Bring Back the "-1" rating

[Nik+Heather 121]

I like the positive only rating system.

When we had negatives, I got a negative rating once that I know of. Maybe I'm just overly sensitive and/or emotional, but it made me feel kinda bad as I didn't think it was deserved.

Since none of us post on VJ professionally, having a system which basically site-endorses negativity (literally!) towards people who are trying to do good things is harmful to the site as a whole. It's better in my opinion for people to get a neutral rating and hopefully learn from the better posters who have been plussed up to improve their responses in the future.

[*julez* 124]

If incorrect advice is given, the option to rate it -1 is a good one. Sure, it hurts feelings to be wrong, but if you learn in the process and other members aren't mislead by an incorrect response, we're all winners. I think the most important thing is that members are giving and receiving correct inofrmation, and if its incorrect, readers have an easy way to identify incoorect info. The +/- ratings would give us that.

And I do agree that not enabling the -1 for OT would be prudent.

I note, again, that site admin has yet to address this issue.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

I like the positive only rating system.

When we had negatives, I got a negative rating once that I know of. Maybe I'm just overly sensitive and/or emotional, but it made me feel kinda bad as I didn't think it was deserved.

Since none of us post on VJ professionally, having a system which basically site-endorses negativity (literally!) towards people who are trying to do good things is harmful to the site as a whole. It's better in my opinion for people to get a neutral rating and hopefully learn from the better posters who have been plussed up to improve their responses in the future.

The comment I actually saw which inspired this thread was that of a member giving advice in a forum, while at the same time making a disparaging remark about persons from a certain country.

Heather, IMO we have enough of a quantity of members around here who post their advice with a good deal of toxicity. Even if their advice is right on, I'd like the opportunity to give them a minus for being a #######.

*edited once again for spelling*

Edited May 24, 2010 by JohnnyQuest

[Nik+Heather 121]

The comment I actually saw which inspired this thread was that of a member giving advice in a forum, while at the same time making a disparaging remark about persons from a certain country.

Heather, IMO we have enough of a quantity of members around here who post their advice with a good deal of toxicity. Even if their advice is right on, I'd like the opportunity to give them a minus for being a #######.

*edited once again for spelling*

Well, in that sort of case, wouldn't a negative rating be quite confusing??

I agree with you about the side of nastiness that people serve up with their answers sometimes - even I am not perfect, but I just think that the downsides to negative ratings outweigh the benefits, and there should be other ways to correct the problems you're seeing. ie: if it was a TOS violation, report it...

There was a lot of disagreements when the rating system came in - concerns that people would use it immaturely, rating the poster rather than the post, etc, and the positive only rating system was the compromise that came out of that.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Well, in that sort of case, wouldn't a negative rating be quite confusing??

I agree with you about the side of nastiness that people serve up with their answers sometimes - even I am not perfect, but I just think that the downsides to negative ratings outweigh the benefits, and there should be other ways to correct the problems you're seeing. ie: if it was a TOS violation, report it...

There was a lot of disagreements when the rating system came in - concerns that people would use it immaturely, rating the poster rather than the post, etc, and the positive only rating system was the compromise that came out of that.

The only other solution I see is having moderation for each forum. And that means enough moderators so there is constant coverage.

I know that sounds startling, but my experience is THAT IS HOW IT IS DONE with other heavy traffic websites.

IMO the present report system is inadequate. It can be hours before something is dealt with. What you have on Vj is basically a non-monitored atmosphere. If Admin wants that, then fine. But it's patently unfair for a membership (who is subjected to that careless result)to have no recourse other than ringing up a Mod and hoping they will be around to answer.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Okay, all joking aside (for a change): I really have to side with the -1 team here. If we're all supposed to have thick skins, getting a negative comment shouldn't hurt. It's just the bloody internet; these points aren't being totted up to ensure safe passage across the Styx. But something needs to be done to address the very issues Johnny and Julez bring up. Bad, incorrect, tainted, prejudiced and simply f^cktarded "advice" is being trotted out all across the board. If there is going to be a +1 system (which by the way is open to exactly the same sort of abuse as having a -1 as well -- just get your pals along to vote you up), there needs to be a counterpoint. Either we have them both and we all grow the f^ck up and learn to take some knocks -- and when our advice is maliciously voted down, do something to strengthen our case by coming back to where we posted, thus ending the scourge of drive-by posting -- or we have neither and revert to VJ 1.0.

I think I'm a big enough girl to take the occasional -1. Or -17. If I deserve it.

Edited to correct some appalling grammar.

Edited May 24, 2010 by elmcitymaven

[TBoneTX 46,075]

Of the many compelling arguments on both sides here, I side the most with Heather's:

the downsides to negative ratings outweigh the benefits, and there should be other ways to correct the problems you're seeing. ie: if it was a TOS violation, report it...

The reason is:

concerns that people would use it immaturely, rating the poster rather than the post, etc, and the positive only rating system was the compromise that came out of that.

Having been around VJ for a while, I have no doubt that people (none in this thread, incidentally) will respond emotionally and on the basis of personalities rather than on the substance and content of posts. If someone's immigration advice in a post is dead-nuts on target, but one or more viewers rate it a -1, the potential for damage remains, for a long time and perhaps for all time: unknown numbers of current and future VJ members will see a "-1" on a post and -- not knowing or caring a thing about personalities -- conclude that the negative number applies to the advice itself, si man.

No one who is currently on VJ has a gaggle of lapdogs who follow him/her around to inflate the bonus numbers artificially, and a "quid pro quo" is unthinkable ("you bonus my posts, I'll bonus yours"). Accordingly, the +1 posts stand out as they should. In contrast, a penalty-point option opens the door to juvenile, vindictive, or misinterpretable behavior. I believe that the bonus-only standard is adequate, honest, and not fraught with the very real perils that penalty points confer or imply.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Interesting reply, TBone. We may disagree, but I genuinely enjoyed and mulled over your post.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Of the many compelling arguments on both sides here, I side the most with Heather's:The reason is:Having been around VJ for a while, I have no doubt that people (none in this thread, incidentally) will respond emotionally and on the basis of personalities rather than on the substance and content of posts. If someone's immigration advice in a post is dead-nuts on target, but one or more viewers rate it a -1, the potential for damage remains, for a long time and perhaps for all time: unknown numbers of current and future VJ members will see a "-1" on a post and -- not knowing or caring a thing about personalities -- conclude that the negative number applies to the advice itself, si man.

No one who is currently on VJ has a gaggle of lapdogs who follow him/her around to inflate the bonus numbers artificially, and a "quid pro quo" is unthinkable ("you bonus my posts, I'll bonus yours"). Accordingly, the +1 posts stand out as they should. In contrast, a penalty-point option opens the door to juvenile, vindictive, or misinterpretable behavior. I believe that the bonus-only standard is adequate, honest, and not fraught with the very real perils that penalty points confer or imply.

I've seen a lot of sites have a "was this information helpful?" followed by a 'yes' or 'no' and counters that show how many said it was helpful or not. There could also be filters so members could filter to view posts from most helpful to least.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Since Ewok has started a thread of his own (in this forum) without addressing this thread or your thread, Stephen, I've decided from now on that if I see something questionable, I'm just going to post "-1" after I've quoted the post.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Since Ewok has started a thread of his own (in this forum) without addressing this thread or your thread, Stephen, I've decided from now on that if I see something questionable, I'm just going to post "-1" after I've quoted the post.

It sounds like he's been busy with other issues. Hopefully he'll come around to giving some response.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

It sounds like he's been busy with other issues. Hopefully he'll come around to giving some response.

Ahhh, the words of an eternal optimist have touched my cold, black heart this morning.

[TBoneTX 46,075]

Interesting reply, TBone. We may disagree, but I genuinely enjoyed and mulled over your post.

I am hono(u)red, si man, verily, wot. If you buy something in a store today after deep consideration, consider it a "shopping mull," si man.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

I am hono(u)red, si man, verily, wot. If you buy something in a store today after deep consideration, consider it a "shopping mull," si man.

Aye aye, Cap'n TB.

(Incidentally, "TB" is my husband's nickname for me, so it's a little weird calling someone else that.)

[TBoneTX 46,075]

Aye aye, Cap'n TB.

I was just demoted to "His Most Benevolent & Volcanic Lordship," si man.

(Incidentally, "TB" is my husband's nickname for me, so it's a little weird calling someone else that.)

We hyphenate & periodicize as T-B., si man. What does your TB stand for? Off the tip of my forebrain, I guess that it's "Terminal Bronchiole," "Trapezoid Body," or "Total Bilirubin," si man. (Got it, first try!)

An appropriate poem (worth a +1), si man:

TB, or not TB; that is the congestion.

Consumption be done about it?

Of cough! Of cough!

Si, man.