# Ratings



## vangemeren (16 Nov 2005)

I just noticed the rating system. How does the plus minus thing work? I don't know because this is the only forum I goto. I wasn't here when they were here before.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (16 Nov 2005)

When someone does something "good" hit the promote link, when they produce a questionable post, hit the demote button. Users with more than 25 posts can rate others, but only every 5 hours.

The ratings themselves don't determine anything but may be used as one factor in determining a user's viability. I.E. for those who chose not to fill out their profiles, this may provide a "popular concensus" of their standing.

I'd caution not to put too much stock into the rating system, but it may be used in some cases to backup existing notions.

We're just trialling it and there's a good chance it'll be off again soon but we're going to give it a shot.


----------



## Dissident (16 Nov 2005)

well, I have more than 25 posts, which is probably more than my IQ, since I can't figure out how to vote for people...


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (16 Nov 2005)

Use the [Promote]  [Demote] links under each user's info on the left.


----------



## Dissident (16 Nov 2005)

That wasn't there before, thanks.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (16 Nov 2005)

Agreed, it wasn't... I needed to enable them fully before they were visible, so you weren't missing anything, it was me.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (16 Nov 2005)

Mike,

  Nice idea or should I say that with 3 negatives in 10 mins......lol

  I would appreciate having the person PMd who did the neg or positive, you know the honorable thing, if your patting someone on the back nice to know if your cutting them down a knife in the back is an anonymous tag on the negative.


----------



## Dissident (16 Nov 2005)

+1 for that. I have seen on other forums where you can leave a message with your +/-, leaving you at least the chance to let yourself known.

edit: and explain the reason why.


----------



## kincanucks (16 Nov 2005)

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Mike,
> 
> Nice idea or should I say that with 3 negatives in 10 mins......lol
> 
> I would appreciate having the person PMd who did the neg or positive, you know the honorable thing, if your patting someone on the back nice to know if your cutting them down a knife in the back is an anonymous tag on the negative.



Has it been five hours yet?


----------



## paracowboy (16 Nov 2005)

kincanucks said:
			
		

> Has it been five hours yet?


no. At least, not for me.


----------



## NavComm (16 Nov 2005)

Will we be giving recognition to the contenders? Something like...and in the category of most popular poster...one free parajump over the atlantic in mid-november goes to (winners name goes here)

I imagine an awards ceremony aka the official army.ca Juno awards!!!

 

Seriously, though, it looks like a good idea to me. I can think of far more people on here I would promote, but there's been a few times I'd go the other way.


modified to add: it's been 2 hours since I was on the site (more or less) and now I have a +1/-1 rating. Do I get to address the voters and ask them what I possibly said in the last two hours to garner these positive and negative points?


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (17 Nov 2005)

Ratings are a secret ballot, so unless the person makes themselves known to you, it'll remain a secret. Right now the system is a bit of a novelty, so I imagine people are trying it out. I expect things will "level off" shortly.

As I said above, I strongly caution against reading too much into ratings (your or others). Everyone is going to have some postiive and some negative. In the past I've simply used ratings as a highly inaccurate "popular" mesaurement, only to help confirm what I've seen in a user's actions first hand.

It certainly would be possible to create lists of "best/worst" based on this, strictly for entertainment of course...


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (17 Nov 2005)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> It certainly would be possible to create lists of "best/worst" based on this, strictly for entertainment of course...



And unrelenting hounding... 

whoops, did i say that out loud? I meant constructive criticism.


----------



## NavComm (18 Nov 2005)

Entertainment is good


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!! (18 Nov 2005)

Would it be possible to incorporate a system like ebay has for rating users with a seperate comment block (ie:+ that was a well informed post or -don't try to start flame wars)?


----------



## bridges (18 Nov 2005)

What kind of thing would be a "questionable" post, in the intent of this system?  If someone simply disagrees with you, does this mean they should be "demoting" you?


----------



## George Wallace (18 Nov 2005)

Personally, I don't care about the Ratings....the ole "We don't need no stinking Ratings" philosophy.  If a person makes good Posts you will recognise them for it, and don't really need someone else's rating to tell you that.  If they continually post crap, you will learn to ignore what they say, no matter how they are rated.  If they are a Troll or Poser, they are soon found out and sent packing.  We had Ratings before and some Trolls and Posers used them to inflate themselves and trash others.  The Ratings only mean something if you believe they do.  They don't really mean much, because of the nature of some who use them to exact an agenda on others.

Oh!  Not everyone will agree with what you say all the time, or vis versa, so you will never please everyone all the time, so....  :


----------



## Old Ranger (18 Nov 2005)

George,

You just got another plus, as a way of patting you on the back, or a gentle punch to the shoulder.  I think of it as a way of saying Good Job.

Ben


----------



## George Wallace (18 Nov 2005)

Ratings are over-rated.  Not that many of us, I hope, need them to pump up our egos.  I hesitate from using them, as there are many fine, intelligent, articulate and knowledgable people on this site.  There are times that I strongly disagree with something that they say, and sometimes someone strongly disagrees with something that I say, but the weight of their overall posts is what truly counts, not one single instance.  We all post in haste, or make mistakes,.... Who here doesn't have a naval to gaze at from time to time?  Life will go on.  So, relax...Ratings are only a novelty.  Enjoy.

Remember Red Green.   :cheers:


----------



## bridges (18 Nov 2005)

Interesting ... I noticed that I've just been "demoted".  I can only presume it was as a result of raising the question a few posts above.  Does the "demoter" care to identify themselves, and the reason?


----------



## GO!!! (18 Nov 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Who here doesn't have a naval to gaze at from time to time?



Um, this may be a silly question, but if your eyes at navel gazing level, then would'nt your mouth be at..... never mind. Guess I'm just home alone too much  >

Or is there some other meaning to this ambiguously stimulating quote?


----------



## bridges (18 Nov 2005)

5 negatives now ... I must be really important!        Well, whatever.  Have fun with it.


----------



## 3rd Horseman (18 Nov 2005)

Read my post above I suggested we PM the promote/demote tag to the receiver who did it then the fun would start. I would suggest that anyone who does not PM the receiver is a bit of a coward, challenge is out!

Paracowboy I demoted you once.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (18 Nov 2005)

I now remember why they went away in the first place...   :


----------



## GO!!! (18 Nov 2005)

I suggest that we have some sort of system of ranks.

+10 promoted to Cpl
+ 30 promoted to MCpl

This way, I can one day have a thin ray of hope that I can be promoted, if only on army.ca


----------



## winchable (18 Nov 2005)

Ah, this all looks so familiar...


----------



## Weiner (18 Nov 2005)

I think the ratings are all in good fun.  I'll personally be offended if I get any positive ratings.  But wait...

The tables have just turned...

This is my 25th post and In the words of some famous half naked skeleton fighting dude,

"I HAVE THE POWER!!!!!"


Disclaimer: I may not actually have the power if more than 25 posts actually means more than 25 posts...


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (18 Nov 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I suggest that we have some sort of system of ranks.
> 
> +10 promoted to Cpl
> + 30 promoted to MCpl
> ...



Sure, and then we can implement Officer ranks to account for those with negative ratings.  ;D


----------



## 3rd Horseman (18 Nov 2005)

That must be why I have the most demotions sure fits my old rank...I feel better now. ;D


----------



## GO!!! (18 Nov 2005)

Sh0rtbUs said:
			
		

> Sure, and then we can implement Officer ranks to account for those with negative ratings.   ;D



Sheer brilliance + 1 for you!  ;D


----------



## Big Foot (18 Nov 2005)

SO thats why I'm only at -2, I'm an officer cadet  I best start getting myself negative ratings...


----------



## X Royal (18 Nov 2005)

Honestly I can see this becoming a buddies who like buddies, promoting budddies _*OR*_ or buddies teaming up to knife others theme. This can only discredit some or falsely promote others.
_Lets let the posters posts speak for themselves._

Best Wishes


----------



## X Royal (18 Nov 2005)

LOL- My last post got me a -1.
What a god damn joke. ;D


----------



## reccecrewman (18 Nov 2005)

Personally, I think it's a pretty ingenious idea.  It's kinda neat to be able to take a look at the ratings and see where people stand amongst the folks here on this site.

Cheers


----------



## PPCLI MCpl (18 Nov 2005)

This is another example of Army.ca mirroring the CF, in that I have noticed a trend towards peer-assessment on several courses within the last few years.   The Corey Graham Peer Leadership Award in Wainwright is a good example.   

It is true that some individuals may use this opportunity to play high school type games, but I believe the majority will vote fairly and with good reason.

It will be interesting to see how this all turns out.


----------



## kincanucks (19 Nov 2005)

Peer assassination is nothing new to the CF and I remember it being used on my BOTC in 1988.


----------



## armyjewelz (19 Nov 2005)

HEY LOOK!!

I haven't posted ANYTHING since the new system and I still got a -1!  I guess someone was harboring resentment  :


----------



## muskrat89 (19 Nov 2005)

LOL - It happens to the best of us. I got a bunch of negatives, and haven't posted much as of late...  Don't take them too seriously


----------



## winchable (19 Nov 2005)

Hell, some of us like being negated, some kind of latent sado-masochistic tendencies.

Oh yeah...negate me baby..


----------



## armyjewelz (19 Nov 2005)

LOL..

I guess I will take that approach as I now see my negatives mounting up.

I kinda thing it is a silly system as it is obviously being abused when I have written little of consequence in order to be shunned. LOL


----------



## paracowboy (19 Nov 2005)

well, aren't I just the figure of controversy!
 ;D


----------



## armyjewelz (19 Nov 2005)

Meh Para...

You still have more +'s than -.


----------



## armyvern (19 Nov 2005)

I'm thinking I should be a -100 about now just based on the fact that I'm a Sup Tech, and everybody hates them!!  > 
Hmmm....absolutely perky.


----------



## Springroll (19 Nov 2005)

This new system is kind of odd.

I have +1/-4 and have only posted 2 replies, neither of which were "bad" posts.

I can see that this new system is going to be more of a joke than anything else.

*sits and waits for more negatives....


----------



## paracowboy (19 Nov 2005)

armyjewelz said:
			
		

> Meh Para...
> 
> You still have more +'s than -.


give it time.

Perky, indeed.


----------



## GO!!! (19 Nov 2005)

Yeah, there needs to be some sort of accountability for these ratings, maybe just some way to click and see a list of who has promoted/demoted you. 

This would probably keep the "peer assassination" to a minimum.


----------



## Gunner (19 Nov 2005)

Go!!!

Here's a +1 to make you feel better!


----------



## George Wallace (19 Nov 2005)

Well Folks

Remember, you don't have to post recently to be rated.  Someone may have read one of your past posts in some Thread and made a judgement call there.  Perhaps you just got rated on something you posted months ago......So what did you say then?  Again, just for GO!!! perhaps some contemplation of your navel is required as you reflect on past posts.  (Unless, of course, there is a beer resting on your belly and you can't see your navel.)   ;D


----------



## armyvern (19 Nov 2005)

Para,

+1

 >


----------



## armyvern (19 Nov 2005)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Again, just for GO!!! perhaps some contemplation of your navel is required as you reflect on past posts.   (Unless, of course, there is a beer resting on your belly and you can't see your navel.)     ;D


I'd like the opportunity to contemplate his navel!!

+1 for the suggestion!!
And +1 for GO!!! once every 5 hours if he follows your suggestion  >


----------



## Armymedic (19 Nov 2005)

darn George beat me to what I wanted to say. 





> Remember, you don't have to post recently to be rated.   Someone may have read one of your past posts in some Thread and made a judgement call there.   Perhaps you just got rated on something you posted months ago



Para,
if the friendship dues you owe me doesn't make it to me in the next 4 hrs and 42 mins, youre getting another demote point... >


----------



## armyjewelz (19 Nov 2005)

.....
And then of course there will always be people who just negative upon you for absolutely no reason


----------



## Burrows (19 Nov 2005)

Don't read too much into it. I'm not.  I'd rather see something more...robust.


----------



## paracowboy (19 Nov 2005)

Armymedic said:
			
		

> Para,
> if the friendship dues you owe me doesn't make it to me in the next 4 hrs and 42 mins, youre getting another demote point... >


dude, talk to Mo-mo. I gave him 50 bucks to hand to you. If he denies it, don't believe him! 
He's got yo' benjamins, homey. Word.


----------



## paracowboy (19 Nov 2005)

hey, Mike! Is there any way you can give me, like, -1,000,000? That would be *HI*-larious!


----------



## Springroll (19 Nov 2005)

I'm catching up Paracowboy....

only 2 more negatives to go


----------



## Armymedic (19 Nov 2005)

Springroll said:
			
		

> I'm catching up Paracowboy....
> 
> only 2 more negatives to go



oops, look like you spoke too soon. 15 mins later, and you've passed him.


----------



## Springroll (19 Nov 2005)

Yippee!!

I am going to aim at getting the highest negatives without posting....just watch the numbers climb ;D


----------



## Slim (19 Nov 2005)

I got a -1...can you imagine that!

maybe its because I start every post in the cadet forum with; "Cadets don't need..." >

HAHAHA...Ahem.

Cheers

Slim


----------



## ZipperHead (19 Nov 2005)

To be honest, I'm pretty sure that it's people's past "performance" that is accounting for the majority of the scoring right now. I'm pretty sure I know who have "tagged" me for my negative scores, and I accept that, more out of having a basic understanding human nature. 

I think there is a basic desire to be "liked" and some people take a perverse glee in being disliked. "To Thine Own Self Be True", courtesy of Willy Shakespeare, is what I've grown up to follow. To be honest, I think I would sooner give someone a "promotion" based on how they say something, rather than what they say (i.e. I completely disagree with them, but they are articulate and passionate in what they say). Of course there are limits: no matter how ardently you support the practice of pedophilia, you won't get my backing. Nor the Liberal party  ;D

I haven't demoted anybody yet, so all those fingers poised over the 'demote' button for me can go ahead and press down: I don't tit for tat. I no doubt will "punish" somebody in the future for their inanity, but I can see that there will now be competitions, of sorts, to see who can get the lowest score. Let the games begin......

Al


----------



## GO!!! (19 Nov 2005)

OK, I'm really serious here.

This navel - gazing thing makes no sense to me.

If I was gazing at my own navel, I would have to pry apart the ridges of rock hard abdominal muscle, after averting my gaze from perfectly formed and bulging pectorals. Since I post naked most of the time, the "rest" of the view is something that women aspire to get, and men aspire to achieve.

If I was gazing at someone elses navel, most definitely a female with barbie like proportions and Gwen Stefani like contortions, it would not be an experience that I would connect in any way with anyone on this website (sorry).

Finally, if someone else was gazing at my navel, I would probably be revelling in this most pleasant act of mouthification, and once again, not posting on Army.ca.

I think I've covered all of the bases here, now what does "navel gazing" mean?


----------



## George Wallace (19 Nov 2005)

armyvern said:
			
		

> I'd like the opportunity to contemplate his navel!!
> 
> +1 for the suggestion!!
> And +1 for GO!!! once every 5 hours if he follows your suggestion   >


Sorry....I wasn't commenting on him, but for him......nothing to do with his navel.....figuratively speaking anyone's navel.....sheesh!


----------



## George Wallace (19 Nov 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I think I've covered all of the bases here, now what does "navel gazing" mean?


Some good points there, but metaphorically speaking.....it really has nothing to do with your navel......but more to do with that thoughtful space you go to in contemplating the more serious things and realize that they are all not that serious after all  and that there is probable still a tall cool one sitting in the fridge, and a chilled mug in the freezer, that could use some liberating so that you can further contemplate the grand scheme of things called 'Life'.  Many in the process of doing this have a habit of bowing their heads and looking down, perhaps contemplating their navels in the process.  Now if you don't have a navel, then you are perfect, so contemplation is a useless passtime, and you need not do it.  Most of us aren't in that 'proverbial' boat, so we sometime get caught in that position of thought.


[Edit:  On reflection and rereading my post I found some errors, that in my haste I had forgotten to include in typing my thoughts.  Alluminium.  I blame Alluminium Mess Tins.   ;D ]


----------



## GO!!! (19 Nov 2005)

Thanks George. That does make sense.

Too bad I can't figure out how to get pics into my posts - can someone PM me?

I had a few gooders...


----------



## armyvern (19 Nov 2005)

Springroll said:
			
		

> Yippee!!
> I am going to aim at getting the highest negatives without posting....just watch the numbers climb ;D


Fellow cougar-not the AFV type....gave you a -1...just trying to help you reach your goal/acieve your aim!!


----------



## McG (19 Nov 2005)

It seems that this is the one site change that has garnered the most immediate attention ever.


----------



## KevinB (19 Nov 2005)

MCG said:
			
		

> It seems that this is the one site change that has garnered the most immediate attention ever.



All for ????

   I could never figure out why it was around -- for you can piss an idiot off (while your) giving good info, and the CS'er can still sandbag you with a -1.

Secondly since many of us dont really care what people on the errornet think of us - what was the point?


----------



## Burrows (20 Nov 2005)

This is a thread about the ratings to answer any questions.  I don't want to have to trash this because people are using it basically to spam.

Keep this for answering questions, not "OMGZZZ I HAV LYK -5693 ratings acuz I got 8 more wen i wuz asleep pls."

Thanks.


----------



## Slim (20 Nov 2005)

I erased the posts...because they did not contribute anything meaningful to the thread.

Rather than whining about how many black marks you both get why not work on improving yourselves.

Either way those posts that I erased were nothing more than a waste of bandwidth and won't be tolerated.

Clean it up and contribute meaningful posts from now on please.

Slim
STAFF


----------



## paracowboy (21 Nov 2005)

my my, it would appear that I am simultaneously the most-loved and most-hated man on the boards. Look at me go! I think that there must be those who actually time their appearances so they may continuously 'demote' me. I have this hilarious image of someone setting their alarm clock to log in and click on me. Far too funny.

The really amusing part is that it will, in no way, affect my posts. I will continue to tell the truth as I see it, make as many jokes as I can, and hopefully teach the various wannabe's and FNG's how to become soldiers as efficiently as possible, in order to prevent injuries and course failures. 

Goodness, but I cannot decribe how tingly I am inside knowing that someone, somewhere, cares enough to click like mad on a button under my nickname. Perhaps I should also start to actually 'demote' people? 

Naaah, it's just too silly. Even for me.

Frankly, I truly think this entire experiment, while fun for a day or two, is not going anywhere. I won't change my posts to suit anyone else aside from the Staff and Mike, so why would I expect anyone else to, simply to accomodate some numbers that can be so easily distorted?


----------



## NavComm (21 Nov 2005)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> my my, it would appear that I am simultaneously the most-loved and most-hated man on the boards. Look at me go! I think that there must be those who actually time their appearances so they may continuously 'demote' me. * I have this hilarious image of someone setting their alarm clock to log in and click on me.* Far too funny.



dammit you're on to my methods  ;D


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (21 Nov 2005)

Having provided nothing more than a weekend's worth of entertainment and work for the DS, the Ratings System Experiment has been scrapped. I'm guessing it won't be missed with the same fervour it was met with.


----------



## bridges (21 Nov 2005)

I miss it in the same way I miss garrison boots - the pain was distracting me from the task at hand.   Certainly brought about some interesting commentary, though!


----------



## NavComm (21 Nov 2005)

It was good, all joking aside. I think some people obviously were just fooling around with it, or fulfilling their owned twisted agenda.

I think it was a validation for some of the more experienced posters. They are providing a lot of fantastic information for people new to the CF and the forums. I don't want to single anyone out, but I'd say people  got the recognition and promotions they deserve for the excellent advice they give. There is a lot of experience and wisdom on this board. Soldiers willing to impart their knowledge  to those of us who aspire to be but half the patriots and fighters they are.

Thanks Mike for giving us the opportunity to let those guys and gals know that we appreciate the time they take to 'give us the straight goods'.

And Para, I only demoted you every 10 hours.


----------



## Navalsnpr (21 Nov 2005)

Good call.

I think many were getting their buddies to jack their rating up....


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (21 Nov 2005)

awww, and i was doing so well too


----------



## Infanteer (21 Nov 2005)

Well, now you just have an axe....


----------



## NavComm (21 Nov 2005)

Navalsnipr said:
			
		

> Good call.
> 
> I think many were getting their buddies to jack their rating up....



...or down   ???


----------



## Burrows (22 Nov 2005)

Alright, we all had our fun.  Time to bring this to a close.


----------

