Is it me?

bandit wrote:Tony, I can't quite see the benefit of having a rating system based on the number of posts made :?:

It assigns a value to volume not quality :D

I didnt actually mean "rating" I just meant a kind of membership thingy. I dont think people should be rated for quality. If you have something to say, say it.

Tony_H wrote:

bandit wrote:Tony, I can't quite see the benefit of having a rating system based on the number of posts made :?:

It assigns a value to volume not quality :D

I didnt actually mean "rating" I just meant a kind of membership thingy. I dont think people should be rated for quality. If you have something to say, say it.

You had me worried there for a moment :lol: Yes, I can see your point.

Perhaps Admin could offer a range of poster access levels depending on financial contributions made )

I would like to know if anyone here, who regularly posts, is actually in favour of keeping the present star system.

The only benefit in the current system that I can see, is to those members who read posts but who don't, for whatever reason, make posts themselves. So that if they agree, or disagree, with a post, they can anonymously make their feelings known, but without explaining their reasons for the grading.

Those who do post, can simply post a reply.

As someone who has posted quite a lot during the last year, I would like to say that I find it upsetting when someone gives me a one star grading and I don't know why. I have no way of knowing if I have unintentionally hurt their feelings and hence no way of apologising, and likewise no way of improving my posts since I don't know where I went wrong.

Also, the system is quite clearly open to abuse from members grading for a reason which actually has nothing to do with the quality of the post.

Tony,
I don't think we need a new system based on the number of posts we make, since this number is already recorded and available to view.

As I said before, I don't think we need the star system at all. Perhaps then, those members who have previously graded anonymously might actually post their response, positive or negative, which can then be debated in the open forum in a transparent and democratic manner.

Best wishes to everyone - those who post and those who don't :D :D

Ally

Having a rating system where you can only rate each poster once would be good with the ability to change it as your perceptions or feelings change.

Pablo,
Sorry to be so thick, but I don't get that :cry:

Would you be so kind as to explain it again for me please?

Ally

Not quite what I was on about when I opened the thread but as I still do not know what the stars mean I am none the wiser!!

Sorry Scarlet Fez for hi-jacking your thread :oops:

If you look in the right-hand bottom corner of a post (when you're logged on) you will see a little rating box, where you can give a post from one to five stars, depending on what you think of it. As far as I know there are no rules, or guidelines, for how you rate it, so you could give it 5 stars because you think it's very funny, or one star because you disagree with it. And no-one will know who rated the post.

Posts are very rarely rated, but when they have been rated the number of stars they've been given appears above the message. And this rating contributes to the number of stars that you personally hold, shown by your screen name, or avatar. In theory, the number of stars you hold should be directly related to the quality of your posts. However, as we have been explaining, it doesn't always work like that...

I hope this is what you wanted to know,

Ally

Edit
I forgot to mention, that the same post can be rated a number of times by different members, so the rating can change, as it averages out the number of stars. Trencher's infamously rated one star posts on this thread, for example, have currently moved up to 3 stars, presumably because someone has re-rated them 5 stars.

I like the star system. For one thing, it is a check and balance against persistent abuse ~ as long as it is used correctly. There are other ski web sites that suffer some awful interactions. Many people join J2Ski because, by and large it is a friendly site.

I particularly like the ability to five star someone, when they have made an outstanding constribution. This may have been a good bit of humour, a technical item, good local knowledge, and so on. By doing so, we are encouraging positive and knowledgable contributions.

There are some individuals who give strong and knowledgeable info, some on technique, some on info for a particular resort, when requested, ie they are adding value to our group knowledge.

I do not see a benefit in a 2,3 or 4 star.

The main area of contention seems to be the one star. I have read some awful postings, verging on the dangerous, to which a one star would be inadequate. Added to which, as seen by some recent postings, some individuals are trying to work on anothers star rating. Three examples have been quoted. The star posters should be aware that there is a higher god on this site, who has the power to smite!

I have thought about differing reward structures, but they all seem to have a downside.