Let me clarify my initial thinking on this.

A reasonable idea was proposed if technically feasible -- much of the problems would likely go away if you could see who rated each thread and how they rated it. Anonymity likely feeds the problems. In other words, members would have to own and be accountable for their actions.

But I'm not clear on the benefit that the ratings feature provides, and it would seem to me that that would have to come first. The only reason to minimize a harm is to capture a benefit. What is that benefit?

If there were masses of threads, and you needed help to figure out which ones to read, thread ratings could be a useful guide.

But I haven't heard this argued, so I wonder whether this is a need, that there's just too much to sift through and so a filter is needed.

I suspect that the large number of forums serves as a fairly useful filter.

If there were just one or four forums on Flyertalk there'd be so much disparate information that wasn't well-organized that thread ratings might be useful.

But maybe I'm wrong, and I really am interested in the benefits of thread ratings that I might be missing.

I give up. It's apparent that a group (clique) is hell bent on ruining the reputations of a small number of FT'ers by falsely accusing them of "abusing" a system that cannot be abused.

The thread rating feature is a useful tool on MANY other IBB's, as it gives a quick snapshot of the value of the content. This quick snapshot does include the idiotic Happy Birthday threads.

I have not seen ONE valid argument against rating HB threads 1 star. I have only seen emotional responses.

CG, look who is getting emotional......you. Angry with HB threads? Enough said. You proved my point. ^ I'm sure you are resident of many internet boards......I never doubted that in the least.

That said, would you support the compromise which KathyWldf suggested which might unite those who dislike ratings to the side of having them but with the FT name of the person revealed who rated the thread?

I have no problem with listing who rated a thread and what they rated it, as long as it becomes against the TOS to critisize any member for how they rate threads.

I'm still waiting for a logical reason why it is "wrong" to rate a HB thread 1 star. Not emotional, logical.

You were given a reason on another thread. Because only the HB threads of certain persons were rated negatively (as well as all their other threads). All the rest had either a bunch of stars or none at all.

That takes away the reasoning that some people just didn't like HB threads and rated them accordingly. If that was the case, all of them would be rated as such.

Still illogical. If someone does not like me, or my posting style, they should be free to rate my HB thread 1 star. To them, it would have no value.

No, that's completely unacceptable, IMHO. The existing rules against personal attacks are entirely sufficient to cover that ground. There is certainly no need to adopt a new rule such as you suggest.

I also want to point out about this accountability feature, it sounds good, but as another member pointed out in the closed thread, there are members here with sock puppet identities, so we need to keep that in mind.

Why is that unacceptable? Members would need to be able to rate as they see fit, without fear of suffering the wrath of the roving band of PC'ers.

But the rating isn't to please one person; isn't it supposed to help others wade through the enormous # of threads? That is what I am reading. Hence, you just contradicted yourself. If a negative rating is strictly a personal problem of the rater, it is thus meaningless. If you disagree with that, then you are a victim of the emotionalism you accuse others of having.

There are more negatives than positives if you feel that adding personal dislike of a person is justifiable cause for giving a negative rating. This right there should show why ratings can be nothing more than a means of expressing like or dislike for a person which is thus completely irrelevant. The ratings are supposed to be there to help others judge content; not whether you personally hate or like somebody. Thus you show how ratings can be abused.

Thanks again for reinforcing more than ever that your interest in ratings includes expessing your personal feelings about the person. You right there give a solid example of how ratings can be abused. To rank a low "Happy Birthday" thread on some HB threads because you don't like the people??? Yup, thanks for that example. You did more than I could have without that stellar example. ^

Hi Gary,

I've participated in sites where ratings are used. They are of the thread as well as of individual posts. Some software can even auto-filter posts that fall below a certain user-defined threshold, although they still show all threads. I don't know if VB can do this. My other posts go into more detail, although I got a little chastized, albeit politely, for using examples of what happens elsewhere.

Why are rating systems important? Because right now, there is no way to express any negative feedback without hijacking a thread, and that's likely to earn you an email from a moderator for a TOS violation. The "ignore user" function is referred to as the end all and be all approach.

Are there people who often deserve low ratings? Of course, we all know there are people whose posts are minimal in content in the miles/points forums, and amount to "hey, look at me, I'm important" or "how dare you disagree with me." There needs to be a feedback mechanism beyond "report post." "Ignore user" doesn't solve the problem of pointless posters, because nobody knows that they're on ignore. Ideally, I'd like my ignore list (and a corresponding high-value list) to be able to be made public as part of my profile, but I just don't see Randy allowing anything that some self-richeous people would find that confrontational.

I will say that I would not particulary care if ratings are turned on in non miles/points forums. My interest is in the core forums.

As far as people receiving poor ratings, I keep on hearing of a consipracy and all sorts of other stuff. Even if it happened, and there seems to be some debate on the topic, I simply don't care. Out of 78,000 members, how many people post on FT at least once/month? 7800?

To deny functionality because maybe a dozen people are upset because they have behaved to become hated so much that others may have the audacity (potentially coordinated, quite possibly not) to display their negative opinion for the world to see...

I have a personal dislike of victim-centric society, and that's why is keeping me active in these threads: I see TB and Randy catering to the self-perceived victims and their friends instead of the masses who didn't do squat. But if I try to express my opinion any further, I'll get flagged for a TOS violation. What metric is the TB going to give me to be able tell these people (and unsuspecting readers) that I think that some of their posts are full of it??

If you claim that the fear of retaliation for negative ratings (due to accountability) merits the adoption of new rules to encroach on our speech here on Randy's IBB, then the solution has become the problem. That is, you suggest reinstating a sometimes fun feature, but it won't come without a price, and that price is that we need to tinker with the TOS. Almost as though you are saying yes to accountability, but only if we can remain unaccountable.

Members will be free to rate as they see fit, and they will be accountable for those ratings.

This is one reason why I suggest that if serious consideration is being given to reinstating thread ratings, it should be limited to forums where topics are strictly about miles and points, and even then only in heavily trafficked such forums, as it more or less guarantees a large sample of votes.

Actually, there was a LOT of discussion about reputation - just an awful lot, prior to its being turned off, and opinion among a large group of FT members was evenly divided between yes, no and maybes. There was never a scientific poll, but if you do a search for reputation or ding bling dong or whatever, you can see for yourself. So it's not just a dozen people.

A partial Bingo. @:-)

When CG talks about the value of a thread ; I'd agree on the merits. Let's face it, with 79,000 Flyertalkers, nobody knows anybody. The reality is that some of us active oldtimers know who's who; but many new Flyertalkers couldn't give a rats a$$ about any of the posters on this thread. All new Flyertalkers are interested in is learning about ...
'miles and points'.
Do you think these newbies know any of us? No. Think they care? Double no. They probably laugh at us (myself included) for getting involved in these various diatribes.

Do you want to know what kind of thread that I'll open up? It's a thread that has a title that interests me. @:-) Sometimes I'll open a thread that's started by someone I know. Sometimes I'll open a thread that has multiple page views.

If a thread has a ^ rating for a topic that I'm not interested in, wild horses couldn't get me to open it.

While ratings seemed like a good idea when they began, the reality is that the few bad apples around here will ruin it for everyone else.

I vote on bringing back the rating system.

As for the birthday threads , I think it's a way to foster community building on Flyertalk. If folks don't like the birthday threads, I have a suggestion, don't open them.

Dan

Low ratings which are in the minority and are outliers in the statistical distribution of all the ratings given to a thread will have minimal effect on the average rating given a thread. What the meaning of a thread rating is depends on so many factors, not restricted to the content of the post, or whether or not somebody likes the fact that I posted such-and-such a thread, etc. The average rating on a thread, however, starts to reveal what people feel about the thread in aggregate. This was precisely why I advocated (in the thread in the suggestions forum) that the "minimum number of votes before rating is displayed" setting be increased to something like 10, 15, or even 20; that way, a statistically significant number of votes are counted before the ratings are even displayed at all. There is no threat from people who choose to vote low when everyone else votes high or from people who choose to vote high when everyone else votes low.

IMHO, to base arguments on speculations of people's motivations as to why they vote the way they vote is dragging the issue off-topic. The discussion centres about what the meaning of the overall, average thread rating is, not the meaning of individual votes. Again, all that needs to be done is to choose an appropriate setting as I stated above.

Your sarcastic tone only detracts from the credibility of your argument. If you feel that people giving low ratings to a thread because of personal feelings about a person is a form of abuse, then simply back this up with logic. I ask you this:

- How do you know what a person who gave a low rating to a thread is trying to do? How do you know if he/she is rating the thread low because of the dislike for the content, poster, opening poster, or some other reason?

- Same situation reversed: How do you know what a person who gave a high rating to a thread is trying to do? How do you know if he/she is rating the thread high because he/she likes the content, a particular poster, the opening poster, or because of some other reason?

By your arguments should we say that someone who votes a HB thread 5 stars "just because they like the person" is doing so based on personal feelings, and hence it's also abuse? I would think not and I hope not. People may vote as they please (and yes, it's one vote per person only; please, no red herring arguments about multiple handle voting). I don't see the guy at the ballot box asking you why you voted Democratic or Republican and that you have to explain yourself. In the end, the outcome of the vote depends on the overall vote of many people. If you are not in the majority; then huffing and puffing about it doesn't change the outcome. Just campaign harder next time, perhaps.

In the end, you may argue that the thread ratings (and cynically that democratic elections) are meaningless. Well, I'd agree insofar that one should not attach too heavy a meaning to them (as in speculating about people's motivation, claiming "voter fraud" when a thread gets higher ratings than you expect, or "abuse" when a thread gets lower ratings than you expect). These are voting systems based on statistical aggregation. There's a fascinating aspect in that statistical analysis can reveal trends that are not apparent in individual votes, but one also must be careful not to "read too deeply" into statistics.

Once again, I maintain the solution is simply that the thread rating display needs to be based on an increased sample size, such that it is more statistically significant.

FewMiles..