Development Cycle Archive

---

2. What about one star bandits (eq: those that go through one starring every post)

A: Contrary to popular belief, these are 1. rare and 2. have very little effect on the rating or ranking systems. The only thing it hurts is the bandits wrist. It takes 20 1 star ratings to cause a post to be hidden by the default system. Additionally we are putting measures in to be able to track and even "title" these posters so everyone will know who they are. When we findsomeone who abuses the rating systemwe do lower their "rating" weight to prevent abuse.

---

I think you have underestimated the power of the dark side. At one time, I had a very high rating and not many of my posts were even rated. But the ones that were rated were rated high indeed. Then a couple days later I founf that my overall rating had dropped substantially. I look at my posts and they all had one star. Apparently someone went through the trouble of 1-starring as many of my posts as he could. This brought my total score down quite low, so now it will stay at 3, given the amount of 1 stars I was given by an individual, and just knowing the numbers, can't possibly be raised much higher due to the amount of 5 star posts needed to counteract the 1's.

So, I must hold that in order to make the statement you did, you must not have a working knowledge of the 1-star experience.

I also found out that ratings are unimportant and many people are learning how to turn them off altogether. I have been suggesting this strongly to anyone I can. With no rating system we can get back to the forums and not the urination contest.

Wokka-wokka

A couple of comments. First of all I think it's pretty much impossible in a community this size to get the ratings needed for high level starred ranks. As a matter of fact, looking at people posting to this thread a majority, including myself, has three stars. To that effect I don't think the starred ratings ever would be used or would be so rare that the "effort" (if there is any) to implement the system is wasted.

Secondly, from the numbers below, you would never get the higher starred ranks. I.e starting at star rank 3, you will ALWAYS qualify for one normal rank 1 step higher. Starr rank 3 is 125 posts, while normal rank 4 is also 125 posts. Actually scrap that, there's also a time difference. However star rank 7 could never be reached because with 350 posts and 9 months you'll be community rank 8 already. Star rank 6 you'll only keep for 50 posts before you move on to normal rank 7.

Add me to the "I could care less" list.

---

GarVa wrote:

2. What about one star bandits (eq: those that go through one starring every post)

A: Contrary to popular belief, these are 1. rare and 2. have very little effect on the rating or ranking systems. The only thing it hurts is the bandits wrist. It takes 20 1 star ratings to cause a post to be hidden by the default system. Additionally we are putting measures in to be able to track and even "title" these posters so everyone will know who they are. When we findsomeone who abuses the rating systemwe do lower their "rating" weight to prevent abuse.

---

GarVa, sweetie, I love you, but logic needs to come through here:

If the 'One Star Bandits' really were 'rare, and have very little effect of the rating'...

Then we wouldn't have a name for them!

/hug

/smile

---

Thunderheart wrote:

Please let us know what you think about this.

Thanks!

---

Great, a new flame subject.

Just one request : allow people that turn off star system (lol) to not have the star based title.