Development Cycle Archive
Thread: SWG Forum Ranking Changes...
I mean even if someone makes a well articulated thread with good points, it's likely to receive a good few one stars from the 1-star bandits, but also from legitimate readers who just don't agree with the posters view so they one star to spite them or what have you. So to me the whole star system is a waste of code. Only a select few even use it and now that it actually effects something it'll bring the 1-star bandits out of the woodwork. And I doubt labeling them will matter, most griefers wear their griefer tag as a badge of honor as it is. Heck look at lineage 2, that's an in-game grief alert and they still don't care, they'll pk and brag about it all the same. Red name and increased drop rate to boot.
But the new system in and of itself sounds cool, don't really see a need for that star side of it though, but hey, new stuff is new stuff I guess.
1. Please consider making people's rating weights visible to others and even evolving it (and forum ranks) to a karma system.
2. Can I 1-star lithium? Honestly, I think arguably more forum noise is generated by lithium bugs and shortcomings then 'raging hormones'. Please fix it or beg, borrow or steal a better forum package.
2. My dream system would add a few fun titles: 'losy speeler', 'Factional Zealot', 'Serial l337 Speaker', 'Potty Mouth', 'Sig Challenged', 'Reb without a Cause', 'Emperor's Pet', 'Force Insensitive', etc. to be granted either by automated systems or by using an extended voting system.
LeBob wrote:
6. What privileges come with my current rank?
A: We will have this list as well as the associated privileges posted when we convert to the new system.
SOUNDS AWESOME GARVA!!!!
I have but one request.
Let one of the new privleges be the ability to lock one's own thread!
I have always wanted this... of course if it was 'abused', it would be revoked... and it should only be for highly ranked post-ers.
thanks very much!
I look forward to the changes even if my request is not granted.
Other than the part about only High Ranked Posters being the only ones to be able to lock threads they started, I like the Idea.
I too wouldn't mind being able to lock my own posts. Just becausemy post count (erto my rank)islow doesn't mean I am not responsible enough to know when I need to delete or lock a thread I started.
THE NEW RANKING SYSTEM
I realize the odds of this message being considered at this latepoint are slim to none, but in a momentary burst of crazedenthusiasm,here's my reaction.
CONCEPT
The new concept forforum rankingis excellent.It's good to see the web presence folks realizing that active forum posters can be a fantastic marketing opportunity, and adding forum functionality to make the best use of that opportunity.
IMPLEMENTATION
With regard to the forum rankingimplementation, I think the two-track system is a pretty slick idea. It looks like the obvious issues have been considered. However, there are a few additionalpoints that I'd like to see addressed:
1. The rating requirements for the "star" rankings do seem a bit high. Certainly it should be very difficult to achieve the highest levels, but the proposeddifficulty level may need some further calibration to bring it in line with the numbers of forum posters who'll actually be able to achieve the advanced levels.Just a veryfewone-star ninjascan prevent a good poster from being able to achieve a rank she merits.
2. The biggest problem -- as you correctly foresee -- is the one-star ninja. I think the two ideas you have for limiting their damage (naming the ninja, and reducing the "weight" of additional 1-star ratings)are good, but there arestillsomeproblems thatthese two features don't address.
a. Most lowered ratings for veteran posters aren't caused by a single one-star bandit, but are created by multiple bandits over time. So although curbs on individual bad rating behavior are good, they don't solve the problem of multiple fly-by-night posters ganging up on a good poster over several months.
b. Unless giving one-stars hurts the ninja somehow, I guarantee you there will be people who give one-stars constantly todeliberately try to achievethe lowest forum ranking possible. How will the new ranking system minimize the influence of these people?
c. Most painfully, what about existing one-star ratings? The new rules to curb one-star ninjaswill be helpful once they go into effect, but what about one-star ratings that have already beengiven? Unless those are revoked, it will be virtually impossible for any long-time forum poster to achieve the higher forumrankings... which, presumably, is not what you want. Difficult, yes, but not impossible.
So here's a question: How will you handle one-star ratings that were given under the old system dragging down forumrankings in the new system?
THE "STAR"RATING SYSTEM
ISSUES
The single biggestflaw inthe newranking systemis that it appears to retainthe old "star" rating system. Theproblemis that people use the star system to express disagreement with the content of a message, rather than how that message is presented. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with the content of a messge, but using the star rating system as a shorthand wayto express that disagreement makes it look like the message has no value... and that's not necessarily the case.
The result is that you get some very thought-provoking ideas getting one-starred because people (who don't even try to understand what's being proposed) react emotionally. The idea might not be something we want to see implementedin SWG, but if it gets people thinking constructively about what we do want in SWG, then that post isa valuablecontribution to the discussion forumsthatshould be rewarded withfour orfive stars, not punishedby applyingone or two stars.
Another example isthe post that might have a good idea, but it's from a new poster who's repeating a question that forum veterans have seen a hundred times and sogetsslapped with a bunch of one-stars. This will have the effect of telling new members "we don't want you here," which, again, is presumably not something you want to promote.
In short, the star system ought to be used to rate how well or badly a given post contributes toa discussion, not whether the rater agrees or disagrees with the ideas expressed in that post. That's how you encourage people to offer interesting ideas in the forums, and discourage people from interrupting or punishing constructive threads.
One-starsought to be reserved for posts that contribute nothing (or actually detract) from the discussion at hand. Obviously this doesn't apply to places like the GAT forum, where there's rarely an actual subject under discussion. But it's exactly right for a cynical or trolling or hijacking orotherwise inappropriatemessage in a serious thread focused on an interesting and worthwhile topic.
IDEAS
Unfortunately I can't think of a good way to modify the star rating system that's as simple as the current rating systemwhile also being lessprone to misusethan the current system. We could have a dual-mode rating system -- stars for content and letter grades for presentation -- but even if both were optional it might still be too complicated for some people's liking. How many people can be that objective, or want to spend the time carefully separating the content of a message from the way that message is presented?
Ultimately it's a problem of finding some mechanic for encouraging behavior you want and discouraging behavior you don't want. First, you have to figure out what behaviors you want to reward or punish. Then you have to figure out an elegant tool that accomplishes both goals.
The star system is elegant, but it skews results because it's so easily misapplied. A star/grade system would more accurately rate posters, but not everyone would use it properly because it's more complex.
So maybe what we really need is a feedback approach, where negative things done to someone else are reflected back onto you. For example, giving a post a rating less than three stars gives you the same rating -- if you one-star a post, a one-star gets added to your own ranking. You can still be disagreeable, but you'll pay a price for it.
Another option would be to cut people off from the rating system once they've given a certain percentage of one-star ratings. They'd still be able to do some damage up to a point, but at least that damage would be limited.
At any rate, Idefinitely approve ofthe proposed new ranking system. If at the same timethe rating system can be made a better indicator of posts that arevaluable contributions to a forum (whether people agree with the ideas therein or not), you'll have a real winner here.
--Flatfingers
P.S. If we're talking about making changes to Lithium software, could we please also schedule two of the changes I asked Hammerfel for several months ago? Specifically, I'd like a "phrase search" feature in the Advanced Search page, where I can enter a whole phrase and findonly posts with that entire sequence of characters (spaces and all). I'd also very much like to see the calculation ofnumeric ratings of search results be made more meaningful -- getting "100%" on everything is Just Not Useful. Thanks!
.
).