# The Promote / Demote thing



## TN2IC (8 Aug 2007)

Can anyone explane this promotion / demotion deal?


----------



## PMedMoe (8 Aug 2007)

Just so you know what I mean, this is what I'm seeing under the member's name:

Milnet.ca Subscriber

Rating: +0/-0
[Promote] [Demote]
Offline

Is this new?  Is this something I shouldn't be seeing?  Am I going crazy? (Never mind, don't answer that  :).


----------



## George Wallace (8 Aug 2007)

Scott said:
			
		

> OK, the two topics merged. Hopefully Mike will be along to explain it for you



It is a ranking system we had years ago.  If you felt the person was a reliable and valued poster, you could promote them.  If you thought that what they posted was garbage or not really of much help to anyone, then you could demote them.  I won't get into details, but it was abused and we did away with it.  

Mike must have had it in his April Fool's program and it got lost in Cyberspace and time and has only now reappeared.   ;D


----------



## Sig_Des (8 Aug 2007)

TN2IC said:
			
		

> Or may be I was in those "drunk blurry seasons".



I don't think so. I seem to remember seeing it a couple of different times, but it never lasted long.

I think my major issues with it would be a) a lot of us are friends, and to goof off would give buddy a minus

b) someone may post something controversial, and have a doggypile of minuses.

c) It's akin to not having TI...someone with too many minuses may not be taken seriously by some, even if it's because they don't mince words.

I think it's a good idea, but that there's too many factors in administrating it, and too much possibility of misuse.

Maybe an idea would be to have the person who starts a thread have the ability to plus or minus someone in just that thread, as in hey, that reply actually added some conversation and insight to the thread, or that was just a useless post (IE, heheh...smiley...smiley...smiley....Canada flag...Canada flag....salute)


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (8 Aug 2007)

Well, I knew it would be controversial when I turned it back on, but we need to give this a fair shake. The rating system was trashed the last time in part because some ratings were changed inappropriately. That won't happen this time. Yes, there will be "abuse" by some users. Once the novelty wears off, that will be a small percentage of the rating system, and overshadowed by thoughtful, correct usage. You can only rate a user every 5 hours, so it's not like a single person can skew another's rating too seriously.

If a user is a straight talker with lots of experience and no desire to filter then I expect the majority will appreciate that and show as much in their rating. I suspect someone like that will have a lot of +'s and a lot of -'s but if they know what they're taking about, the positives will win out.

On the other hand, a smack talking poser will be shot down very quickly. This has two effects: One, others will be able to see right away that advice from this user should be treated with extreme caution. Secondly, the poser will see their credibility taking a nose dive and _may_ rethink their approach.

So not only will users be able to tell "at a glance" where a user stands (knowing of course that a good or bad rating is simply one component of a large composite judgment), but it is instant community based feedback on when a user is doing well or doing poorly. Once again, community is the key word here. If the system is to work, it's up to us to drop kudos when someone makes a good post, and drop the hammer when they're off the mark. By enabling this feature, we have put a bit of power into the hands of every user here. I'm confident we can use this new ability to make things better, not worse.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## Sig_Des (8 Aug 2007)

Fair enough Mike. I didn't know about the 5 hour timeframe, that may come in handy.

Maybe you could put up a quick guideline on using it, IE, when a good time to promote (IE, interesting topic, helpful information or suggestion, well written post) and when a good time to demote (trolling, flaming, useless posts)


----------



## navymich (8 Aug 2007)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> You can only rate a user every 5 hours, so it's not like a single person can skew another's rating too seriously.



Is that one member can only rate a user every 5 hours, or a user can only be rated every 5 hours by the general poplulation as a whole?  I'm suspecting the former, but figured I would ask for clarificiation sake.


----------



## Greymatters (8 Aug 2007)

airmich said:
			
		

> Is that one member can only rate a user every 5 hours, or a user can only be rated every 5 hours by the general poplulation as a whole?  I'm suspecting the former, but figured I would ask for clarificiation sake.



Im curious about this as well... What strikes me is that it doesnt make sense for a member to have more than one vote against another member.  Technically "Member X"' could give "Member Y" several minus points, so I see how the system can be abused.  Is there a 'reset' button in case this happens?  And what is the max +/- score? is it 9, 99, or 999?

This is going to be interesting...


----------



## navymich (8 Aug 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Watching the abuse of the system even now...



Do the mods have a chart to see the ratings of all members, or is there somewhere this is accessible for us?


----------



## navymich (8 Aug 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> If there is, I don't know about it. I could go and check and see how far ahead, of everyone else,  I am on the minusus.



Mike, is there something that could be set up to see this?  Ex-D, I take it that you are just watching the "abuse", as you call it, by checking profiles and watching through people's info on their posts?


----------



## Spencer100 (9 Aug 2007)

Just a thought, instead of rating the user or member how about a rating system for the individual posts.  I have seen this on Weblogs Inc. blogs to rate individual comments.  ie www.autoblog.com I have thought it would be a good system here.  It maybe a little less open to abuse.  Just my thoughts.


----------



## tdwebste (9 Aug 2007)

I think we need to be careful that this does not turning into nothing more than a measure of political correctness within this social group. And a measure of how much someone is liked rather than a measure of the thoughtfulness of what they write.

How about rating submissions as informative, interesting, original, on/off topic, funny, trolling, and not rating people?


----------



## Sig_Des (9 Aug 2007)

tdwebste said:
			
		

> I think we need to be careful that this does not turning into nothing more than a measure of political correctness within this social group.



And could you explain how you think this thing-a-ma-bob could turn into a PC tool?


----------



## HItorMiss (9 Aug 2007)

tdwebste said:
			
		

> I think we need to be careful that this does not turning into nothing more than a measure of political correctness within this social group.



See this is where the rating system comes in handy Des...

And you really haven't read many of my post have you? I am less then PC in just about all my views and yet I like to think (likely incorrectly but I do have a huge ego) I am held in a semi high regard for my opinions and experience. I doubt this could turn into a PC tool. But I was wrong at least once that I know off.


----------



## Sig_Des (9 Aug 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> See this is where the rating system comes in handy Des...
> 
> And you really haven't read many of my post have you? I am less then PC in just about all my views and yet I like to think (likely incorrectly but I do have a huge ego) I am held in a semi high regard for my opinions and experience. I doubt this could turn into a PC tool. But I was wrong at least once that I know off.



I can agree, but political correctness generally applies to language or behaviour, I don't see how the rating doo-hickey would be a PC tool.

And I can agree with you on the second part...the one about you being wrong, I think 

We'll see how it pans out. Way I see it, I see a post that I like, or teaches me something, I'll promote. I see a post that doesn't add anything to a thread, or is so out there...I'll demote.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (9 Aug 2007)

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> We'll see how it pans out. Way I see it, I see a post that I like, or teaches me something, I'll promote. I see a post that doesn't add anything to a thread, or is so out there...I'll demote.



There you go, usage instructions that can't get much simpler. That's how I intend to use it too Des, and I hope the majority sees it that way as well. I know there will be some abuse going on where people rate for the wrong reasons, but like I said, if the majority rate good/bad based on what they're reading, the abusers will just be background noise.

As for how the system works, you can rate a user every 5 hours. So if I rate Des, I can't rate him again for 5 hours, but I can still rate anyone else, and anyone else can rate me. (Once in 5 hours, again.) The "waiting period" is configurable, but 5 hours seems like a reasonable setting, at least for now.

The system could also be configured to allow only certain groups to rate others. Hopefully it doesn't come to that, I don't like excluding or shutting down a useful feature because of a small minority who can't handle it.


----------



## Sig_Des (9 Aug 2007)

Fair enough, and answers pretty much anything I would want to know.

I'm gonna add that personally, I'm not going to promote/demote for anything in the Radio Chatter board. That's the place for useless junk and tomfoolery


----------



## dapaterson (9 Aug 2007)

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> I can agree, but political correctness generally applies to language or behaviour, I don't see how the rating doo-hickey would be a PC tool.



I think read that as "abides by groupthink" vice PC.  (Or even "drinks the Kool-Aid(TM)", though I'm sure the more pedantic (like me) will point out it was some other drink product at Jonestown.  But I digress (-1 for me)).  This website can, on some occasions, suffer from groupthink, and engage in immediate condemnation of those who may be somewhat outside the box or who ask questions that may not sit right with some members.  The simple thumbs up / thumbs down nature of the ranking system lacks subtlety.

The slashdot system of moderation, where a descriptive term is attached to the assessment, seems to me a better fit (along with the meta-moderation).  I wouldn't like to see a change to the message threading by date/time though - perhaps in that way I'm just a crusty old guy who resists change...


----------



## Sig_Des (9 Aug 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I think read that as "abides by groupthink" vice PC.  (Or even "drinks the Kool-Aid(TM)", though I'm sure the more pedantic (like me) will point out it was some other drink product at Jonestown.  But I digress (-1 for me)).  This website can, on some occasions, suffer from groupthink, and engage in immediate condemnation of those who may be somewhat outside the box or who ask questions that may not sit right with some members.  The simple thumbs up / thumbs down nature of the ranking system lacks subtlety.



Now that is a concern I could understand, and brought up earlier. From past experience here, someone may say something and get dogpiled. Now, a dogpile, and a whole lot of minuses.


----------



## Roy Harding (9 Aug 2007)

I'm just ignoring the whole thing.  I already know who I find credible and who I don't - the Promote/Demote thing strikes me as a wonderful toy for those who wish to indulge - I'm just not so inclined.


----------



## Flip (9 Aug 2007)

I like it!

This will provide some feedback as to what's is discourse and what just bugs people.

I could use it as a self improvement tool! ;D


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Aug 2007)

Can anyone see who has promoted/demoted them?


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (10 Aug 2007)

No, that information isn't available (even to Staff) so you can only make a guess based on who's online/reading your stuff. If you're concerned about it.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (11 Aug 2007)

Ok folks, I've made a slight change to the rating system, and I'm looking for your feedback. There are two methods of displaying ratings. We've seen the first, which shows every positive and every negative rating. (E.G. +7/-2).

There is another method, in place now, which shows just the "sum" of a person's ratings. In the above example, the visible rating would be simply "5". I've added a poll to this thread to get a sense for which method people prefer; I'm committed to making this work if at all possible.

Your comments and feedback (and ratings! ) are welcome.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Aug 2007)

I prefer the single rating, that way it's not a perceived contest between a member's fans and detractors.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (11 Aug 2007)

It definitely has merit... it prevents people from judging based solely on the negatives and ignoring the positives. On the other hand, the + and - system gives us more info. A poster with +10/-1 is very different than a poster with +52/-43 but they will both show as "9" in the summation system.


----------



## Michael OLeary (11 Aug 2007)

Can it show the single number sum, plus the total number of votes?  

9 (11 votes) vs. 9 (95 votes)


----------



## Gimpy (11 Aug 2007)

I think that the pluses and minuses system is better. For instance like you said someone could be 30/-35 and that means that half the time or so, they say some good things. But if it was a mixed system it would come up as -5 and then people might think that this person is completely off mark when in actuality that wouldn't necessarily be the case.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (11 Aug 2007)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Can it show the single number sum, plus the total number of votes?
> 
> 9 (11 votes) vs. 9 (95 votes)



If we showed that, it would really be showing the full values. 9 (95 votes) is +52/-43, it just requires a few calculations to get there.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (11 Aug 2007)

One more note... a few people have expressed concerns about the system, specifically around low volume contributors. 

In my opinion, a poster with +5/-0 or even -1 is doing well. I really believe the key is to leave the system in place for an extended period to work the anomalies out of it and people will eventually get an appropriate rating. +5/-1 means a low traffic, valuable contributor. Higher numbers mean more contributions, and the rating values give a sense for the tone of those contributions. Over time, anyone who contributes will have high numbers, positive or negative, even if they are "low volume" contributors.

In the early days (I.E. right now), it's going to be very easy to skew those ratios one way or the other, but as time goes on, they'll "settle in" to the right values. For example it's easy to change the "tone" of a rating for a user who has just 5 votes. However when they have 20, or 100, a single vote will do nothing to change their "standing". It's only after a trend starts to develop in their rating that their style will become clear.

So in a nutshell, it's going to take a bit of time for the system to be useful, which is why I think we need to give the it fair shake before we call to shut it down.

Cheers
Mike


----------



## Mike Baker (11 Aug 2007)

Well, my opinion is that we should get rid of the whole thing. But as long as it is here, I guess I will use it, in a way. But like others, I will not use it on peoples posts in Radio Chatter.


----------



## Flip (11 Aug 2007)

Mike,

I like the plus es and the minus es displayed.

More info and a clearer meaning.

Similar to the eBay rating system - if it's being abused, it should be clear.

I think it will keep us on a more respectful track.
A constant reminder of the golden rule. ( whichever golden rule you go by ) 
If someone is way outta line, he'll get a clue before the mods have to act.

Just my two shekels worth.......... ;D


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Aug 2007)

+/-....it gives context to the rating


----------



## Journeyman (12 Aug 2007)

I've voted to scrap the whole thing, notwithstanding my ego being able to withstand negative votes   8)



_Edited: _my original post used the word "nugatory," which may have proven confusing


----------



## George Wallace (12 Aug 2007)

Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> One more note... a few people have expressed concerns about the system, specifically around low volume contributors.



Just a point on that, if this idea isn't trashed again:  Even "low volume" contributors can score high.  There is a possibility that with one absolutely fantastic post, several members will give a member a promotion and promote them higher than their total posts.  The number of posts a person makes really has not relevance.  Someone with consistant excellent advice and posts will be promoted no matter how many posts they may make.  It really doesn't make any difference if they may have made only one or two posts, or a thousand.  If they are good and people feel like promoting them, then they will be promoted.  I know I exaggerated a bit there, but I hope everyone will catch my drift.


----------



## Greymatters (12 Aug 2007)

Sorry, but nope, too much of a popularity contest... I vote for scrap it.


----------



## Roy Harding (12 Aug 2007)

Personally, I don't care one way or the other, and haven't voted.

I can see that it might turn into a popularity contest (especially amongst the younger crowd here - I'm thinking of the Cadet threads).  I can also see how it MIGHT enable someone new on the site to make a judgement regarding a poster's "credibility".  I'm not sure that any "virtual" credibility I might earn here in any way translates to the real world - but can see it as a minorly useful tool for that purpose.

I'm not a big fan of smilies (although I do use them occasionally), either - but if using smilies gives someone a charge, I don't object to them either.  I don't use the "status" thing Mike put up either - but do find some of the statements found there amusing.  My display is set up to NOT see peoples avatars - but some folks get great joy out of seeing them.

What I'm saying is that Mike offers a great "menu" of choices here - you don't need to use every item on the menu to have a good time participating - and if you don't want to use a certain item - then don't.  

If these little features don't require a great deal of time to manage, and have an appeal to some on the board, then I don't see the harm.

Edit:  Missed a word.


----------



## 3rd Herd (12 Aug 2007)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> Personally, I don't care one way or the other, and haven't voted.


You have my vote Roy. I would rather take the time to add in a thank you or to pass credit for help received in a post or a topic. At the same time I would like to see the reasoning behind a negative/positive critique of a post. Sometimes it is a simple as source information not included in the post, other times it is the "out of your lane" variety. In the aforementioned examples this tends to promote discusion without the perception of a personal affront. It allows others to formulate an educated opinion and therefore a well thought out rebuttal(Vern's rule of thinking before replying). A great many of us have had experience in critiquing the abilities of others and in my judgement this is one of the hardest tasks, how to 'holistically' score. One of the more numerous replies to posts has been "your profile is blank and then the reason for filling in said information". I have my own mental list of who I can reach out to if I need expertise in a certain area and I feel that has worked out well. As to the need for statistics; is the glass half empty or half full ?

my .002


----------



## Roy Harding (12 Aug 2007)

3rd Herd said:
			
		

> ... As to the need for statistics; is the glass half empty or half full ?
> ...



My Mech Eng son would tell you that the glass is twice as big as it needs to be  

And you're right - contextual agreement or disagreement has more relevance to me than a mere statistic.  I look at my own "rating" and I don't have a clue who agreed with what I said where (or who disagreed about what either).  I DO look at people's profiles - it gives me a sense of who is offering an opinion.  I'm aware that this is the internet and folks can put anything they want in there - but the posers are usually tripped up fairly quickly.

Anyway - I still don't have a firm enough opinion on the thing to vote.


----------



## Yrys (12 Aug 2007)

Quote from: Mike Bobbitt on August 10, 2007, 09:57:43
No, that information isn't available (even to Staff) so you can only make a guess based on who's online/reading your stuff. If you're concerned about it.



			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Nope, just curious!



Yah, me too. Somebody care enough for me to move me from  0  ! I wonder on what post...


----------



## geo (17 Aug 2007)

I will toss in my vote to Roy Harding on this subject.
Didn't think much of the rating system before and don't think much of it now...
WRT the negatives, it's hard to know what post(s) ticked people off and why.
Would I answer differently:  Probably not.... but that's just me.


----------



## navymich (17 Aug 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Would I answer differently:  Probably not.... but that's just me.



Not just you geo.  Yes, I do bite my tongue sometimes with my posts, but typically I say what is on my mind.  It's like real life.  If you are always worrying about what somebody thinks of what you say or how you say, nothing would ever get said properly.


----------



## ClaytonD (23 Aug 2007)

What about when you accidentally demote someone when you meant to promote them? I kind of feel bad because I did that to someone just now. Is there any way it can be fixed?


----------



## George Wallace (23 Aug 2007)

ClaytonD said:
			
		

> What about when you accidentally demote someone when you meant to promote them? I kind of feel bad because I did that to someone just now. Is there any way it can be fixed?



It's like stepping out the door of a Herc at 30,000 feet.  There's no getting back in.  

You may be nice to them an promote them later, or not worry about it.  It isn't really a popularity contest, although some play it as such when they get mad.  

Like the song says....."Relax.....Don't do it!" ...........  again.   ;D


----------



## George Wallace (24 Aug 2007)

Just on another note:  

Many of the people who are so keen on using the demote button, are not the type that the CF would like to have.  They are people who tend to take everything "personal" when in fact it is not.  They will never survive in the military if they allow such emotions to rule their thought processes.  There is no room for that sort of thing in the CF.  It has serious effects on unit morale, and usually brands these people as whiners and complainers and undesirables.  In the end, they are usually the ones who leave the CF with the big chips on their shoulders.  So on that note, what does this say about the ratings system and how to interpret it?   :-\


----------



## niceasdrhuxtable (26 Aug 2007)

I'm surprised with the vote the way it stands right now with almost 2/3 being against the rating system. Quite honestly I figured the numbers would be just the opposite.


----------



## George Wallace (26 Aug 2007)

niceasdrhuxtable said:
			
		

> I'm surprised with the vote the way it stands right now with almost 2/3 being against the rating system. Quite honestly I figured the numbers would be just the opposite.



I guess 'vanity' isn't as strong a personal trait amongst Army.ca members as elsewhere.   ;D


----------



## Bobby Rico (27 Aug 2007)

Question is does the rating system actually serve any other purpose besides allowing those with positive ratings to have some kind of feeling of self-importance?  I don't really think it does, but apparently according to my current rating, nobody gives two shits about my opinions.  Needless stratification.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (27 Aug 2007)

It's not about making people feel _anything_, it's about giving others an additional data point that they can use to asses your overall contribution here.


----------



## Bobby Rico (27 Aug 2007)

I'm sure that's the intent Mike, but as other people have already pointed out, a system this loose can easily become abused- especially given how many guests pop up for one day, and never come back.  I mean, I could be a complete twit right now, create a new account just to go around having a field day lowering people's ratings.  Not only that, but people have disagreements with other people on these boards, and even if someone argues in an intelligent meaningful way, the person or persons who disagree with that person might lower that person's ratings for spite, even if that person has made a good argument.  But according to that person's rating, people will have the impression that that person posts a lot of BS.  And getting back to my original point, whether the system is designed to make someone feel a certain way or isn't, that's likely going to be a natural response people will have.  They'll see people with lower ratings, and think this person is a bad poster and somehow his opinions mean less than mine, and so forth.  And then there may be a load of kiss asses on here who are constantly giving higher ratings to people undeserving.

Frankly, I just think it's not a very good systems for what it's designed to do.  Too many variables to make it unreliable.  People shouldn't need some outside source to be able to assess the (apparent) value of another poster- rather just allow people to figure it out for themselves without something to influence their opinions.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Aug 2007)

Bobby Rico said:
			
		

> I'm sure that's the intent Mike, but as other people have already pointed out, a system this loose can easily become abused- especially given how many guests pop up for one day, and never come back.  I mean, I could be a complete twit right now, create a new account just to go around having a field day lowering people's ratings.



And the Mods would have the pleasure of BANNING you and all your accounts as soon as you made your first such post.   >




			
				Bobby Rico said:
			
		

> Not only that, but people have disagreements with other people on these boards, and even if someone argues in an intelligent meaningful way, the person or persons who disagree with that person might lower that person's ratings for spite, even if that person has made a good argument.



A chance we all take.  It only shows the pettiness of some people, and then what goes around, usually comes around.  They get caught eventually and suffer worse.



			
				Bobby Rico said:
			
		

> But according to that person's rating, people will have the impression that that person posts a lot of BS.



No one will constantly make good posts.  Everyone of us makes a bad post from time to time.  Even someone with a poor rating can make a good post.  Their rating should not affect their good posts, so judge the post; not the rating.




			
				Bobby Rico said:
			
		

> And getting back to my original point, whether the system is designed to make someone feel a certain way or isn't, that's likely going to be a natural response people will have.  They'll see people with lower ratings, and think this person is a bad poster and somehow his opinions mean less than mine, and so forth.  And then there may be a load of kiss asses on here who are constantly giving higher ratings to people undeserving.



Again, you are talking about pettiness and people's vanities.  Hopefully, there are very few on this site who fall into that category.  Those that do, usually don't last long here either.



			
				Bobby Rico said:
			
		

> Frankly, I just think it's not a very good systems for what it's designed to do.  Too many variables to make it unreliable.  People shouldn't need some outside source to be able to assess the (apparent) value of another poster- rather just allow people to figure it out for themselves without something to influence their opinions.



Such is life on this planet called Earth and being a member of the Human Race.  No one is perfect.  Mike wants this to work, and only by being honest and truthful in you ratings of people will it work.  This doesn't mean that you have to rate everyone, and every post made on the site.  It means that for those exceptional posts, good or bad, you have an "option" to rate a person.  We are very democratic here.  You don't have to if you don't want to.  You just have the option to if you want to.


----------



## freeze_time311 (27 Aug 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> We are very democratic here.  You don't have to if you don't want to.  You just have the option to if you want to.




Very well put. +1

And this is a perfect example. George made some very good points in this post. In my opinion, that deserves a +1. And it's been said in the past, the people abusing the system will be weeded out eventually. If they are long time users of milnet.ca and still abuse the system, they shouldn't be here anyway, and the mods will let all of us know who they are by placing a nice little BANNED sign right underneath there names.

The system will be accurate, all in good time.

                                               Jimmy


----------



## Bobby Rico (27 Aug 2007)

Good rebuttal George.  If nothing else I partly agree with the principal of the system, just not really the execution.  I've been around this ol' internet a few times, and have just found that there is a GROSS majority of people out there that use the anonymity factor of the internet to be shit disturbers.  Mind you, these forums tend to not have many of them here as you've pointed out, but there's no denying they're out there, and would be happy to corrupt a system like this for their own amusement.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (27 Aug 2007)

Bobby,

You need to have 25 posts before you can rate someone else, so your guest account idea has already been dealt with. Also, as has been pointed out, those who rate "against the grain" to be personally malicious or vindictive will be minor in comparison to those who use the system properly. So I expect even the best poster will have some negatives and the worst troll may have the odd positive... but overall the ratings will tell the real story.


----------



## Roy Harding (27 Aug 2007)

Roy Harding said:
			
		

> Personally, I don't care one way or the other, and haven't voted.
> 
> I can see that it might turn into a popularity contest (especially amongst the younger crowd here - I'm thinking of the Cadet threads).  I can also see how it MIGHT enable someone new on the site to make a judgement regarding a poster's "credibility".  I'm not sure that any "virtual" credibility I might earn here in any way translates to the real world - but can see it as a minorly useful tool for that purpose.
> 
> ...



Bobby Rico - just to reemphasize what George has said.

The site owner sees this as an "added value" which some users may enjoy.  No matter my personal opinion regarding its' usefulness to me as an individual - I see his point.  

As moderators, we watch for blatant abuse and will take the appropriate action should that abuse actually happen.  I don't recall that we've seen much abuse - the rating system seems to be settling down into another useful tool for those who wish to use it.

Roy


----------



## Bobby Rico (27 Aug 2007)

I see what you're saying.  I'm not 100% convinced for its usefulness or necessarily it's accuracy, but I suppose as simply an 'added value' tool for the forums (similar to say smilies or avatars etc), I can dig it.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (27 Aug 2007)

Bobby, it's not going to be 100% accurate, and we're OK with that. Many won't find it useful, but again, that's OK. The idea is that it's _mostly_ accurate and useful to the majority.


----------



## TN2IC (28 Aug 2007)

Mike,
        I just had an idea again. Now this rating system, I find it would be easy to rate someone quickly with this setup. 
So my idea is that if you want to rate someone, you must visit their profile and then click your choice. If the person feels that the other person needs that rating, then they"ll go the extra mile and rate. On other note your rating display is fine, you don't need to hide that. Just the voting button.

That's my two cents for the evening,
Regards,
TN2IC


----------



## niceasdrhuxtable (28 Aug 2007)

I was originally against the whole rating system idea as I saw it denigrating into a popularity contest. However, after having lived with it for some time, I'm starting to see the democratic principle as I barely ever look at someone's rating. Personally, I'm not really keen on the idea of others personally opinions someone dictating how I'll feel about a given member's post, and it certainly isn't going to make me take their postings less seriously or as gospel because of a rating system. So I suppose that puts me in the indifference category but if it's a feature that people find useful then I certainly don't have any problems with it remaining.



As an addendum to my original post: Sometimes on a controversial thread I'll seek out those with a higher negative rating as I'm sure they'll have something interesting to say that generally goes against the flow. I really enjoy hearing opinions that tend to stray from the norm.


----------



## Blakey (28 Aug 2007)

TN2IC, maybe I'm not seeing it but, why would the added click of the mouse change someones views on if they were going to rate someone?

Cheers

Edited to add: I for one, do not use the ratings as a _single source_ when determing if I should read (or contemplate reading) a post. Like others have said, it is a choice that can be used to determine the veracity of the posters words. That, along with other criteria, should give the reader a better understanding of the poster.


----------



## mudrecceman (28 Aug 2007)

Is the rating system really any different than what happens at most units anyways?  I mean really...I know when I was a young Tpr, I used to think "that MCpl has his crap wired tight, but the one next to him can't command a rubber duck in a bath tub".  If anyone is worried about this feature being a popularity contest, how could it be?  There are just too many variables.  Anyone who is just going to randomly go around and pop off spec fire "demotes" each day at one particular person will eventually get bored of that and get a real life, won't they??

As for the system being not 100% effective, that would make it normal and subject to good ol human nature, IMHO.

Before the rating system, I am sure most of us had our thoughts on who was "bang on" and who was "wasting air" anyways.

I voted "get ride of it!" but now...I think it has its purpose.


----------



## Blakey (28 Aug 2007)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Because.......Many are too lazy to take the extra steps.



Could be quite true, although some how I doubt that pressing a mouse button *one* extra time will stop a _vindictive/childish_ person from adding a negative rating to someones profile.

Only one way to find out though, if it is even doable.


			
				Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> As for the system being not 100% effective, that would make it normal and subject to good ol human nature, IMHO.


+1


----------



## riggermade (28 Aug 2007)

The problem I really see is if you make a comment to an individual that they may not agree with then they could give you a negative for not liking your point of view


----------



## armyvern (29 Aug 2007)

Ratings mean squat. I don't use 'em, and don't pay attention to them.

The more active a user is, the more people will rate them. The more one steps into a thread to engage, ie a mod doing their job or a member of the site who is correcting someone or pointing them to a search etc ... the more negatives they will get, sometimes every 5 hours too from the one they have engaged. 

It's especially obvious in the O Dark Thirty hours ... where there's only one other user on line with you ... and you know you aren't the one demoting people, but can see the ratings change.

Are there people ignoring the ratings altogether?? Darn right there is. Are there people using them properly for what they are intended?? Darn right there are. Are there people abusing them and slamming negatives onto people they've previously engaged every chance they get?? Darn right there are. Are there people pumping posotives onto their buddies every?? I'm quite sure there probably are those that do that too. Are there members that pump a posotive onto someone just because they've engaged someone the voter previously engaged?? Most likely. Are there members that pump a posotive onto someone just because he happened to make a post that slammed mods?? Yep, there's that too ... funny that the mod went down -2 ... and the guy who slammed the mods went up +2 within 10 minutes of the post being made. It's funny what you see occuring when you just sit here and hit the "refresh" screen button.

It's hilarious actually. So the ones who abuse it, and don't use the ratings system as it was intended by the site owner to be used ... kind of make the whole thing moot & inaccurate. 

I've gotten quite a few people who've PMd me concerned because they keep getting slammed with negatives even though they haven't been posting. It's interesting indeed.

It's really too bad that the disgruntled can't get over themselves enough to use the ratings system in the manner and purpose for which it was intended by Mr. Bobbitt, the site owner.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Aug 2007)

I'm suprised this thread has gone as long as it has. The questions have been answered, and it would seem that by the amount of their posts here, there are only a few people that even care about it. Otherwise they would find some other thread or something else to do. The ratings means nada. They provide only the inept few that give negatives constanly with some sort of warped sense of superiority and gratification. A cybernet way of lashing back, instead of confronting their boogy man. Most of us have real lives to concern ourselves about. What some guy in Hong Kong, or anywhere else, cares about what I say on the internet is of very little interest to me. If you wish to counter someting I say, have the balls to post it. Don't be like a little school girl and give your opinion by secret ballot.


----------



## Scoobs (27 Sep 2007)

I am in a posiiton that deals primarily with Honours and Awards.  Therefore, I respond to comments or questiions as the rules are written.  Some people don't agree with them, but obviously the military functions on rules and regs.  Without them, how would one be able to tell who deserved what?


----------



## armyvern (27 Sep 2007)

Scoobs said:
			
		

> I am in a posiiton that deals primarily with Honours and Awards.  Therefore, I respond to comments or questiions as the rules are written.  Some people don't agree with them, but obviously the military functions on rules and regs.  Without them, how would one be able to tell who deserved what?



Well, see ... that's exactly how I feel. I can only tell them the rules & the regs that apply ... but I guess that if they don't like those & even knowing that it is not I (or even the CF who makes those rules) -- they can vote me the negative to make themselves feel better. That's why it just does not matter.

I actually had someone honest enough to PM me and say they just thought that I was "short" (ie rude) when I answered a boot question and therefore they gave me the negative. I guess that's all well and good too. At least I* had * answered the damn question for at least the 9th time in the past two years on this forum (as a search revealed to me -- eerily though the one who asked it for the 9th time ... got no negatives -- funny how that works) ...

In short, it doesn't matter, some people will never be happy. It really is as simple as that. You don't want negatives?? Simple: Stop answering questions and providing assistance to those who ask.


----------



## navymich (27 Sep 2007)

Scoobs said:
			
		

> A totally different question, how is it that just yesterday I was at -4 and now I am at -7?  What did I do in the mean time besides post in this thread?  Does someone reading or in this post not like what I have said?  I invite anyone to send me a PM in regards to this thread, but why did I go down 3 when I have only posted in this thread lately?  This plus/minus system is being abused by some people.



Scoobs, it might not be this thread though.  If people are catching up on previous days posts, they might stumble across an older post of yours to which they agree/disagree with and hence the scoring changes.


----------



## Michael OLeary (27 Sep 2007)

Scoobs, that are some fragile people around who feel they can influence things with by repeatedly demoting others, maybe you got demoted simply because you agreed with someone else.  Think of it as collateral damage from an misguided missile.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Sep 2007)

I think when "promoting" or "demoting" someone the member doing it should be required to leave a comment which the member who recieved the + or - can read, not to mention see who is doing it.


----------



## Franko (28 Sep 2007)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> I think when "promoting" or "demoting" someone the member doing it should be required to leave a comment which the member who recieved the + or - can read, not to mention see who is doing it.



Hmmmm.....that would possibly stop anyone from abusing it anonymously, which has been noted by the DS, now wouldn't it?

Mike B, is this possible?

Regards


----------



## FredDaHead (28 Sep 2007)

How about also noting what thread/post the user was promoted/demoted in?


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Sep 2007)

Freddy G said:
			
		

> How about also noting what thread/post the user was promoted/demoted in?



Yup.

How I've seen it set up other places;

When you promote someone your also required to give a comment. Something even as simple as "good post" or "poor taste".
The person getting promoted/demoted can see who hit them (via the user CP/profile type screen) see which thread they are getting hit for and see the comments.

Some of the newer users may be reluctant to ding one of the established members however in the long run I think it's more productive to make people accountable. It will reduce people 'holding a grudge' or abusing it.


----------



## mysteriousmind (29 Sep 2007)

May I make a simple suggestion about the promote/demote thing.

I was on EBay and there is something allot like it.

Is it possible to leave the promote/demote, but to put in a section the the member promoting or demoting someone to justify his action. 

(Like positive of negative feedback)

In that way, people will be able to know why I"m having a +3/-3 rating.

for example:

+1 Promote: Highly within the subject explanation, gave allot of info

or

-1 The opinion of the member, is out of subject or is not helping the thread


it could be within perhaps a 60 character max. 

I don't know what you think of it. but it works on eBay.


----------



## Michael OLeary (29 Sep 2007)

mysteriousmind said:
			
		

> I don't know what you think of it. but it works on eBay.



Hey, an e-Bay business model.  Maybe we also need a posting fee, that'll cut down on the crap content.


----------



## Flip (29 Sep 2007)

I like the idea of a comment being required for the promote/demote thing.

I suspect some the system abuse comes from people not thinking through
the impulse to act.  Lots of Whooops! factor in the ratings.

Except for Vern of course!  She likes it when people fiddle with her numbers.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Sep 2007)

Flip said:
			
		

> *I like the idea of a comment being required for the promote/demote thing.*I suspect some the system abuse comes from people not thinking through
> the impulse to act.  Lots of Whooops! factor in the ratings.
> 
> Except for Vern of course!  She likes it when people fiddle with her numbers.



Quite a few threads are already filled with too much nonsense and useless posts. Let's not add to them. You'll post your reason, get demoted/promoted over it. Someone else doesn't agree with your view, posts to say so, discussion ensues and the whole thread goes south (again). Easy for you guys, not so easy for the mods, who spend more than enough time trying to keep things cleaned up around here.


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Sep 2007)

Just eliminate the promote/demote thingy  ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Sep 2007)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Quite a few threads are already filled with too much nonsense and useless posts. Let's not add to them. You'll post your reason, get demoted/promoted over it. Someone else doesn't agree with your view, posts to say so, discussion ensues and the whole thread goes south (again). Easy for you guys, not so easy for the mods, who spend more than enough time trying to keep things cleaned up around here.



The comment is personalized. Only the member getting the + or - would see it.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Sep 2007)

We already know who a few of the malcontents are who are abusing this system in their immature vindictive ways.  It is really surprising as to who they really are.  I am sure their 'professional' reputations would be greatly damaged should their pettiness become public knowledge.  For those reasons, I am all for the program to be changed and the person who is promoting/demoting having their names visible.  It would open the eyes of a lot of the membership as to the egos these people have and how childish they really are.  It will also dispel any questions as to why they may join the legions of BANNED from Army.ca/Milnet.ca malcontents and Trolls.


----------



## HItorMiss (29 Sep 2007)

On a personal level I don't really like the rating system, and as such I don't often use it. I have of course from time to time both negatives and positives. I think it being an open thing and thus people having to say or at least others knowing who votes you what way would perhaps make it less abused and perhaps the ratings would take on greater significance.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Sep 2007)

GreyMatter said:
			
		

> What a teaser line!  Now  Im interested!
> 
> Would this also reveal the names of 'who demoted who' all the way back to the start of this thing?  I think you may have instigated a small pile of poo beneath several members...



Yes indeed.  They know who they are.  They have even conspired together in a few cases.  Hopefully this will put an end to their pettiness.  If not, they shan't be missed.  The novelty of their childish ways has worn rather thin and as everyone knows, this site doesn't tolerate trolling in any fashion.  I have no doubts right now that some of these malcontents are reading this as a threat to them personally and against the Rules of Conduct for this site and have already made a complaint or two to the site owner.  Sorry, but whining will not diminish the fact that actions they have taken are disrupting the ideals set for this site.


----------



## Roy Harding (29 Sep 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> On a personal level I don't really like the rating system, and as such I don't often use it. I have of course from time to time both negatives and positives. I think it being an open thing and thus people having to say or at least others knowing who votes you what way would perhaps make it less abused and perhaps the ratings would take on greater significance.



I've been staying away from this thread because, as I said way in the beginning, I simply don't care about the rating thing.  I don't believe in doing anything anonymously, and as far as I've been able, I never have.  (I've had some Social Work Officers mad at me because I insisted on putting my Name, Rank, and SN on "anonymous" surveys).

I have not used the rating system - I've neither "promoted" or "demoted" anyone on the board.  I generally ignore it.  

BUT - Mike Bobbitt wants this thing to work.  IFF there are people abusing the system, and because of the anonymous nature of the system, this is difficult to prove, I WILL BAN THEM.  PERIOD.  I will not play head games with them, I will not give them a chance - we're spending far to much time agonizing over this thing, WAY too much staff time is being spent trying to figure out who's abusing the system.

If you like the system, then use it for what it's intended - enjoy it, have fun with it - if you don't like the system, ignore it.  People "targetting" other people through this system are INTENTIONALLY skewing the results of the "karma" thing, and that is in DIRECT contravention of what Mr. Bobbitt wishes.  Take this to heart, abuse it and I find out about it - you're BANNED.  I won't even bother discussing it with the other mods.

Now can we get back to what this board is all about (intelligent discussion of all things military), and leave the childish manipulation of an ultimately meaningless "karma" gadget to those on OTHER boards?


Roy
Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Sep 2007)

As stated previous, Mods have no special power when it comes to promote/demote. There is no log as such, for that. What there is though, is a screen of who's online, that anyone can see. Enough mods are also online to know that when two malcontents are there, and the rest being guests or other users browsing topics not involved, and demotions come in, it's not hard to figure out who it is. If the same malcontents 'hover' in profile or other obscure thread while they *PM* or *MSN*, that's not criminal or disallowed, just very telling and suspicious. It's also extremely childish and petty. The kind of thing immature people, lacking the intestinal fortitude to confront their detractors do. 

Obviously, by my rating, I put no stock whatsoever in the system. Mr Bobbitt wants it, it's his site and I work for him.....and you. He wants it to work, so I do too. I would rather someone PM and say they didn't like my comment and/or decision, so we could talk, correct & agree/ disagree it if need be. Rather than demote me because they're a being a vindictive, gutless POS. But that's their misguided prerogative. Just don't PM me with long, rambling, misguided, misconstrued, nonsensical & absurd tomes and manifestos. You'll get blocked by me, as some fitting this description already have. 

I only hope that these petty playground infants are not in uniform, or at least not in a position where someone needs to depend on them. 

The uniform doesn't look good, when there's no backbone to hold it up.

That's my two cents, posted from a Mod point of view, but as no more than a Milnet.ca poster and member.


Whooo Whhhooo, I  see I just evened out to +42/-42. Must mean I'm even ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Sep 2007)

Fair enough, the giant head wants this sucker to work so it shall work 

That said, when someones attitude is 'I don't give a shit about my rating" I think that in itself points to the system not working. If no one takes it seriously why have it?

I don't like the system. I can't tell if it's a BTDT WO or Officer type giving me a finger wag or some kid who doesn't like me telling him airsofting isn't soldiering. Obviously I put more credit in the former.

The system as it is now is the same as writting 'so and so is a bag of smashed assholes' on the side of the bathroom stall at work.

I do think the system can be a good indicator of someones post credentials and how they fit in the community BUT in order for that to work there needs to be accountability. 
How do you get accountability? Hold people accountable for their P/D by giving the user (not the public) a chance to see who it is and why.


----------



## muskrat89 (30 Sep 2007)

Too bad there couldn't at least be, on someone's profile, how many +'s and -'s they have handed out. At least that way you could identify the chronic boosters and minusers.


----------



## Journeyman (30 Sep 2007)

*Wow* 

That's about all I can say.  

When one of the top three/four people here that I absolutely respect for common sense postings.... is saying he'll unilaterally start banning people for _abusing_ the clicking on "+" or "-", something is seriously wrong here.

There are some people, like Roy, whose posts I seek out because I respect their views. I don't look to see how many +'s and -'s they've accrued....because quite frankly, it doesn't matter -- at all. Others, I've either blocked or I skip their posts because I believe them to be....if I may use the technincal term....chowder-heads; a few +'s or -'s will never change that -- ever. 

I figured the whole promote/demote was suitable Radio Chatter/Cadet Thread grist ... for those whose self-esteem is _so_ tenuous that an anonymous negative rating on a public website is traumatic. But clearly this car is careening for a cliff. Hopefully Mike will scrap it before someone gets hurt.  :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Sep 2007)

All these suggestions are good, but they'll make lots more work for the VOLUNTEER mods, and the site owner, but not the reguar user and sometimes voyeur.


----------



## Shamrock (30 Sep 2007)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> That said, when someones attitude is 'I don't give a shit about my rating..." I think that in itself points to the system not working.



I've noticed those that care the least about their positive/negative ratings are often the ones most talking about it.  



			
				Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Flawed Design, well said. +1





			
				Flawed Design said:
			
		

> +1



I thought this was what the karma system sought to replace.


----------



## Greymatters (30 Sep 2007)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Fair enough, the giant head wants this sucker to work so it shall work
> That said, when someones attitude is 'I don't give a crap about my rating" I think that in itself points to the system not working. If no one takes it seriously why have it?  I don't like the system. I can't tell if it's a BTDT WO or Officer type giving me a finger wag or some kid who doesn't like me telling him airsofting isn't soldiering. Obviously I put more credit in the former.  The system as it is now is the same as writting 'so and so is a bag of smashed assholes' on the side of the bathroom stall at work.  I do think the system can be a good indicator of someones post credentials and how they fit in the community BUT in order for that to work there needs to be accountability. How do you get accountability? Hold people accountable for their P/D by giving the user (not the public) a chance to see who it is and why.



Accountability is the key here.  I tried the +/- system the first day I found about it. Two clicks.  Didnt like that.  Posted I didnt like it. And have since not used it.  Some people may get a sense of power out of anonymously clicking +/- on someone but I'd rather they understood why I or others disagreed with them.  How will that person learn if they arent confronted with the reason why you disapprove of what they're saying?  Vice versa, how will they know what they did right if you dont tell them.  How would I myself learn I am wrong or said something right if no one tells me? Likewise, abusing the system should not be tolerated either.

Mike wants to make this work, despite the many votes against it, fine, then it needs more work for it to operate properly.  I was surprised to hear that the Mods were unable to tell who was abusing the system, which is a serious drawback, because right now its only a game thats being played by secret admirers and detractors. 

_(Edit - sorry for late edit, this crapped out on me yesterday due to gateway timeouts...)_


----------



## Shamrock (30 Sep 2007)

For the most part, I'm a fairly conscientious promoter/demoter.  When someone says something I agree with, I don't waste bandwith by posting "+1" -- I'll click instead.  If someone says something that's patently out to lunch, I'll just drop a -1.  I have 'abused' the system in a manner of speaking.  I promoted someone without agreeing with the poster's content or intent -- I just wanted to see if the system had triple digits. 

I'm also fairly conscientious of my karma score.  At present, I have -4.  I know how I earned those (and yes, I earned them based on my own scoring system).  While I won't obsess over my own score, I will try to keep it more positive than negative.  I suspect several people are similarly inclined.

I don't think the mods should be given karma scores.  That the mods are valuable to the site is undeniable.  Mods are in a position of authority and are likely to draw skewed results.; giving users the ability to promote or demote mods opens all sorts of opportunity for abuse of the system.  Positive karma can be abused by the toadies --individuals promoting to either curry a mod's favor or make a mod feel good about himself.  Negative karma can undergo like abuse from the opposite crowd; children doling out demotions because of an administrative action or locked thread.

edit to clarify my meaning and intent.


----------



## Neill McKay (1 Oct 2007)

Shamrock said:
			
		

> For the most part, I'm a fairly conscientious promoter/demoter.  When someone says something I agree with, I don't waste bandwith with a +1.  If someone says something that's patently out to lunch, I'll just drop a -1.



I think some of the value of the system is lost by the lack of any consistent method among users to decide when to pull which trigger.  For example, I have only used the system in reaction to the way a user has expressed him- or herself.  I have tended to demote snotty posts, and promote intelligent ones, not necessarily with any reference to the user's particular opinion in the post.  If someone says something I disagree with then I would rather disagree openly and present my own differing opinion that just click on "-1".  After all, that's a big part of how discussion works, and this is a discussion forum.  Imagine sitting around at a party and every time someone says something you just write +1 on -1 on a sticky note and then put it on the speaker's forehead -- rather dull conversation, that would be!

I'm not necessarily saying that I've got the best method.  Rather, the fact that there are broadly differing methods leaves some room to wonder just what a rating means.


----------



## Mike Bobbitt (8 Oct 2007)

Folks,

Unfortunately the system was not robust enough to withstand some abuse... we gave it a fair shake but it's time to shut it down. Thanks to everyone who took the time to comment and to those who used the system as it was intended.


Cheers
Mike


----------



## deedster (8 Oct 2007)

Tried to make the best of it Mike, but I can't say I'm sad to see it go (and I'm not saying this because I am currently in a minus position  )

Thanks for everything that you do!


----------

