Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

PCTek · Nov 17, 2002, 09:56 PM

Warning: This is kind of a rant. Excuse me if I sound selfish.

I personally pick and choose what I say in posts, if I say anything. I've been registered with this board since 1999, but I don't post constantly. I don't like the fact that your "rating" (Rating = member "designation" + # of stars) is based on the number of posts alone, rather than a collection of different variables.

For visitors to this board, When they see a post from someone with 5 stars, they think that "Hey, this person knows what (s)he is talking about", not taking into account that the person may have registered a few months ago, whereas they may see a post from me, see my 300 post count, look at the 5-star, 900 post count of the other user, and ignore my post.

Is it possible to incorporate some other variables in the descison-making process of member "designations" and "stars"? Such as...

Post count.
How long the member has been registered.
Length of post. (I write LONG posts).
Possibly a "rating" system for each user?

When I say a rating system, I mean like what a bunch of KBase-type sites are doing, which states: "Did this post help you?"(Yes/No)"

Like I said before, I take pride in what I write on these boards. I make sure it's as accurate as possible. I don't want my posts to be ignored in favor of someone with an inflated post count.

rjenkinson · Nov 18, 2002, 03:08 AM

chill out, man. it's harder to assess quality than quantity. but look at it this way, if you complain about it enough, you'll be elite in no time!

seriously though, this is just an internet forum. member ratings don't mean much anyway.

-r.

philzilla · Nov 18, 2002, 08:12 AM

what The Guy From Japanada said. otherwise, it's a "my dick's bigger than his, i should have a higher rating" kind of thing*. also, on the subject of length, the length of a post won't always be a factor, if it can be answered by a simple yes/no answer

*note to gzl: investigate how this rating system could be adapted for cheerios, andi, porsche, etc...

Cipher13 · Nov 18, 2002, 09:10 AM

Someone won't read your posts cause you have 300 of them? Then that person is the one missing out. Tough luck for them.

I don't care about them... if you don't pay attention to them either, what's the big deal? Others do... so what?

There's no better way to do it, anyway.

Adam Betts · 10:07 PM

Originally posted by PCTek:
Post count.
How long the member has been registered.
Length of post. (I write LONG posts).
Possibly a "rating" system for each user?

I sure hope that you're joking.

We don't need more long post like Zimphire's

I have mild learning disabled for reading/writing and my grammar skills aren't good so I prefer to stick with short post.

edit: grammar changes in bold

elzinat · Nov 19, 2002, 12:49 AM

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
my grammar skills isn't good

Jansar · Nov 19, 2002, 02:01 AM

As it is so in most cases, people with a large post count have been around for a while, and even if they don't read many posts, they will have in the long run, which makes them more experienced per se.

The only time I actually read a post count, though, is when I see Cipher's amazing (almost 13K) count. But don't we all want to know where he's at?

gorgonzola · Nov 24, 2002, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by PCTek:
I don't like the fact that your "rating" (Rating = member "designation" + # of stars) is based on the number of posts alone, rather than a collection of different variables.

What "rating"? We don't have any ratings at all.

Is it possible to incorporate some other variables in the descison-making process of member "designations" and "stars"? Such as...

Post count.
How long the member has been registered.
Length of post. (I write LONG posts).
Possibly a "rating" system for each user?

Well, post count and registration date are showed right next to each other. The length of post is obvious when it's being read, and long posts don't always make good ones. Given that they're not related, I see no point in listing that anywhere.

When I say a rating system, I mean like what a bunch of KBase-type sites are doing, which states: "Did this post help you?"(Yes/No)"

I suppose, but that really only works for support threads, and ... it would be a bit of a mess. More than one person answers questions, people don't want to rate everything, etc.

Like I said before, I take pride in what I write on these boards. I make sure it's as accurate as possible. I don't want my posts to be ignored in favor of someone with an inflated post count.

Well, that's great, but are you sure you're being ignored?

It seems to me that people will be attracted to the best answer to their question, not the one written incoherently by the guy in green stars.

philzilla · Nov 24, 2002, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by gorgonzola:
...not the one written incoherently by the guy in green stars.

*hic*

Zimphire · Nov 24, 2002, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Adam Betts:

I sure hope that you're joking.

We don't need more long post like Zimphire's

My mind is kinda limited and my grammar skills isn't good so I prefer to stick with short post.

I am not the best grammarian myself, but I don't really see my posts being that long. I have seen much longer posts coming from other people.

Usama's Carcase · Nov 25, 2002, 03:15 AM

If a new or old member hangs around consistently on the boards for at least a week or two, they'll get a feel for who the good and bad members are, regardless of post count. I have a low post count, but feel that I am a valued and contributing member of MacNN.

PorscheBunny · Nov 25, 2002, 08:03 PM

Long

posts

like

this

really

suck.

See

what

I

mean.

elzinat · Nov 25, 2002, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by gorgonzola:
It seems to me that people will be attracted to the best answer to their question, not the one written incoherently by the guy in green stars.

noo dar 1 fruum da dood wit da reed shtarsh onna udder 'and...

Zimphire · Nov 25, 2002, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by PorscheBunny:
Long

like

really

See

I

Er me responding to people point by point? There is nothing wrong with that. That is the actual preferred way you are supposed to respond to people's posts in these UBB forums. I think it's funny people actually complain about the way a poster replies to posts. Don't you have anything else better to do?

PorscheBunny · 03:25 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Er me responding to people point by point? There is nothing wrong with that. That is the actual preferred way you are supposed to respond to people's posts in these UBB forums. I think it's funny people actually complain about the way a poster replies to posts. Don't you have anything else better to do?

[CarlySimonSinging]You're so vain, you probably think this post is about you.[/css]

I wasn't even talking about you. Your name isn't mentioned, and you're not the only one who does it.

Someone less thin-skinned would have known that.

TheIceMan · Dec 11, 2002, 12:33 AM

PCTek: As one with probably the fewest stars since I just joined, I was (at first) impressed by all the stars. But then I started reading what people actually wrote. Yup. # of stars do NOT equal the quality of the posting. But the multicolor stars Cipher has is waaayyy COOL!

Cipher13 · Dec 12, 2002, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by TheIceMan:
PCTek: As one with probably the fewest stars since I just joined, I was (at first) impressed by all the stars. But then I started reading what people actually wrote. Yup. # of stars do NOT equal the quality of the posting. But the multicolor stars Cipher has is waaayyy COOL!

Haha. They used to be random too!

But yeah, you're right.

PCTek... if you judge based on the number of stars a person has... you're missing out on a whole lot of stuff.

voodoo · Dec 14, 2002, 04:17 PM

They were *really* cool when they were random. Shame that effect can't be duplicated with vB.

Zimphire · Dec 14, 2002, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by PorscheBunny:

[CarlySimonSinging]You're so vain, you probably think this post is about you.[/css]

I wasn't even talking about you. Your name isn't mentioned, and you're not the only one who does it.

Someone less thin-skinned would have known that.

Well I would agree if it wasn't for the fact that you responded AFTER I posted about my posts not being that long. You must mistake me for someone that is naive. tsk tsk.

Cipher13 · Dec 15, 2002, 01:28 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Well I would agree if it wasn't for the fact that you responded AFTER I posted about my posts not being that long. You must mistake me for someone that is naive. tsk tsk.

Zimphire, you, naieve? No, never... I'm sure the world was created in seven days...

Zimphire · Dec 15, 2002, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by Cipher13:

Zimphire, you, naieve? No, never... I'm sure the world was created in seven days...

For one, it is "naive" for two who says I think the earth was formed in 7 man days? I don't think I have ever said that. Not that that would make one naive. To a lot of people, those who don't beleive are.

But lets not turn another thread into "Lets make fun of Zimphire because we don't like what he says"

It would be rather silly.

Cipher13 · Dec 15, 2002, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by Zimphire:

For one, it is "naive" for two who says I think the earth was formed in 7 man days? I don't think I have ever said that. Not that that would make one naive. To a lot of people, those who don't beleive are.

But lets not turn another thread into "Lets make fun of Zimphire because we don't like what he says"

It would be rather silly.

Yes, it is. Typo.

Silly? Nah. It's always fun, actually. Naivety isn't subjective.

Well, maybe you didn't say it. Irrelevent. The point remains.

bstone · Dec 16, 2002, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by elzinat:

Pardon me for asking, but what is an Extraneous Admin?

Cipher13 · Dec 17, 2002, 04:01 AM

Originally posted by bstone:

Pardon me for asking, but what is an Extraneous Admin?

Err... an admin that is extraneous?
An admin displaying extranous qualities?
Extranaety(sic), expressed via an admin?
Extranaety incarnate, with admin status?

elzinat · Dec 18, 2002, 04:23 AM

Originally posted by bstone:
Pardon me for asking, but what is an Extraneous Admin?

i'm a social sciences major. 'nuff said.

Zimphire · Dec 18, 2002, 06:14 AM

Originally posted by Cipher13:

Yes, it is. Typo.

Silly? Nah. It's always fun, actually. Naivety isn't subjective.

Fun? You must be easily amused. I'm jealous.

Well, maybe you didn't say it. Irrelevent. The point remains.

It's not irrelevent, you was trying to belittle me with points I never made. These are called baseless accusations.

:-)

PorscheBunny · 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Well I would agree if it wasn't for the fact that you responded AFTER I posted about my posts not being that long. You must mistake me for someone that is naive. tsk tsk.

Actually, I was ribbing Gorgonzola. You were on the Ignore list when I posted that. Thank you for proving my assertion correct, that you're so vain you thought the post was about you.

Maybe you should be returned to the Ignore list.

elzinat · Dec 18, 2002, 11:19 AM

children children children. play nice with the cleavers, or you won't be able to play with the cleavers at all.

Zimphire · Dec 18, 2002, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by PorscheBunny:

Actually, I was ribbing Gorgonzola. You were on the Ignore list when I posted that. Thank you for proving my assertion correct, that you're so vain you thought the post was about you.

Maybe you should be returned to the Ignore list.

My reponse has nothing to do with being vain.

Let me explain to you how forums work. If you post a response to someone, you quote what you are responding to. Otherwise people are going to assume you are responding to the post above. Now since you didn't quote anyone, and since your reply DID have to do with what I was talking about, and it WAS posted right after it was assumed you was speaking to me. Next time to avoid such confusion quote the person to whom you are referring or responding to.

Brien · Dec 18, 2002, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Cipher13:

Haha. They used to be random too!

In some ways UBB was better. Oh well.

PorscheBunny · Dec 19, 2002, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
My reponse has nothing to do with being vain.

Let me explain to you how forums work. If you post a response to someone, you quote what you are responding to. Otherwise people are going to assume you are responding to the post above. Now since you didn't quote anyone, and since your reply DID have to do with what I was talking about, and it WAS posted right after it was assumed you was speaking to me. Next time to avoid such confusion quote the person to whom you are referring or responding to.

If you'll actually bother to look, the only post above it that looks anything like the post I made is Gorgonzola's. By your own � um � logic, you should have assumed that I was talking about Usama's post, not yours.

*VAIN*

To clear up any possible confusion on your part (since you are the only one confused about how a forum works) in the future, I am not talking about you or to you in way, shape, or form. If you think I am talking to you or about you, then you are mistaken.

/me returns Zimphire to the Ignore list and wonders what I was thinking in taking him off of it in the first place

Zimphire · Dec 19, 2002, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by PorscheBunny:

If you'll actually bother to look, the only post above it that looks anything like the post I made is Gorgonzola's. By your own � um � logic, you should have assumed that I was talking about Usama's post, not yours.

*VAIN*

To clear up any possible confusion on your part (since you are the only one confused about how a forum works) in the future, I am not talking about you or to you in way, shape, or form. If you think I am talking to you or about you, then you are mistaken.

/me returns Zimphire to the Ignore list and wonders what I was thinking in taking him off of it in the first place

Ok Porsche let me go further into detail and explain it to you. Since you obviously aren't grasping what I am saying. On purpose or not.

First Adam said this.

Originally posted by Adam Betts:

I sure hope that you're joking.

We don't need more long post like Zimphire's

I have mild learning disabled for reading/writing and my grammar skills aren't good so I prefer to stick with short post.

edit: grammar changes in bold

I replied with this

Originally posted by Zimphire:

I am not the best grammarian myself, but I don't really see my posts being that long. I have seen much longer posts coming from other people.

You reply with this, RIGHT AFTER MY POST see,

Originally posted by PorscheBunny:
Long

like

really

See

I

You didn't refer WHO you were responding to. So automatically one assumes you are speaking to the person that just posted. It has nothing to do with being vain, but it has to do with how BBs usually work. If you didn't know that, I don't understand what I am saying, please feel free to ask any questions about the matter. ANd yes all three posts I posted here HAD TO DO WITH LONG POSTS. And since you have a history of personally attacking me every chance you got, it's not a far assumption. But I am sure you'll respond with your "VAIN sillyness again.

Demonhood · Dec 19, 2002, 11:06 AM

oh lord.