Sony AIBO dog..

by **damian** » Mar 28, 2003 @ 6:10pm

Yes... but then people who are pissed can rate every post they see as a 1.

by **sandmann** » Mar 28, 2003 @ 6:10pm

But you're forgetting that this forum is full of immature kids who could just rate everything a 1 or 2. I don't think it's necessary at all, especially with all the scripting/extra work required for Matt and Chris.

And guy,s chill out with the Fett thing. He does a few annoying thnings and then you jump on every single thing he says. I don't think it really pisses you off THAT much to see a post with "LOL" and a smiley face. He was just saying my joke was funny (which of course they always are), it's not that big a deal. I'm not saying he hasn't been annoying, but not bad enough to attack every one of his posts like laser-guided bombs.

hmm... seems like Damian and I got at the same point at the same time.

by **damian** » Mar 28, 2003 @ 6:13pm

Yes... like I said, just let it pass. It'll die away on its own.

That being said, I think I'll edit my forum system to work with credibility ratings because I'm bored and I want to see if something like that is feasible.

by **James S** » Mar 28, 2003 @ 6:14pm

(ignore this post)

Yes, but the moderator does have the power to reset the credibility rating, and we could of course vote their credibility rating low as well. Plus the rating would be averaged against the user's total posts so that if someone with 10,000 posts is voted a 1 on 100 of his posts then his rating only goes down 1%, but someone with 500 posts who's voted against in 100 posts his rating goes down 20%.

by **Dihnekis** » Mar 28, 2003 @ 6:15pm

I like how you have to have a good credibility rating to give feedback, which would prevent people from spamming to articificially lower someone credibility. How would new users be handled though? Would they automatically get to get to lower credibility? Or would they have to wait until theirs got up?

by **James S** » Mar 28, 2003 @ 6:19pm

(ignore my above post, it was just for fun)

New users wouldn't have a credibility rating until they have received 30 or so votes, or maybe voted on posts ( meaning not thirty VOTES, thirty posts that have been voted on, and a post needs 3 to 5 votes to be rated, so that's 90 to 150 votes minimum, not set in stone of course). That way they can post as much as they want to and still be protected by newbie protection but as soon as they receive thirty votes/rated posts their credibility rating is calculated, displayed, and put into action. I'm assume the vote to post ratio is going to be in the range of 1 to 10, so that means about 300 posts, unless everyone feels very compelled to vote negatively or positively for that user immediately, in which case their rating could come into effect along with their thirtieth post.

by **damian** » Mar 28, 2003 @ 6:24pm

New users would have a low credibility, so they couldn't post too much and would have to work their way up.

by **Dihnekis** » Mar 28, 2003 @ 6:28pm

that makes sense, but would people take the time to vote on posts?

by **James S** » Mar 28, 2003 @ 6:59pm

by **Cameron** » Mar 28, 2003 @ 10:45pm

by **Llama dude** » Mar 28, 2003 @ 11:32pm

I think I have seen that type of system setup on other message forums even though :?:

by **sandmann** » Mar 29, 2003 @ 3:37am

Sony AIBO dog..

Thats a good idea

Sort

Forum Description

Moderators:

Forum permissions