• Making Facepunch better - Don't post about ratings
    5,003 replies, posted
Let's try banning all of you
From what I can tell trying to browse SH for the last couple minutes, I'm way, way, way less inclined to actually participate. I'm not a ratings whore and I don't care if people agree or disagree with what I say, but it's just that I honestly can't fucking tell what posts are worth reading. I'm not going to read every single post on a thread just to follow the train of conversation. I can't scroll down past the shitty pointless posts and find the interesting ones highlighted by ratings. I'm basically forced to read everything to find the good posts, and that's not a worthwhile time investment. Same reason I sort reddit threads by top instead of new - I want to see the more interesting and in-depth comments that other people have already appreciated over the fiftieth "thx good article upvoted!!"
Every post is worth reading :)
[QUOTE=.Isak.;48153502]From what I can tell trying to browse SH for the last couple minutes, I'm way, way, way less inclined to actually participate. I'm not a ratings whore and I don't care if people agree or disagree with what I say, but it's just that I honestly can't fucking tell what posts are worth reading. I'm not going to read every single post on a thread just to follow the train of conversation. I can't scroll down past the shitty pointless posts and find the interesting ones highlighted by ratings. I'm basically forced to read everything to find the good posts, and that's not a worthwhile time investment. Same reason I sort reddit threads by top instead of new - I want to see the more interesting and in-depth comments that other people have already appreciated over the fiftieth "thx good article upvoted!!"[/QUOTE] I think this seems to be the overall consensus, but nobody has yet given a non-disputable, obvious example of why ratings were bad. All I've seen is that they're "abused" but I seriously can't understand how they [i]could[/i] be abused beyond someone just blindly rating dumb on every post in a thread. If there's a bandwagon effect and hundreds of people rate a dumb post dumb, why is that a bad thing? If someone posts an opinion that a lot of people agree with, what's the issue in people voicing their agreement?
[QUOTE=Pretty Obscure;48153447]All of these agrees on pro-disabling ratings posts and disagrees on anti-disabling ratings posts is pretty ironic when you think about it. Also, I notice that a number of the people sided with the disabling of ratings tend to be the people who get dumbed regularly for bad posts/opinions or the silent raters you see rating things all over and not posting... Connection? You decide. [/QUOTE] What a dumb, obtuse generalization with zero ground in fact. I seriously doubt you take note of each poster who collects dumbs on each post of each thread to make such a conclusion. [editline]8th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Snowmew;48153551]I think this seems to be the overall consensus, but nobody has yet given a non-disputable, obvious example of why ratings were bad. All I've seen is that they're "abused" but I seriously can't understand how they [i]could[/i] be abused beyond someone just blindly rating dumb on every post in a thread. If there's a bandwagon effect and hundreds of people rate a dumb post dumb, why is that a bad thing? If someone posts an opinion that a lot of people agree with, what's the issue in people voicing their agreement?[/QUOTE] For some reason, the moderators (or at the least, just Starpluck), think this will create more dialogue and posting in threads (as if the lack of it is strong or forum activity is somehow dying) as opposed to just scrolling and rating and continued scrolling. I somehow doubt this is the actual reason because it's so incredibly naive to think this will happen (nor is there really any way to "prove" it's working or not working after a while so the moderators will have an easier time justifying keeping it this way). If anything, this has killed the voice of lurkers. I don't necessarily understand or see how "hiding behind ratings" is a bad thing unless you continuously rate most posts in all threads (which, hey, is bannable anyway!). On the flip side, because I don't think the forum will improve without ratings, I'm indifferent to their loss. I don't think this will improve it, or at least improve it in a significant way. But I don't see this as tearing down the quality of SH either.
[URL="http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1210099?p=37545592#post37545592"]the biggest example of ratings whoring in SH[/URL]
[QUOTE=Sand Castle;48153582][URL="http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1210099?p=37545592#post37545592"]the biggest example of ratings whoring in SH[/URL][/QUOTE] That post was amazing though, getting lots of ratings isn't the same as whoring for them
[QUOTE=Sand Castle;48153582][URL="http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1210099?p=37545592#post37545592"]the biggest example of ratings whoring in SH[/URL][/QUOTE] I don't think that's ratings whoring. That post was made in complete context of the thread itself. Rating whores are those who try to make a joke in every single thread, context of the thread or not.
i don't think we'll see a lot of "i agree" or "this" posts tbh, i don't remember it being common at all in mass debate (though it was more strictly moderated i guess) the biggest problem with it was really people making utterly stupid posts and continuing to lack any sort of self-awareness because of the little feedback they got. surely i'm not the only one who remembers that "who would win, WWII american army or the modern day one" thread
[QUOTE=Sand Castle;48153582][URL="http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1210099?p=37545592#post37545592"]the biggest example of ratings whoring in SH[/URL][/QUOTE] I'm sure that poster would have posted that same video even if ratings were gone back then.
[QUOTE=UnknownDude;48153420]Since ratings have been disabled, maybe it's time to allow news puns again? With ratings disabled, people won't be inclined to make puns just to whore funnies and zings, but rather when they're appropriate and actually funny. I loved going to SH back in the day just to laugh at the crazy puns. I fondly remember mojo week as one of the best things that ever happened to the section.[/QUOTE] The amount of funnies your pun got usually was proportional to how funny they actually were. I don't see this making people post better ones.
[QUOTE=Sand Castle;48153582][URL="http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1210099?p=37545592#post37545592"]the biggest example of ratings whoring in SH[/URL][/QUOTE] Again, [i]this isn't Reddit[/i]. Nobody's keeping a tally of ratings on your account. I just closed that tab and I've already honestly forgotten who's posted it. Ratings whoring means absolutely nothing when ratings aren't global throughout the site. Even then, what's the problem with someone posting something fucking hilarious and people expressing the fact that they found it funny? Would you prefer thousands of people replying with "LOL"?
I've never really noticed ratings causing any behavioral patterns in SH other than pointing out when a post is really stupid and loads of people disagree with it, or people trying to farm funnies which is a minor issue at best because they're either dumbed into oblivion or swiftly dealt with. Then again I'm not stupid enough to dive headfirst into the really dumb threads that go on for pages and pages so I dunno if ratings would affect those discussions.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;48153603]Again, [i]this isn't Reddit[/i]. Nobody's keeping a tally of ratings on your account. I just closed that tab and I've already honestly forgotten who's posted it. Ratings whoring means absolutely nothing when ratings aren't global throughout the site.[/QUOTE] [URL=https://braxnet.org/fpr/]except they do[/URL]
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;48153595]i don't think we'll see a lot of "i agree" or "this" posts tbh, i don't remember it being common at all in mass debate (though it was more strictly moderated i guess) the biggest problem with it was really people making utterly stupid posts and continuing to lack any sort of self-awareness because of the little feedback they got. surely i'm not the only one who remembers that "who would win, WWII american army or the modern day one" thread[/QUOTE] I feel the reason Mass Debates died was because it was so strictly moderated. There was basically a zero-tolerance law in it that prevented any kind of wiggle room to talk about stuff. Especially with the "support your argument with facts or get banned" thing - how do you do that with opinions? Plus, no one wants to sit for an hour browsing through news articles and journals to write up a formal paper just to argue on a forum thread. If I couldn't go in and post "I disagree with this because of XYZ" without having to provide a source, a long post explaining my argument, etc, then it's just not worth my time to go there. [editline]8th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=DrTaxi;48153623][URL=https://braxnet.org/fpr/]except they do[/URL][/QUOTE] Most of the forum doesn't even know about this. And at that, I don't see people specifically posting to get their names on the top of this site.
[QUOTE=DrTaxi;48153623][URL="https://braxnet.org/fpr/"]except they do[/URL][/QUOTE] Not officially (anymore) They once were officially. [editline]8th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48153624]I feel the reason Mass Debates died was because it was so strictly moderated. There was basically a zero-tolerance law in it that prevented any kind of wiggle room to talk about stuff. Especially with the "support your argument with facts or get banned" thing - how do you do that with opinions? Plus, no one wants to sit for an hour browsing through news articles and journals to write up a formal paper just to argue on a forum thread. If I couldn't go in and post "I disagree with this because of XYZ" without having to provide a source, a long post explaining my argument, etc, then it's just not worth my time to go there.[/QUOTE] Posting in Mass Debate ended up feeling like doing a Uni assignment on the topic(s) at hand. How many actually feel like participating in a debate that's 100% only that?
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;48153698]Killing ratings killed Mass Debates[/QUOTE] The point of Mass Debate was that you debated with other users, not rate them dumb with no explanation (that's not debating). For a section dedicated to debating, I think ratings being disabled was appropriate.
i liked mass debate, it just needed more activity the weird thing is that once a lot of people don't post there, other people stop posting there until it becomes a wasteland
Would it be possible to only enable ratings for the first post in SH? If I understand this correctly, the rating shown next to the thread title is based on the majority rating in the first post, right? Threads that have the Winner rating tend to catch my eye more than other threads.
[QUOTE=Mors Quaedam;48153700]The point of Mass Debate was that you debated with other users, not rate them dumb with no explanation (that's not debating). For a section dedicated to debating, I think ratings being disabled was appropriate.[/QUOTE] It's not at all dedicated to debating, it's about interesting news with a lighthearted twist and funny commentary. Some of the best moments on this forum have come out of that, and the single worst moments have come out of 'debating'. If I just wanted interesting news with a comment section consisting of "hmm yes interesting" I'd read the source like everybody else.
damn, ratings were super useful for identifying horrible racists so I could adjust my ignore list accordingly
I think the ratings change is good but only if you keep 3 ratings, agree, disagree, informative. Maybe even funny even since some news stories were pretty hilarious I don't really like this because you're going to turn SH into mass debate, and eventually mass debate was purged for being generally terrible [editline]9th July 2015[/editline] apologies if mods have said do not comment on this anymore bc i haven't dug around to see a response
[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;48153805]It's not at all dedicated to debating, it's about interesting news with a lighthearted twist and funny commentary. Some of the best moments on this forum have come out of that, and the single worst moments have come out of 'debating'. If I just wanted interesting news with a comment section consisting of "hmm yes interesting" I'd read the source like everybody else.[/QUOTE] the second line was also talking about mass debate
Like sure people say SH is shit post central but honestly SH was a fun place to post in. People had their say, you had ratings being spammed out sure but it wasn't supposed to be serious. Fuck sake, I was told by a mod to not take this place seriously and then the mods suddenly take this place seriously. Ratings were pixels and it meant nothing but a higher e-dong but it saved pointless replies and allowed people who were scared of posting their opinion refuge in ratings This shouldn't have been done with the discretion of the mod team but rather the community itself regardless if you thought bias was going to tilt the poll in the favour of the side that wanted to keep ratings
Ratings is the reason why I like to get my news here over anywhere else.
[QUOTE=dai;48152901]friendly reminder that 'why reply' has always been a valid ban reason for those kind of posts [img]http://i.imgur.com/tMBjAIa.png[/img][/QUOTE] Why reply works for FP tho because of the rating system. If you just say "this" "haha" "lol i agree" "yep!" then you're not posting anything credible to the discussion. The way that this was solved was, with ratings. So now, people don't have anyway to really say "I agree" to someone's post without adding onto it, and if someone hits the nail perfectly on the head, then. That's it. You can't do shit about it.
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;48153971]Why reply works for FP tho because of the rating system. If you just say "this" "haha" "lol i agree" "yep!" then you're not posting anything credible to the discussion. The way that this was solved was, with ratings. So now, people don't have anyway to really say "I agree" to someone's post without adding onto it, and if someone hits the nail perfectly on the head, then. That's it. You can't do shit about it.[/QUOTE] That's not how "why reply" is used in my experience.
not having ratings would totally work if this was a smaller forum and we didn't have hundreds of people posting at once (especially in sh which is the most popular section)
smaller forums/gaming communities forum rules do not have anything in them that prohibits why reply because mods do not see the point in them (esp on the smaller scale) A big forum like FP where ratings have been around for a long time, it's basically engrained on this forum. SH shouldn't be serious if mods have told people to stop being serious, SH won't end bandwagons or /pol/tards and removing it will most likely see a decrease in activity and posting. Of course that'll be observed and this could just be a trial, but this all reminds me of Mass Debate and MD died pretty hard
"Why reply" is less about making "THIS!" posts and more about coming into a thread just to complain about the thread.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.