Can We Have Thread Ratings? December 10, 2004 12:10 PM   Subscribe

Could we have a feature by which each FPP is rated numerically, say, 1 to 5, and if it doesn't reach a 3 within an hour, it's dumped? Then we could all stop complaining about lousy FPPs.
posted by ZippityBuddha to Feature Requests at 12:10 PM (72 comments total)

I give this post a 2.
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 12:18 PM on December 10, 2004


No. Because I don't look at the site every hour or even every day, and I want to decide for myself what posts are good. I also don't mind scrolling past those that I'm not interested in. So, no. No.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 12:18 PM on December 10, 2004


you know, the point of technology isn't really to disappear everything you don't like from view.
posted by quonsar at 12:22 PM on December 10, 2004


No, that's what our subconscious is for.
posted by mic stand at 12:25 PM on December 10, 2004


AMIHOTORNOT? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
posted by mds35 at 12:26 PM on December 10, 2004


They have something like that on Slashdot and it has never once lead to any kind of whoring after ratings or rating based on personal animosity or political affiliation, so I give it the big thumbs up.







In the Roman sense of the Emperor telling the gladiator to stab your idea in the guts.
posted by Divine_Wino at 12:30 PM on December 10, 2004


This has been discussed ad nauseum on MeTa with no solid conclusion...the reason being because it's a shitty idea that polarizes sects within the mefi community, creates a false sense of affected grandeur & transparent empowerment, propagates bullying, and shelves mefi as nothing more than a simple popularity club. No, no and no. This is the classic "Heathers" argument. Now do you really want to start instituting social politics and bureaucracies, Martha Dumptruck?
posted by naxosaxur at 12:35 PM on December 10, 2004


IS MY IDEA ORIGINAL OR NOT?
1 2* 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

IS MY PONY HARD TO CODE OR NOT?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9* 10

OMFG THE BUDDAS ARE AT WAR
666 5150 911 69 12345
posted by scarabic at 12:35 PM on December 10, 2004


Then we could all stop complaining about lousy FPPs.

But what would we do on MetaTalk then?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:39 PM on December 10, 2004


I find ranking ("karma") systems absolutely fascinating; but generally, I think they're pretty worthless for actually hiding/revealing content by value. d'wino's got a serious point, there, and so does stupidsexyflanders; every time I go to slashdot, the first thing I do is show-all, so I can tell what was said but wasn't regarded as pithy or witty or scathing or otherwise alpha-male-ish enough to float above the rest of the crap....

On prev: Add naxosaur to the aforementioned list of the pointful...
posted by lodurr at 12:39 PM on December 10, 2004


I have yet to see an online rating system that hasn't degraded into censorship. It starts out as "is this post good or not", but quickly becomes "do I agree with this post or not".

Besides, I rather like all the MeTa discussion.
posted by sbutler at 12:41 PM on December 10, 2004


(-1 stupid)
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:44 PM on December 10, 2004


AM I CRAP POST OR NOT . COM
posted by neckro23 at 12:44 PM on December 10, 2004


(-1 stupid)
posted by mathowie at 12:44 PM PST on December 10


Well, that about does it then, eh?

Doesmypostsuckorifitdoesn'tthencansomeonestrokemyweeego.com
posted by fenriq at 12:50 PM on December 10, 2004


OK, how about a rating systm so the noobs can SEE if their FPPs suck
posted by ZippityBuddha at 12:53 PM on December 10, 2004


We used to have a karma modification on a web board I moderate. It actually worked pretty well overall, but I'm glad it's gone. Now everyone has a warning level visible only to themselves. I think that works better.

I do not think this would work well for MetaFilter. It's not SlashDot and it wouldn't be good for the place. Just skip the bad first page posts and the whining that comes with them.
posted by Captaintripps at 1:00 PM on December 10, 2004


o Cowboy Neal
posted by TimeFactor at 1:02 PM on December 10, 2004


That is the exact same request except even harder to code and even more antagonistic to the mefi-ethos.

Just make it your personal mission to fix n00bs, that'll work fine.
posted by Divine_Wino at 1:02 PM on December 10, 2004


ZB, have you failed to notice that mathowie has effectively maintained & devotedly balanced metafilter for the past five years? It's insulting to propose an insipid, wasteful system of checks & balances by self-appointed vassals when we already have a dependant, honorable moderator.
posted by naxosaxur at 1:04 PM on December 10, 2004


" Could we have a feature by which each FPP is rated...?"

No. We can't. Slashdot and Kuro5hin are shitholes, let's not emulate them.
posted by majick at 1:06 PM on December 10, 2004


What, you can't see the ratings? Right next to the "posted by" line. If you can't see them (numbers 1-5) you should send Matt another $50. That should get you full member privileges, including free admission to Central Park if you're ever in NYC.
posted by languagehat at 1:10 PM on December 10, 2004


Languagehat remember when we were in Central Park and we got those n00bs sooooo high and then sat there and drank ice cold Capri Suns and wouldn't let them have any?

That was my best day ever.
posted by Divine_Wino at 1:25 PM on December 10, 2004


The only thing I would suggest that could work would be a means for deletions. There's only one Y/N radio button: "delete?" Set a fairly high bar, like a surplus of 500 "Y" votes, and if the post reaches that, then kill it. That way, we could still call things out in MetaTalk and bitch and bitch and bitch, but we'd be bitching at other people to vote instead of bitching at Matt to step in.
posted by scarabic at 1:26 PM on December 10, 2004


Frist p0st muthaz!
posted by turbodog at 1:29 PM on December 10, 2004


Did this article help you?
It solved my issue...

Tell us what works for you.
It's good, but...

Report typos, inaccuracies, etc.
It wasn't helpful...

Tell us what would have helped.
posted by mds35 at 1:33 PM on December 10, 2004


Doesmypostsuckorifitdoesn'tthencansomeonestrokemyweeego.com

What's a weego?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:34 PM on December 10, 2004


Oops. -1 Reading Comprehension.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:36 PM on December 10, 2004


Could we maybe have a point-rating system for comments?

For example.. if I comment in a post about a political hack and start making sexual innuendoes or "i'd hit it" just because he's a guy instead of focussing on what he did or said? OR.. perhaps if there's a FPP about a female political hack, and instead of discussing her ideas or lack thereof, I just focus on the fact that she's a semi-attractive female and make crude remarks, reducing her to a sex object?

You all could rate those comments i made and they would be deleted by consensus, removing the superfluous demeaning trash-talk from the discussion.

:D.. just askin'.
posted by reflecked at 1:52 PM on December 10, 2004


How did you cope with lousy FPPs before now, and why is it now critical that we install some sort of voting/rating/censoring feature to delete them?
posted by fandango_matt at 1:52 PM on December 10, 2004


Why do you need a rating feature, isn't that what the messageboard on each post is for? If your post sucks, you'll hear about it.

This post gets an E for Effort.
posted by Arch Stanton at 2:07 PM on December 10, 2004


Can we have avatars? I like avatars.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 2:09 PM on December 10, 2004


OK, how about a rating systm so the noobs can SEE if their FPPs suck

Is it really that hard to tell?

FPP gets deleted == it sucks (and you can look at its page from lofi to see why it sucks)
FPP gets hauled into MeTa == it sucks
FPP gets a bunch of whining in the thread about how much it sucks == it sucks

FPP gets a bunch of 'good fpp!' comments from old-school users = it doesn't suck

There, that was easy. Do you really need to quantify that?
posted by SpecialK at 2:09 PM on December 10, 2004


The amount of self-righteousness and self-importance in the "old-schoolers", especially since the recent addition of new users, is really pretty nausea-inducing.
posted by xmutex at 2:14 PM on December 10, 2004


The backlash against the backlash will soon be backlashed.
posted by yerfatma at 2:20 PM on December 10, 2004


In slashdot russia, the backlash moderates you!
posted by metaculpa at 2:29 PM on December 10, 2004


The amount of self-righteousness and self-importance in the "old-schoolers", especially since the recent addition of new users, is really pretty nausea-inducing.


If you simply don't give a swimming porpoise about what those people say, it really does not matter all that much.

Some handle is mad at you, big deal. I say grab that handle by itself and make a bloody mary.
posted by Captaintripps at 2:29 PM on December 10, 2004


Doesmypostsuckorifitdoesn'tthencansomeonestrokemyweeego.com

What's a weego?


Its a Wee Ego. I knew that was gonna munge up somewhere. Now I'm sending loads of traffic to some porn site.

Damn. At least tell them I sent you, that way I get 3% off my 15th virtual lap dance.

DrJohn, yeah, avatars with cute little talkie bubbles and emoticons and virtual flowers and dreck like that! Oh boy! I want to be a Unicorn!
posted by fenriq at 2:55 PM on December 10, 2004


Doh, -5 for not reading your next comment, Armitage Shanks.

Damn, that means I can't go on the fieldtrip to the morgue next week!
posted by fenriq at 2:56 PM on December 10, 2004


Can we have avatars? I like avatars.

No.
posted by glenwood at 2:58 PM on December 10, 2004


There is the metafilter: remixed project which is based on a similar idea. And in the accompanying MetaTalk thread from two years ago, matthowie gave the impression that this wild pony would someday be domesticated and brought into the corral.
posted by euphorb at 3:09 PM on December 10, 2004


Can we have avatars?

Doodooodood! It would be so sweet if underneath everyone's name, on every comment, it had their complete computer system specs and a 10 lines of personally meaningful NIN lyrics.
posted by scarabic at 3:29 PM on December 10, 2004



posted by soundofsuburbia at 4:00 PM on December 10, 2004


What's a weego?
posted by Armitage Shanks


1. A mythological creature related to the Windego. A mythical beast that looks like a homunculus with a giant need to be stroked constantly. If you stop stroking the beast, it turns on you and becomes hostile.

2. A family van manufactured by Ford between 1987 to 1989. It combined poor gas mileage, with a tiny interior that barely fit a family of four, plus an infamously loud engine. Drivers complained that they heard mysterious whiny noises.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:06 PM on December 10, 2004


Can we have avatars? I like avatars.

It bears noting that the truly horrible can, in fact, consistantly post an image at the end of each post, making the code unneccessary. Metafilter could then become SO AWESOME. And by awesome I mean Matt would likely disable img src'ing.

But the wit that would be ours for a week or two...


posted by Peter H at 4:34 PM on December 10, 2004


two ideas:

1. Every user, FPP, and comment in every thread receives a rating via its own MeTa thread. MeTa threads are then rated in accordance with the sum of the ratings therein; this process recurs until there is a single thread which will replace the front page every day, the RateFilter, which will be blank except for a number between one and five. This will significantly cut down on unnecessary MeTa threads, and will have the added effect of eliminating non-numerical dialogue.

2. How about we n00bs chill the fuck out, alright? Post if you have something to say, comment if you like, talk to people, don't be a psychopath, get on with your lives. It's just the internet, for sod's sake.
posted by clockzero at 4:40 PM on December 10, 2004


I want to decide for myself what posts are good.

Hell yes, because most of you, quite frankly, have terrible, terrible taste. I wouldn't trust you to pick up a meal at McDonalds, much less dictate my intellectual feed.

You can keep your tyranny of the masses, thanks.
posted by rushmc at 5:29 PM on December 10, 2004


can you imagine all the fights that would start over the ratings people gave fpp's? ... as a k5 regular, i don't have to ...
posted by pyramid termite at 5:31 PM on December 10, 2004


You all could rate those comments i made and they would be deleted by consensus, removing the superfluous demeaning trash-talk from the discussion.

But I still ain't having no breast implants, bubba.
posted by davy at 5:33 PM on December 10, 2004


Can we have avatars? I like avatars.

Yay! Avatars!

No. And anyway, you can link to an image in your MeFi user page, so what's the point of adding page bloat to every single page? Isn't the site slow enough as it is? (Just kidding, Matt.)
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:42 PM on December 10, 2004


In slashdot russia, the backlash moderates you!
That still makes me laugh out loud every time - It's gotta be the best formula ever.
posted by sophie at 5:49 PM on December 10, 2004


So. No avatars then DrJohn. I imagine you must be heartbroken.
posted by squealy at 5:54 PM on December 10, 2004


All good ideas, but you're thinking too small! Let's add the ability to moderate actual users. If enough people don't like you, you get booted off the island.

We don't want none of them minority opinions here anyways. Off to utopia!
posted by chundo at 6:15 PM on December 10, 2004


Having read through this thread, and many of the thousands that have preceded it, it sure sounds like we have a "thread quality scoring system" already in place that's been working at least as well as any other out there.

Has for years, too. L'Chaim.
posted by chicobangs at 8:56 PM on December 10, 2004


Oh cool! Let's get that ratings thing. I really care what other people think about what should interest me.
posted by c13 at 10:05 PM on December 10, 2004


Maybe people could just learn to skip past the crap that doesn't interest them, and get on with their lives.

Oh shit -- I'm asking for a pony, aren't I?
posted by spilon at 10:29 PM on December 10, 2004


spilon, you're asking for the pony we already have.

It's the pony we're using to the tune of 56 comments so far in this thread alone, not to mention the 8,619 posts that came before it.

Ride on, pal.
posted by chicobangs at 10:51 PM on December 10, 2004


Yeah, all right, but what if we want to rate the pony? How do we do that?
posted by Infinite Jest at 2:38 AM on December 11, 2004


NONONONONO!

1) I don't always get to read the site every day.
2) One person's crap may just be another person's treasure.
3) I just wanted to make my list longer.
posted by kamylyon at 4:41 AM on December 11, 2004


1
posted by xammerboy at 7:02 AM on December 11, 2004


Is it really that hard to tell?

Why, yes, I think it is. "Sucks" vs. "doesn't suck" are not only kind of, well, subjective, but also loaded: People say things "suck" for lots of reasons. Sometimes things that people say "suck" need to be said. Sometimes a subgroup of people think something "sucks" enough to make a lot of noise about it; sometimes some sufficient number of people in power to do something about it -- either because they have literal control or whether their words carry extra weight -- get to make that "sucks" decision for everybody else. (And of course, if they have literal control, then the sufficient number is 1....)

In any case, there are a lot of problems with your syllogisms. Basically, I can't see a single one that follows as you give it.

FPP gets deleted == it sucks (and you can look at its page from lofi to see why it sucks)

Wrong. "FPP gets deleted" == matthowie doesn't like it. matthowie doesn't like it <> "it sucks"

FPP gets hauled into MeTa == it sucks

Wrong. FPP gets hauled into MeTa == somebody doesn't like it.

FPP gets a bunch of whining in the thread about how much it sucks == it sucks

Wrong. "FPP gets a bunch of whining in the thread about how much it sucks" == a bunch of people don't like it. "a bunch of people don't like it" <> "it sucks".

FPP gets a bunch of 'good fpp!' comments from old-school users = it doesn't suck

Wrong. "FPP gets a bunch of 'good fpp!' comments from old-school users" could simply mean "post makes old-skoolers feel [warm 'n' fuzzy / validated in their mefnocentrism / respected / etc.]."

Now, I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea of community standards. But community concensus does not establish fact.
posted by lodurr at 7:58 AM on December 11, 2004


Catherine wants sex with a pony. Also, avatars are the shiznuts, boyo!
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:05 AM on December 11, 2004


For my avatar I am going to use a picture of a really pretty girl.
posted by jefbla at 11:09 AM on December 11, 2004


"OK, how about a rating systm so the noobs can SEE if their FPPs suck"

I cringe everytime I read something like "This is my first post, so go easy on me." And I have been cringing a lot lately.

Get a frickin' backbone! If there is a possibility that you're gonna go cry in the corner because of what someone else TYPES as a comment, then maybe you are better off not be posting at all. Cripes! There is a pretty good chance that someone will think that your post sucks. Can you handle it if they actually voice their opinion?
posted by jaronson at 12:27 PM on December 11, 2004


mefnocentrism

Nomination for best neologism of the week. Do I hear a second?
posted by googly at 12:47 PM on December 11, 2004


Now, I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea of community standards. But community concensus does not establish fact.

This is true. But I don't think you can say "It's an established fact username/username's FPP sucks."

googly: Meficentric, I think, is a bit better.
posted by fandango_matt at 1:48 PM on December 11, 2004


But I don't think you can say "It's an established fact username/username's FPP sucks."

Oh, sure I could say it -- I'd just be wrong.... That said, I could say "It's an established fact that I don't like username/username's FPP." No worry there.

Meficentric, I think, is a bit better.

The two terms will appeal to different populations. One is less pejorative than the other, I think.
posted by lodurr at 2:19 PM on December 11, 2004


The amount of self-righteousness and self-importance in the "old-schoolers", especially since the recent addition of new users, is really pretty nausea-inducing.

So is all the pontificating on what the guidelines really mean and when they should be applied, on the part of the newest members in the house.
posted by scarabic at 2:45 PM on December 11, 2004


The only thing automoderation systems have ever accomplished is the creation of hundreds of ways to defeat or abuse automoderation systems.
posted by darukaru at 4:51 PM on December 11, 2004


Now, I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea of community standards. But community concensus does not establish fact.

Oh, freakin' christ on a freakin' pogo stick, talk about freakin' SemanticsFilter, lodurr...

To rephrase my frickin' post to satisfy the lodurr logic police, MeFi in general has three or four different mechanisms to filter out posts that some people don't like. We not only don't need another one, but quantifying (or using discrete logic to prove or disprove) how much people don't like a post isn't necessary and doesn't provide the satisfying screams of terror, anger, and anguish that a satisfying MeTa keelhauling does.

Again, all together now ... MeTa: You're wrong. No, you're wrong!
posted by SpecialK at 6:00 PM on December 11, 2004


:%s/satisfying MeTa/good MeTa/g
posted by SpecialK at 6:01 PM on December 11, 2004


Well, that seems resolved.
posted by Captaintripps at 9:25 PM on December 11, 2004


... a satisfying MeTa keelhauling ...

So, sooo, satisfying..... Hey, specialK, I'm only playing "logic police" because somebody decided to play at applying formal logic to an area where it doesn't apply -- and that, furthermore, the logic was groundless.
posted by lodurr at 7:36 AM on December 12, 2004


« Older why is there no link to the green from the blue?   |   A historical oddity: self-link gets a pass Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments