Posted by Dr. Bob on December 29, 2002, at 16:12:12
In reply to Re: less than factual info and ratings » BrittPark, posted by IsoM on December 27, 2002, at 23:58:11
> I'm surprised you've given it serious thought, Dr. Bob, since you have always been in favor of this site being supportive. I can't imagine many less supportive things than being given a rating of "full of bull" or "not reliable" or something by your peers.
>
> DinahI'm surprised you thought I'd offer a rating like "full of bull". :-)
What if there weren't any negative ratings? And the options were just to give a post a "star" or not?
> I've seen sites that used ratings & when someone felt vindictive toward another, they would give this person the lowest rating possible. They could also get friends to rate this person so any top ratings from others would be effectively cancelled. Other times, when an answer had no ratings, some readers thought it was worse than the lowest rating. Not all people reading the forums understood what the ratings meant. Time & again, ratings have caused more problems than solved.
>
> IsoMWell, I think it would have to be acknowledged that the ratings were a measure of popularity -- which could be due to a whole variety of factors.
Also, one "rating" that's independent of other posters, and that I've seen elsewhere, is the number of times someone's posted. What about that?
> in other areas peer rating works rather well. Take a look at slashdot.org.
>
> BrittParkI took a look, and saw the ratings, but couldn't figure out how to submit one myself. Are you able to only if you register?
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:8603
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20021128/msgs/8657.html