Return of Thread Rating
 

There have been two recent discussions regarding the Thread Rating feature.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=471025
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=473467

Randy indicated that he would prefer that the TB make a recommendation regarding the return of this valuable feature.

I’d like to ask the TB to vote affirmative and recommend the return of the Thread Rating feature.

I respectfully disagree.

As Randy alluded to in ORP, things were just fine before ratings/rep, and things have been just fine since disabling them, so why the need for change? I don't think any case has been made (beyond "I'd like to have this feature back") that we need to re-start a feature which served as a tool for so much controversy and heat, and resulted in what many people agree was abuse.

However, if ratings are useful for rating informational threads and serious consideration is given to reinstating the feature, I would suggest restricting ratings to the most heavily trafficked miles/points forums. We don't want to see the return of one-star "happy birthday" threads. And by restricting usage to the most heavily trafficked miles/points forums, you dilute any one person's ratings, and get a more accurate picture of any thread's usefulness based upon a larger sampling.

I think it's a bad idea, but I don't ultimately care. Just saying.

A topic has been started by fellow member Attorney28 regarding this item. We'll keep you updated on our progress.

I'd like to ask the TB members not to be fooled by a small number of members claiming "abuse". There was NO abuse.

:D :D :D

Just like there was no abuse of the reputation points system :D :D :D :D :D

I'm not going to comment further. I've spoken my peace and given my opinion, once. I'm not going to repeat it. I think I was clear. My post is below.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showp...1&postcount=14

It's more than a few members. It's lots of members and some who you would never ever think would say something. Well they have, in email & PMs. They know what went on and wish that it would stay off.

Tell me, (via PM so we don't pollute this thread), how are you so certain there wasn't any abuse?

Can I politely ask that we leave this thread alone for a few days. I can't speak for the entire talkboard, but I think we've seen enough user input in the past days to start our discussion. If we require any more input you can be assured that we'll be back here!

I agree with ScottC, insofar as the posters who have already put in their two cents (and more) in the other threads which have been closed are concerned.

Please accept this in a positive spirit; but all these redundant threads, re-wording the same idea multiple times, is starting to wear thin.

Thanks for reading. @:-)

I'd like to add something, if I may, and forgive me if it has been said already on one of these threads. I looked at a couple of the threads on this topic and didn't see it mentioned.

I think the thread rating feature is fine as long as it is NOT anonymous. I.e., any user or guest should be able to click on any thread rating and see a list of exactly who gave the thread what rating.

Then if there truly are gangbangers ( :eek: not my term, and I'm not expressing an opinion one way or another on whether there are or are not), it would be pretty easy for anyone to detect this.

So my question is, would such a feature be technically feasible in vBulletin, and without consuming excessive resources?

Excellent question. And if technically feasible, excellent idea. ^ Seems to get the best of both worlds: a quick and dirty way to draw attention to the important or consequential threads while relegating the trivial ones to the dustbin of FlyerTalk history while still discouraging the immature abuses of the rating system by those looking to adjust a rating for reasons other than the pure merit of the rated thread.

Might there still be problems? Yeah, but at least we'd know who the troublemakers are.

There were NO troublemakers!

If I decide to give a thread 1 star, that is my perogative. My criteria for a useful thread IS going to be different than others. That does NOT make me a troublemaker. If 5 other people who share similar criteria to mine also rate a thread, is that now making trouble?

Continuing to state a falsehood is a good way to fool uninformed people, but it will NOT fool somebody who is informed.

There's been much discussion of potential (or past) harms from the thread rating feature, and some discussion of how to mitigate those harms.

I'm curious whether members have thoughts on what the benefits of the thread rating feature are.

Indeed.

Please inform us then ;). I asked you contact me via PM so that I can get a better understanding of your point. I'm willing to change my mind. I have not yet heard from you though. Continuously stating that so many people are uninformed (and whining in another thread) really doesn't advance the discussion and lead us to be able to make up our minds.

The thread rating feature has abused by those internet clique types you find in kindergarten classes. For example, how do you give a true thumbs down rating on a thread which wishes happy birthday to somebody in Community Buzz? You don't get a better example than that of someone acting as a trouble maker.

That said, I could support KathyWdrf's suggestion wholeheartedly. If people want to rate a thread, then they should do so openly and thus stand by it. Accountability may be a foreign concept to some but it's very real for the rest of us. If a thread is considered so bad that it ranks a low star rating, then put your name to your vote that it's worth such a low rating. That will make the system honest and helpful.

I'm with gleff. I have no idea what the benefits are to this and would be interested in reading what other regular members have to say. I've seen only the abuse it has caused which led to its removal.

If I see individual TB members acting like one of the many internet catty cliques, I too will remember that when re-election times comes along. And I know from the many PMs I have received from other FTers that there are many who will be examining how individual TB members act.

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. ^ :D 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??? :D 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 :o 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. :eek: @:-) 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 :td: 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. :D

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..

gleff: You raise a good point. To address your question about benefits:

All I can say is that the ratings gives people some semblance of what other FlyerTalkers feel about a thread. As I stated in my post above, one must be careful not to read too deeply into statistics. Indeed, the meaning of individual votes which comprise the overall rating is open to interpretation and should not be the subject of speculation, as there are simply too many factors that enter into consideration when one chooses their thread rating. Likewise, the meaning of the aggregated average rating is open to interpretation too! One can choose not to pay much heed to the rating (as what dhammer said above -- a high rating isn't necessarily going to motivate him to open a thread he wouldn't have already) or it might have some small (and I emphasise small) effect on whether people open a thread.

Each person gets one vote (and cannot change their votes, in the default vBulletin settings), but no one has to vote either. If I put enough meaning into thread ratings that I actually dislike the fact that the displayed rating of a thread does not reflect what I think about it, then I can either ignore the rating, or vote the number of stars which reflects what I think it should be. If I'm only one of 10 or 15 or 20 voters, then the "power" of my vote alone on the average rating is minimal.

I think the harm that has come from the system in its initial implementation was came from two things:
1) that the ratings were displayed with just two votes (that's the default setting), which is completely statistically insignificant;
2) that people were reading too much into what individual votes meant.

I think to a large degree that the latter followed from the former. If we address the former, by increasing the setting, then the second problem also goes away.

FewMiles..

Yeah, but there's the reality of FT's past history getting in the way of eloquent arguments about principles and democracy... ;)

I already gave you an example. CG already stated that he sees nothing wrong with rating low a happy birthday thread simply because he doesn't like the person. CG doesn't dislike all of them; just some of them for personal reasons. So some people deserve a higher rating for threads wishing them a HB than others do?? :rolleyes: dhammer53 stated that wishing happiness for others on their birthdays fosters community growth. How do you give that a negative rating without it being personal. As if that makes sense!

I thanked him for that clear cut example. ^

This whole thread right here gives enough information about why ratings are bad. From supporters, I read that they are annoyed by those of us who dislike this feature for we clearly live in a "victim" society. This looks like a justification of being rude. Some of you have been banned for breaking the TOS which shows just how rude some of the posts were. Why not stop TOS violations because by preserving a TOS, we are preserving a "victim" society where the obnoxious writer gets banned for a period of time. :rolleyes:

Randy can see for himself the disrespect some of you have toward those who are against thread rating. You mock them for advocating a victim status. Keep it up. Your slip is showing.... I hope this thread keeps on growing and growing and growing. ^

:(

The benefit would be the increased visibility of important and consequential threads. It would be much easier to scan FlyerTalk's new posts and hone in on the ones that the community considers to be of particular value. Maybe it's a thread discussing an eye-popping fare. Maybe it's a thread pointing the way to easily and inexpensively pick up a bunch of frequent flyer miles. Whatever the case, it would be just one more tool that might help separate the important posts from the trivial.

Well, since ScottC's request apparently fell on deaf ears already, I might as well comment (my personal opinion only):

I agree that that is the idea of the tool in principle, and I can see it being useful for that, in theory.

However, in my personal opinion, this thread (and the two other threads which had to be closed) show that the potential for abuse and disputes over it outweigh the potential benefit described above.

How about a merciful lockdown. :D

That is his prerogative if that is the way he wishes to use the thread rating system in that fashion. He is one vote out of dozens that would rate the thread, and I think in the vast majority of cases, you'll find the high ratings would far outweigh the low ratings. It all gets washed out in the statistics as I explained earlier.

We're certainly not going to get to the point of "only allowing 5-star votes" because anything less is a negative statement. Reminds me of those "democratic countries" where the ballot has one name and you may vote yes or not vote and risk being shot. :p

[bit removed upon further consideration]

FewMiles..

Do you support accountability in the manner described upthread, i.e., each rating gets openly attributed somehow to the person who gave that rating?

I'm unsure what value ratings have. There's already a measure I find useful - number of views. In less frequented forums that may not work so well but then neither would ratings IMHO.

Thread ratings also have a significant shortcoming (in my eyes) that no-one has mentioned. You can only vote once, but the "value" of the thread may change after you've voted. Eg a thread may initially be full of rubbish, but then later some valuable info or comments may well change the tone & usefulness completely - or vice versa.