Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down
Posted on: June 3, 2011 - 6:53pm
Offline
Thumbs Up or Thumbs Down
Hi ! I was just thinking, we need a Thumbs Up or a Thumbs down to rate each thread (post) that we read, some of these threads deserves a rating of good or bad, it would help to speed up the time that it takes to read the whole thread, just a thought ! What do you think ?
Signature ? How ?
- Login to post comments
neg on that notion. I'm not interested in seeing these boards turn into a popularity contest. (Which is what tends to happen to websites that enable the rating of threads, posts, journal entries, and/or comments.)
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I would mostly agree with Kapkao on this.
Although in principle, I really like the idea of people voting on things like that. In practice, however, it seems to turn into a popularity contest, and eventualy you get 99% of votes being Up on one post and 99% being down on another post. It really doesn't give much useful information except what the majority already agrees with. And this site is really really not about empowering majoritarian fallacies like argumentum ad populum (which I call in English, the argument from the masses).
My dream feature for a website would be the ability to vote for things you like and things you don't, and based on your personal voting pattern, it would help suggest likely topics and people you would probably like, and those you probably wouldn't. Unfortunately, a real system like this is a very difficult thing to get up and running. Even Amazon, Google, and Facebook haven't mastered this feature to my desired liking, although Amazon is fairly good I must admit.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
meh, I already have a pretty good feeling of how many thumbs down I would get and who they would be from so I don't really see the point. As for the threads themselves, if they get a lot of conversation people are obviously interested, if they don't it probably sucks so I think the recent posts feature does a pretty good job getting you to the threads that are the most interesting/popular.
I also think it would be counter productive on the rare occasions when a decent honest theist steps into the fire. They would probably get a lot of negative votes even if they were trying to have a conversation, and they already know they are entering into a hostile environment. Certainly, some theists deserve it and some would thrive on it, Jean Chauvin would probably have a contest to see how many negative votes he could get. I just don't see it adding much beneficial to the site.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Yeah, I know what you mean. O'well it was just a thought.
Thumbs up if hangover 2 brought you here
Oops wrong site
Well, I see and understand your point. O'well !
Well, there are a few points to consider on this matter.
Probably the one on which this idea would sink or swim is simply the back end administration of the site. Really, it is not easy to keep this place going if we just add stuff because the idea sounds good.
We use great software to run this site (the same software that whitehouse.gov use btw) but it tends to be great to the extent that you leave it alone. Make changes and stuff can go wrong in ways that make it better to just not get involved with.
Past that, it might sound easy enough to just run up a quick clone of the site and make the change there to see what comes of it. To some extent, that is true. I don't know just how long it takes to do a full copy of all the files but I would be surprised if it was more than half an hour. Yet at this point, it gets more complicated than you might think.
The fact is that there are more than 150 software extensions that might provide the function being asked for. Let's say that it takes half an hour to clone the web site. Then many possible extensions simply don't work with what we already have going. Of those that are not obviously bad, it could take a while to ferret out the problems that might come up. Really, that is a lot of work to ask the server admins to go through for what actual return?
>>>>>>>>>>
I do kind of like the idea that nobody could really see the ratings and the server would use your personal ratings to suggest threads for you. At least on the theoretical level. However, that is going to represent a load on server time which would slow down page loads, especially when there are lots of us online. That and the database we need on the back end would grow by quite a bit, which will slow down forum searches.
The immediate down side that I see to that is also one of the things that we are kind of picky about. The reason that we do not akill theists in general has to do with encouraging our members to engage them in this specific format so that they can develop skills that might help them out in a real time/on the street type of encounter.
Now with any kind of voting system, even a private one like natural suggested, how would that not push theist material down to the bottom of this place?
In all honesty, I do not have any expectation that members like fonzie/gramster/jean chauvin are ever going to be swayed by anything that anyone tells them. However, I don't see that as the point in responding to them in the first place.
Personally, I usually just click the recent posts link to see what discussions are active. Often I don't even bother responding unless I feel that there is some real contribution that I have. Even so, I do like to read the responses that other people post to stupid arguments.
So when I run into some idiot theist on the street, hopefully, my toolbox of responses is that much larger for having seen some of the better quality material that other people have used. That and I would assume that my responses might help other people if they run into situations that I have been able to address.
=
It could turn into a fun drinking game
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Which is why you make an (private) Alpha run first, as with all things software.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Like I was saying... I myself almost never post an idea or comment to appease someone, so I think it's a good bet I'd be up a creek without a paddle. One other thing I didn't think of was "how many lurkers and veteran lurkers do we have here?" A person poopoos the opinion of someone else, but they don't even bother to make their presence known to anyone except the admins, the server, and maybe Echelon?
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
There are regulars who are not particularly open minded as well who have come out and admitted that they don't like the way I come off and they wont repond to what I have to say unless it's just so "brilliant" that I guess they can't help it. It's strange that free thinkers would choose to limit things because they don't like something on a personal level...on the internet?
I think Kap, earlier in your postings were about half accused of being a troll and Beyond S your political big business view is really the only point of contention with a majority here I have noticed.
Not for threads but on occasion I have had the urge to thumbs up a post, would be better than having to quote it but then again we have fb for that I suppose.
Edit: Threads take care of themselves by getting more responses and staying at the top.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
When would this have been?
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I give this thread two snaps up in Z formation. (You have to be old enough to get this joke).
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
About a year ago ?
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Nah, nevermind... I think I wanted people to think I was a troll.
Aww geez I was all prepped to be a smart ass, why'd you go and ruin it
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin
Yeah, you were almost in luck. I had put that event in some dusty cabinet of the mind.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)