more weight.  One important benefit is that it makes it hard for a user to create a bunch of sock-puppet accounts to upvote their posts, since those accounts will carry very little weight.

Robert Nicholson posted:
VC Nickels posted:

I see...  

OK. That sets up an elite class of users since voting is anonymous and thus there is no recourse or consequence to actions.


It simply means that users with higher reputation - in other words, users who have earned the trust of the Narrative community - carry more weight.  One important benefit is that it makes it hard for a user to create a bunch of sock-puppet accounts to upvote their posts, since those accounts will carry very little weight.

So... an elite class. Thanks for the confirmation.

In Fact, I'm going to take this a step further. You start in the hole.

While not technically  in the negative, new users are potentially stifled by a low rating. Because of this, It's possible for a single user with a high status to bury a new user. This curtails content creation.

Everyone's votes for a post should be 1:1 and Reputation should start at 100 and that should be the max (or what ever, the US like big numbers so call it 1000 if you like).

Up/Down votes on a post should apply to a users Reputation, not the post, based on a modification of your weighted system.  The Reputation of a user is clearly listed so we can choose whether we are going to pay attention to an individual's posts or not. We're adults, we don't need crusading "Gate Keepers" dictating what shows up. 

Add to this system that down voting should be on a cool down so no one individual can down vote posts from a particular person more than a set number (lets say 3) per time period (say 48 hours) and with a max of down votes per person limited (say 9) per 24 hours.

AND... ALL votes should be public.  Putting down votes on cool down should limit "flame wars" or at least keep them to a manageable amount, assuming Moderators are enabled ever.

A user with high reputation can just as well boost your post - why assume that people don't like your posts?  

More to the point, I believe a certain minimum number of votes (5?) is required before the quality of the post is officially tabulated.  I could be wrong about that...  maybe DAVID DREEZER will clarify.

I think that the voting system will seem less arbitary as the number of users increases, and posts get more votes.  

Robert Nicholson posted:

A user with high reputation can just as well boost your post - why assume that people don't like your posts?  

More to the point, I believe a certain minimum number of votes (5?) is required before the quality of the post is officially tabulated.  I could be wrong about that...  maybe DAVID DREEZER will clarify.

I think that the voting system will seem less arbitary as the number of users increases, and posts get more votes.  

It isn't the number of posts, @Robert Nicholson, but you're really close.  A post has to reach a 1.0 point total.

The breakdown of how the weighing works for voting is here.

Robert Nicholson posted:

A user with high reputation can just as well boost your post - why assume that people don't like your posts?  

More to the point, I believe a certain minimum number of votes (5?) is required before the quality of the post is officially tabulated.  I could be wrong about that...  maybe DAVID DREEZER will clarify.

I think that the voting system will seem less arbitary as the number of users increases, and posts get more votes.  

I'm not assuming anything. It's how the internet works.

Regardless, there is clearly an elite class that act as Gate Keepers.  This will, and arguably has already, stifled or barred new users. 

David Dreezer posted:
Robert Nicholson posted:

A user with high reputation can just as well boost your post - why assume that people don't like your posts?  

More to the point, I believe a certain minimum number of votes (5?) is required before the quality of the post is officially tabulated.  I could be wrong about that...  maybe DAVID DREEZER will clarify.

I think that the voting system will seem less arbitary as the number of users increases, and posts get more votes.  

It isn't the number of posts, @Robert Nicholson, but you're really close.  A post has to reach a 1.0 point total.

The breakdown of how the weighing works for voting is here.

I stand by my statement.  

David Dreezer posted:
VC Nickels posted:

I'm not assuming anything. It's how the internet works.

Well, that's certainly a discussion ender then, isn't it?

Is it?  I mean that's an odd attitude from someone that works for a company that wants people to use it's platform.

Nrve posted:

He does have a point though, there is a lot of negativity on the internet we don't need to empower people with negative tools.

That or set up something where a very few users at the top can dictate how people use the platform.  If any of us wanted that, we'd go to Reddit.

Question Answered

This action was taken by MOLLY O.
To follow up on this question, please click here.
×
×
×
×
×