Can we make forums ratings make sense?

[HuhWhat 76]

I guess I didn't state this well enough, it really has nothing to do with community ratings, though I am not sure how they figure them, the term just stuck in my head.

I really think we need an option to down vote, and I know what you are going to say, but bullies!!!!

Don't make down votes or up votes impact community rating (obviously I have no idea how you configure that) . I mean if only upvotes counted, then every one should be flying high, since that is all we can do.

I think down votes would be helpful on some posts, and needed on other posts. would save unnecessary replies. Eh, I don't know know, but we should have the option to like it or not like it, no impact to the original poster. Is the community  rating nothing but a popularity contest? sure seems that way,,,,,,,,

 

Edited May 15, 2023 by HuhWhat
I'm thinking

[Simyaci 410]

Who will be the chaos knights that will be unleashed into the world of wurm forums when you open the gates of hell, to leave only death and destruction in their wake? 

[Zundy 99]

Because you can weaponise dislikes I guess.

[Stinboi 367]

-1 easy to abuse

[Archaed 2,280]

2 hours ago, HuhWhat said:

Ok so we have forums ratings( community reputation) , but our only option is to "like it"...what if you hate it? There is no way to mark down the bullies. We can ignore them, but can't down vote them, which I am pretty sure we could do in the past, so now community rating is nothing but a popularity contest. Just seems sad in this day and age of keyboard warriors that attack every one and everything they don't have to talk to face to face

There havent been dislikes in the past 10 years I've been playing. 

 

Downvotes spread toxicity, just ignore it and move along 

[Oblivionnreaver 5,175]

thats what the cat react is for

[Tor 530]

Yeah just remove likes too

[Votip 1,618]

3 hours ago, Archaed said:

Downvotes spread toxicity,

why people in 2023 are so easy to offend? you dont agree with them and they cry

[wipeout 1,355]

On 5/13/2023 at 7:13 PM, Oblivionnreaver said:

thats what the cat react is for

Cat is for cat 

As for the post itself yes please do let us be able to properly vote sure there is a side of negative behavior but when isnt there??

[Minnie 178]

So maybe we can just ignore the community ratings and base our opinions on what the person has actually said, rather than on some dumbass number generated by random people clicking stuff.

 

And if we disagree with someone or think they're a bully, we can use our words to say why.  This is how the world used to work all the time, long long ago.  It was glorious.

[Tor 530]

I like better dislike button then current posting of ridiculing gifs, memes and forum signatures, less toxic that way if we need to protect anyone from disaproval on the internet

[TheTrickster 2,287]

On 5/13/2023 at 2:35 PM, HuhWhat said:

Ok so we have forums ratings( community reputation) , but our only option is to "like it"...what if you hate it? There is no way to mark down the bullies. We can ignore them, but can't down vote them, which I am pretty sure we could do in the past, so now community rating is nothing but a popularity contest. Just seems sad in this day and age of keyboard warriors that attack every one and everything they don't have to talk to face to face

Because so much of the "marking down" is done BY bullies rather than TO bullies.

 

Hard no.  All day, every day.  Wurm has enough tolerance of bullying as it is with the "Your reputation is your own" nonsense when it has LONG been established that online bullying very much takes the form of attacking reputation.

[HuhWhat 76]

1 hour ago, TheTrickster said:

Because so much of the "marking down" is done BY bullies rather than TO bullies.

 

Hard no.  All day, every day.  Wurm has enough tolerance of bullying as it is with the "Your reputation is your own" nonsense when it has LONG been established that online bullying very much takes the form of attacking reputation.

I see what you are saying, and it makes complete sense, but i still think we need the option to down vote, or why have an up vote?

 

[Simyaci 410]

6 hours ago, TheTrickster said:

Because so much of the "marking down" is done BY bullies rather than TO bullies.

 

Hard no.  All day, every day.  Wurm has enough tolerance of bullying as it is with the "Your reputation is your own" nonsense when it has LONG been established that online bullying very much takes the form of attacking reputation.

This ^

[Stinboi 367]

9 hours ago, TheTrickster said:

Because so much of the "marking down" is done BY bullies rather than TO bullies.

 

Hard no.  All day, every day.  Wurm has enough tolerance of bullying as it is with the "Your reputation is your own" nonsense when it has LONG been established that online bullying very much takes the form of attacking reputation.

this is the best example why downvoting shouldnt be added, but i dont see the point of upvoting either.

And to be honest i have never looked at the reputation or thought about it before this thread.

[Sidereal 1,119]

Fortunately, there's actual academic research that has been published on this very topic: https://cs.stanford.edu/people/jure/pubs/disqus-icwsm14.pdf

That's a lot of academic language, but the key findings are:

 

(1) People who write low quality posts are more likely to write again when they get negative attention. Furthermore, the quality of their posts deteriorates. This goes beyond the simple adage that you shouldn’t feed the trolls by giving them attention. The evidence suggests that negative feedback can perhaps actually create trolls. It also suggests that people getting negative feedback are more likely to give others negative feedback, too, spreading the infection.

 

(2) People who write high quality posts are encouraged by positive attention to write more. However, they aren’t as encouraged by positive attention as bad posters are by negative attention. Furthermore, the quality of their posts does not go up. Broadly speaking, encouragement doesn’t seem particularly effective.

 

This work suggests that Wong’s purported solution – moral exhortation and positive feedback for good posts – won’t work . Trolls and poor quality posters get far more encouragement from negative attention than good posters get from positive attention.

Edited May 16, 2023 by Sidereal

[TheTrickster 2,287]

On 5/16/2023 at 1:32 PM, Sidereal said:

Fortunately, there's actual academic research that has been published on this very topic: https://cs.stanford.edu/people/jure/pubs/disqus-icwsm14.pdf

That's a lot of academic language, but the key findings are:

 

(1) People who write low quality posts are more likely to write again when they get negative attention. Furthermore, the quality of their posts deteriorates. This goes beyond the simple adage that you shouldn’t feed the trolls by giving them attention. The evidence suggests that negative feedback can perhaps actually create trolls. It also suggests that people getting negative feedback are more likely to give others negative feedback, too, spreading the infection.

 

(2) People who write high quality posts are encouraged by positive attention to write more. However, they aren’t as encouraged by positive attention as bad posters are by negative attention. Furthermore, the quality of their posts does not go up. Broadly speaking, encouragement doesn’t seem particularly effective.

 

This work suggests that Wong’s purported solution – moral exhortation and positive feedback for good posts – won’t work . Trolls and poor quality posters get far more encouragement from negative attention than good posters get from positive attention.

 

So, we have good strong reasons NOT to have downvotes, and some mild reasons to have upvotes.  

 

The thing is, if upvoting encourages the authors or good posts to post more good posts, that is a positive effect.  Regardless of whether the additional good posts are better than the original good posts, they are still additional good posts.

 

[wipeout 1,355]

20 hours ago, TheTrickster said:

 

So, we have good strong reasons NOT to have downvotes, and some mild reasons to have upvotes.  

 

The thing is, if upvoting encourages the authors or good posts to post more good posts, that is a positive effect.  Regardless of whether the additional good posts are better than the original good posts, they are still additional good posts.

 

There would still be a difference between getting a downvote and 50 "-1 because x reason" posts which often lead to small arguments and we have been using -1 as a downvote by post idea for more then a decade now so what's the harm in turning it into a button when we already use it?

If anything having a proper voting system would allow people to quickly give their opinion on if they are for or against an idea without needing to provide a written reason why because quite often a reason is already stated and their -1 post just becomes a quote other person and go "^this" post which just clutters up actual conversation that might be happening about the idea

Sometimes you just want to say you don't like an idea without actually stating why and that's where a proper voting system would come into play as it'll leave topics looking cleaner

[Karrde 343]

Personally rather have a use for the internet points, like a snazzy shiny or something.