Development Cycle Archive
Thread: SWG Forum Ranking Changes...
Message Edited by BarqsRootbeer on 08-21-2004 07:02 PM
groovysplat101 wrote:
Another idea - scrap the stars. Just have a single "star" that you can award to a post, if you like it, if you agree, or whatever. The rating would be based on how many people starred it. Then you could do a cumulative star thing. No averages. No 1-star ninjas. Just people who like your post, or don't. Then you total up the stars, and if you have a certain number of stars, you're eledgable for a star rank. The total of your stars can't decrease, so you can't have a malicious person "steal" your rank from you. If people come out with lots of positive, good ideas, that lots of people agree with...they should be the ones that are rewarded, not the people who have the least "enemies" on the forums.
Thank you, well put.
There's something similar to this in effect over at teamxbox.com. Posters accumilate "reputation". If you like a post, you add to the poster's reputation by clicking on his name and selecting the option. Once given, reputation can't be taken away. Seriously, if the point of ranking people is to encourage constructive posts, something like that is the BEST option. Anytime you invite negative feedback, you're going to recieve it, more often than not from malicious immature people whose opinion doesn't reflect the community's as a whole.
Message Edited by ZalTaur on 08-21-2004 09:56 PM
There is no way I am going to be able to check all 20 pages so it is likely someone has mentioned this, but with the ranking formula listed by Garva on page one the "normal" ranking system will always take priority over the star rank.
This is because Garva's post says:
4. What if I qualify for normal rank 8 but also qualify for Star rank 7?
A: The highest "rank" you qualify for will be the one you get, regardless of the star side of things... this is due to the fact that your "star" rank can come and go, you will always have your base rank. In the case above you would be Normal Rank 8.
All of the post counts for the normal ranking are less than are equal to the post counts required for a star rank. Thus, your normal rank will always be higher or equal to your start rank. Is this true or am I reading something wrong?
Garva....you may have 3x more posts than me, but you sure as hell don't pay attention to what's going on in the forums.
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.
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.
Um yeah come to the CH forum.almost dailysomeone comes along and 1 stars every post (guess someone really needs a life)