06-06-2007 11:51 AM - edited 06-06-2007 11:51 AM
Message Edited by Matthew Williams on 06-06-2007 12:58 PM
06-06-2007 12:50 PM
More opinions = less consensus. Here's mine:
1. The star system as it exists today isn't particularly useful, IMHO.
2. If there is to be a useful rating system at all, it needs more granularity than just YAY or silence. I wouldn't bother checking film reviews from anyone who refused to use any number other than 10 or 0. Not every film above 5 is equally good, not every film below 5 is equally bad. Having more granularity can potentially be helpful. It *could* be valuable to know whether the person answering your question has previously been rated at 1.5 stars vs. 4.5 stars. It *could* be valuable to know which threads contain highly-rated responses.
3. I don't see how you can hope to keep a rating system pristine if it's left open to misuse / abuse by those with no stake in maintaining its integrity. I haven't really thought about this much, but maybe we should have to "earn" the privilege to give numerical ratings. Maybe it's "earned" by being either (1) the poster of the original topic, (2) someone who has made at least 25 posts that have been given "passing grade" rating, (3) a blue-bar NI insider. Until you earn the right to give numerical ratings, you're limited to either YAY or silence.
I doubt this type of rule can be implemented by the forum software though.
06-06-2007 01:07 PM
"..."earn" the privilege to give numerical ratings."
Good point Kevin!
The contributors could earn the tomatoes (sp) they throw rather than being given them for free.
06-06-2007 01:41 PM - edited 06-06-2007 01:41 PM
06-06-2007 02:50 PM
06-07-2007 08:14 AM
We have talked about the short comings of the star system many times.
Although there are many ways it can be fixed, they all have been to complicated for NI to fix.
Just tossing those four buttons from template used to create each reply appears to be a quick way to eliminate the rotten vegetables.
06-07-2007 08:42 AM
Laura F. wrote:
I am sure that there are many other forum users that agree with you on this issue.
I don't currently know all the ramifications of changing the rating system, but I am sure that there would be some problems to overcome. I will make note of this suggestion and keep it in mind for the next time that we evaluate how to improve the Discussion Forums.
Is there a particular incident of abuse of the rating system that I should be aware of? I don't have much control, but I can investigate the issue and watch for users that abuse the system.
Web Support & Operations
There was the latest incedent with parthabe http://forums.ni.com/ni/view_profile?user.id=49330 See thread http://forums.ni.com/ni/board/message?board.id=130
Seems like there is a single star bandit who gives 1-star rating for no obvious reason. (Maybe they don't like the avatar? or abuse of smileys)
In some views (including the bandit), there are many 5-star bandits.. Which is worse?? (I'll even raise my hand at being a 5-star bandit)
There was a valued member who gave up when receiving a 1-star rating too many (in the older board). Well, actually, there were other valuable contributors who went to infolabview or lava and seem to stay away from this forum. From what I read, it appears the star rating influenced their decisions.
If changing the rating system is difficult, then maybe something simpler like turning OFF the rating system for contributors who have submitted >1000 answers (> 500 different threads?). Surely, someone who answers 1000 questions must have some reasonable knowledge of Labview. Maybe the answers are not the best approach or most elegant.. However, the questio should be "Did it solve the problem?" If yes, then that's good. If the solution provided can be done better, then post that in the "Rube Goldberg" thread.
It does appear that people are troubled with the current system because this topic does come up very often. How about changing the star system to a simple "Thank You". You can keep track of how many times someone has been thanked..
This place is for people to help each other grow and learn more about the language. I'm sure even Dennis learns something new once in a while when reading posts.. Isn't that what it's all about? Not who has so many stars.. I have too many stars.. Please share them..
My CDN$0.01 contribution to this thread..
06-07-2007 09:34 AM
06-07-2007 10:39 AM - edited 06-07-2007 10:39 AM
Matthew Williams wrote:
Ideally we could re-calibrate the community's sense of stars to where 3 stars represents an adequate,
correct answer. Something like:
1 - wrong thread, factually incorrect, etc.
2 - misunderstood, poor implementation, poor style
3 - correct answer, reasonable approach
4 - nice solution, maybe with a screen shot, sample code, unique insight
5 - spot on answer, nicely documented; +1 beer @ NI Week
Here is what the "Help" button provides as info on rating answers:
"How do I rate a message?
Please take the take the time to rate helpful messages. To do so, log into the Forum and look for the Rate This Message (Thread) feature at the bottom of messages and threads.
Note: authors cannot rate their own messages and users may rate a specific message only once. All ratings are automatically averaged."
Now, many 5 stars are given / received for reasons completely different than anything technical.. Most ratings are probably found in the Breakpoint forum. Why?
Maybe because the joke was funny.. or the topic was "right on target"... or appreciation (look at the Congratulations Threads!!!)... or to buddies... or even to help out those who got unnecessarily low ratings.. or whatever reason...
If people understood that the rating system has become a bunch of stars (0 to 5) and not something tied to technical content, then there is no star rating problem...
Or should the rating system be "re-defined" or more clearly "defined"...
That's another Cdn$0.01 (earning $$ by posting)
<< BTW, Matt, you owe me a beer.. or is that the other way around??? you got 5-stars >>
JLV (aka. 5-star-bandit)
Message Edited by JoeLabView on 06-07-2007 11:41 AM
06-07-2007 11:30 AM