member status

General Discussion
21

I am finding that personal integrity has gone a long way away from some of our posters

I'm eager to look into this, as soon as I get done "applaud"ing my own posts! ;D

Can we understand in more detail how the rating systme works?
Ideally, it seems that a member could give only one vote per post?
Someone with many posts might garner some pluses & minuses
in the course of others’ evaluations: is the total given as an average,
or as some plus/minus ratio?

Hmmm, re-reading, “every time a person reads a post” implies that
there could be some abuse of the system: e.g., I could repeated read
and rate, highly skewing the assessment for whomever. Taken on
presumption that none would do this, well–we’d hope–, it might work.

–dl*
====

Dan - I cannot believe you said that!? You are brilliant and we dote on your very words as if they were honey (just kidding - psyche!). Why would we concern ourselves about whether or not we are mister or miss popular or right or average or being fair or whatever - and why the dual identity? If we tell the truth of what we see, that should be enough for us as an individual to be comfortable, provided we do not disrespect someone in the process (for disrespect read what you will - it is what is felt by the other). I like still the idea of expressing whether or not someone is a member or guest and only that - damn the torpedoes - full speed ahead! If what you have to say is good then it is up to you to make it so - a vote does not help convince anyone! Let’s get back to applying your and our considerable talents to better purpose than staring at our collective and individual navels, and wondering whether or not we have had a “bad” grade - if we need to improve then do so! That’s all - thanks for reading. :slight_smile:

Lindsey

22

What do we get if we make it to Senior Member, or is that a 55+ Club. :smiley:

23

The number of posts a member makes is an indicator of how much contribution they are making to the content of the forum.

But that is not always a good thing! The content might not be what the other members want to read or could be offensive or troublemaking. Most forums allow readers to put such posters onto ignore. Their contributions remain unread and lead nowhere.

On the other hand, contributors whos content is interesting, frequently stimulate replies which often include a quote from their post.

If we need a quality/popularity ranking system (which personally I doubt - but then I would say that - wouldn’t I!) then how about ranking on the number of times someone is quoted. They had to have been read to be quoted and being quoted means they have led to greater contribution to the forum.

Does the forum software allow for the automatic ranking of the number of times a poster is quoted?

24

Some people post in threads that are discused a lot. People in those threads tend to quote, sometimes to go on telling that the quoted person is mad, crazy and does not know the first thing.

Some people are just helpfull, answer questions and stay out of discussions, they are better to have on the forum than the quoted person who’s information is rubbish.
So telling how often someone is quoted is not giving an indication of quality.

I am not sure how well the new system for quality rating is going to work, but lets give the new system some time so we can see if it is working.

Willeke

25

That’s a really interesting perspective you have there Willeke.

You equate quoting with “telling that the quoted person is mad, crazy and does not know the first thing.” – and yes, that is BAD.

Then you equate not quoting with “just helpfull, answer questions and stay out of discussions, they are better to have on the forum than the quoted person who’s information is rubbish.” and yes, these are GOOD.

As a moderator, you read all the posts, consequently, we should expect your opion to be balanced and representative. So lets just have a quick look at the reality of the Goods and the Bads as you see them.

The top ten posters to this forum have contributed a massive 59% of all the posts on the forum - six out of every ten posts from just ten members - These ten make up the bulk of what this forum is, so how do they rank in the quoting stakes?

Well if you take yourself, KnotNow, Nautile and Gordon - between you, you have clocked a total of 3 quotes in the last 400 posts. Clearly you see yourself and these others as “just helpful – better to have on the forum than the quoted person who’s information is rubbish”

Then lets look at the other six Jimbo, --dl*, Roo, Lasse, SR and Baz. In their last 100 posts each, they clocked up a massive 682 quotes - thats roughly one quote for every post they made. These clearly are the BAD people you refer to because they quote so prolifically and are not like you in the least bit.

But hold on !! These are amongst the people on this forum I personally most respect, I look forward to their posts and often read them repeatedly because their posts are so balanced and informative. Yet these prolific quoters are branded by your good self (a Moderator) as “telling that the quoted person is mad, crazy and does not know the first thing.”

I think the FACTS Willeke, demonstrate that you view is WRONG. Quoting does not in any way equate with bad posting, and absence of quoting does not equate with good posting.

Having clarified that point, I reiterate, “The number of times a poster is quoted is potentially a good indicator of the interest they have contributed”, so if we need a quality/popularity ranking system, then you might consider basing it on the number of times that poster is quoted.

Derek

26

DerekSmith,

I did say:

[b][u]sometimes[/u][/b] to go on telling that the quoted person is mad, crazy and does not know the first thing.
I did not say that every person quoted is anything. You seem to like getting words out of their context and feel personally attacked.

It is not my personal style to dissect others peoples posts and answer each detail with a quote attached, (but sometimes I do use this style too).
Many people do use that style, nothing wrong there.
The people who use that style of writing are often quoted in return, because people reacting on their posts use the same style.

I used this example to show that being quoted does not proof or disproof quality.

You write:

You equate quoting with "telling that the quoted person is mad, crazy and does not know the first thing." -- and yes, that is BAD.
That is your interpretation of something you misread. I have to admit that I did use quoting only in a negative way, but I agree with you that:
Quoting does not in any way equate with bad posting, and absence of quoting does not equate with good posting.

But I disagree with your cunclusion before:

I think the FACTS Willeke, demonstrate that you view is WRONG.
I did not post a view on quoting, only on quoting or being quoted as a way to measure quality of the posts someone makes.

I stay with my conclusion that being quoted is no proof of having posted a worthy post, it only proofs that you posted something that an other person wanted to talk about, without the risk of spelling a word wrong in re-entering the text.
And that you can make good post without anything worthy of quoting or poor posts that will be quoted as is the case with your post which I have quoted from often in this post.

Willeke

27

Dear Willeke, thank you so much for agreeing with me. The measure of how much someone is quoted is an indication of how POPULAR or reply worthy their post was - not its quality.

You have demonstrated this in an excellent manner - if my post had not been of any interest to you, you would simply have ignored it and not responded. But the fact that you found my post of such interest that you took the time to craft a thorough response - and in one post, you have managed to more than double the number of quotes you have made in your last 100 contributions - demonstrates that you found my post worthy of a response and that by quoting me, the number of times I am quoted is a reflection, a measure of that interest.

So, I ask yet again, how about considering it as a replacement for the black ball, white ball method now installed under the guise of quality.

28

When the subject of quality points came up it was to show that a poster gives good info and as such should get more attention by people coming in, no automated system is going to be able to do that.

Quality is something measured by people, not by machines.

And the only reason I reacted to the post of DerekSmith above was that it did say things that are wrong. IE BAD.

Willeke

29

Derek, maybe if you can just manage your 3rd reading the first time (or at least the time
you reply), you won’t elicit so much quoting to be corrected. With the conclusion that
quoting doesn’t indicate quality, you nonetheless prefer it to some express measure
of quality? --to what end? (So, some poster is continually quoted for correction, another
for meaningful dialogue, and a quote-count doesn’t distinguish. In fact, in the recent
case of your quotes by Willeke, they are all made in an effort to correct mistakes
–if anything, it’s likely that most-quoted has a bias towards that ill quality, and not
really much of interest.)

–dl*

30

Again, I’d like to better understand how the rating system works.
E.g., to date, I see a range of -1 .. +1 displayed; what is the full
extent/potential?

And the rating attaches to the poster, here, not to a particular post
(which would have an effect like highlighting text–“READ THIS!”).

Conceivably, it might be that only positive ratings should be given?

–dl*

(The system could rate for quality of spelling! :smiley: )

31

hi,

If I had known on beforehand the discussion was going the way it went I wouldn’t have started this thread at all. I am beginning to ask myself if we really do need a rating system at all?! Perhaps we should rest our cases and get back to what we are best in …KNOT TYING !!

just a thought…please don’t feel offended that is not my intention

have a nice weekend
André

32

Don’t worry Andre, we’ll forgive you ;D

Anyway, with regard to the rating, I think Mel was just trying to find a compromise. If she can’t do the things that we were asking for, this was possibly the next best thing.

As you say - let’s get back to knotting. Not that I know anything about tying up bits of string - I leave all that to Jeff :slight_smile:

Lesley

33

How Do All ;D

Any member of the this Forum that is also a member of the IGKT, and may not like being known as a Newbie, since this may give the impression to some that they are new to Knot Tying, may wish to show the fact that they are an IGKT member and / or how long they have been a member of the IGKT on their posts, as I have done under my avatar to give you an example :-
you can do this by changing the text / picture section in your profile,

I hope this is of help to some of you long standing IGKT member “newbies” :wink:

Take care,
Barry ;D

34

This is wonderful. The best option. I wish I had thought of it. I will bite my tongue when excluded (well earned) and be gald to contribute when my point makes a point.

35

Still … !! ??

And the rating attaches to the poster, here, not to a particular post (which would have an effect like highlighting text--"READ THIS!").
It [i]would[/i] be nice--better, IMHO--if ratings were given [b]per post[/b], attached/displayed at the post; one could also somehow [i]average[/i] that to a member, if desired.

Coming to a post whose author is rated +X/-Y seems less helpful than
were that rating for the particular contribution there. Well-rated posts
would command attention. (Negatively rated posts might hint at what
was wrong; at least, the search for understanding would be limited to
the post.)

–dl*

36

Hi Dan,
It would appear that the ratings system is there so that after reading a post the veiwer can judge if the post was helpful, interesting, relevant or not, as you point out this effects your overall rating and is displayed in every posting.
This system could be used maliciously by some, giving thumbs down just for the hell of it, there by giving helpful posters a bad rep, that is if you take any notice of ratings, instead of the content of the post.
It may be a case that this is the only option available with this forum template ???

You would be best off emailing the Web Mistress for a better understanding of how, why, where and when.

I hope this helps.
Barry :slight_smile:

37

Well, I haven’t posted for about a week now and yet still my ‘Quality’ rating continues to accumulate negative votes. So it’s not what I am posting that is causing the reaction, it’s what I have previously posted. Either that, or someone just has a dislike of my contribution style and is taking frequent opportunity to ‘Black Spot’ me.

Being contentious is not an issue for me and if I can widen a thread by offering alternative perspectives then I am happy to do so, even though that threatens to result in a steady accumulation of ‘Black Spots’.

However, what has always been an issue for me is COWARDICE. The purpose of any forum is to post views and then to air alternative views and perspectives. It’s the modern equivalent of Speakers Corner where we can all postulate, comment, agree and disagree in any measure we care to contribute. In turn, the forum is ‘listened to’ by those who find its content and banter of interest. Many people are scared to make their comments under their own name and prefer the anonymity of a username, yet because we are not likely to meet or know one another, there is little difference between our real names and a forum name (I claim that I post under my real name, yet only one other person on this forum knows if that is the truth or not)

When we post, our contribution is signed with our chosen ‘name’. If others have critical comment to our posts, they can direct their fury, anger, ridicule at us directly, whether we use our real name or a chosen forum name. In doing so, we are granted the right to reply.

However, the ‘Black Spot’ system allows those amongst us who are cowards, to effectively post a ‘negative opinion’ whilst remaining in the safety of total anonymity. When someone posts a ‘Black Spot’ against you, there is no opportunity to consider why, no chance to argue your case, no chance to expose your accuser as an idiot or fool. No chance to convince other readers that your accuser is simply wrong, because you do not even know why they have given you the ‘Black Spot’ nor who they were.

In the past I have spoken up against Willike and webmistress when their proposals were in my opinion inappropriate. They did not like my comments, but they knew the critical comments were from me and they were both able to respond as they felt appropriate (and they did!!). Today however, were I to feel cowardly, I could simply Pooh them with copious ‘Black Spots’ in order to degrade their quality status. The purpose of such an action would be solely to hurt them without giving them any chance of reply.

Readers of this post might think - ‘Smithy’s only up in arms because he’s got the worst quality score’, and certainly my present record position of six ‘Black Spots’ sure paints me as a crap contributor. But that is not why I believe the present system is a backwards step. I have a tough old hide and only the opinions of my family and close friends could cause me to question my self belief. Certainly the bitchiness of some coward, voting me ‘Black Spots’ has no impact on me, but then, like I said, I am a tough old bugger.

My concern is for those of our members and potential members with a less self confident outlook than mine. Lasse_C has brought up the issue of attracting new members and Webmistress questioned why we have so few female posters. While we are considering ways to increase the flow of interest and members, we must also be keeping a close eye on disincentives. Providing a high profile way to promote bitchiness, is, I believe, a major disincentive to those who are more sensitive than most of the tanned old leather that currently inhabits this site.

I continue to hold the position that this present system of anonymous voting is bad, and should be removed before we start to loose members to ‘Black Spot Bitchiness Syndrome’ (BSBS) - (yes, that is a double dose of BS). Accountable voting would be good - click on the Quality score for a list of who voted and against which post - but a simplistic bitch mark system is worse than valueless it is potentially damaging to future membership - I vote that, in its present form, it goes.

DerekSmith

38

I have never voted for, or even wanted the new system of quality points. I have also never given one yet.
But I would ask for a longer tryal periode. Do not vote down a system when it has not run a week, (as it has when the first time it was asked to be changed) or even a month, (which will be an other few weeks.)

Is it time to ask Mel to restrict the awarding to the members who have a certain amount of post?
And if so, how many?

Willeke

39

Willeke,

If you insist that we trial the Quality system for a month, then OK, set the voters elligibility level to something significant like say 340, or better still, allow it to track as the number of posts increases over time by setting it to say 10.5% of the total number of posts.

Happy voting.

40

Mr Smith, I understand that you are not a member of the IGKT, please leave the running of this Forum to those who are or who have spent considerable time and effort in its running. Do you not think that the reason for your accumulation of ‘Black Spots’ could be that other Forum members are becoming rather fed up with your continuing criticisms?

One who is not a coward
Jeff Wyatt
Immediate Past-President, IGKT