Forum:Voting system woes

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Voting system woes

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6159 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

As I'm sure a lot of you have noticed, the rating system has gone by the wayside recently. The system is being tweaked by Wikia to be "even better." However, after talking with a representative from Wikia, it appears that it will only go one way, much like Digg. This rather disappoints me, as it seems that a feature is being "taken away" instead of added with this upgrade, but as Wikia has incorporated the rating system into a bevvy of Wikis (of which we were only one), it is hard to raise a horribly big fuss about it. They simply cannot have a different rating system set up for every Wiki they host, and since "they feel the system is too easily abused with malicious voting" (direct quote), we're left with the Digg-style rating system.

Here is why I bring this up. Do we want the rating system if it is up only? I remember from earlier conversations that the ability to vote bad articles down (and, presumably, to eventually be able to remove the worst articles by viewing the worst ratings) was one of the major features that got the rating system approved by the community in the first place. I wanted to get this out there a full week before the new rating system was put in place to get soem reaction from the community. Is a Digg-style rating system ok with the peeps?--<<>> 20:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Only if my userpage gets in the top 10 again. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 20:47, 24 Jan 2007

I'm sure it will, Spang.--<<>> 20:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was going to write constructive, but forgot what it was. So wrote that instead. Uh, I don't mind what the rating system is like, as long as it doesn't get in the way. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 20:56, 24 Jan 2007

The rating system is prone to abuse any way you look at it. I recall seeing a poll on Nintento's page about whether Benson was cool or not, which only had "yes" as an option. It got 27 votes yes. How many of these were from people who voted yes because thats the only option, and how many voted yes because they truly meant it?

We cant tell, therefore a poll with only one option is pretty much useless. How many thousands of people come here on a weekly basis? Does a rating of 5 really mean anything out of the size of people who come here? Does a rating of 1000 mean that 1000 loved it, 1000 saw it? No, all it means is that 1000 voted, to take from this a deeper meaning cant really be done.

Thats why I would prefer to see a page view counter type thing that we used to have. It would tell us where most of are traffic goes. Its not hard to tell when an article sucks, we shouldnt look to ratings to determine that. But if there is a high traffic article that sucks, we would know its high traffic and know we best better make it funnier. This, in my mind, is a better tool for us here then a rating system which doesnt really tell us anything other then the number of people who voted. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I want the "page view counter" back too. Its a far better way of telling the best from the rest. --The Zombiebaron 21:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed yet, access to wikia's google analytics awaits you here... • Spang • ☃ • talk • 21:15, 24 Jan 2007

• a voting system which only allows you to vote for isn't realy worth having, it'll just be more inaccurate clutter. I dunno about anyone else, but me personally, i'd just as soon not have it. - jack mort | cunt | talk - 21:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• I would just as soon not have it. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed - a one-way-only rating system is probably worse than useless. It'll just be another rationale for people to insist on maintaining schoolcruft articles here, or worse still, blatant racism and suchlike. Other Wikia sites are much more specialized than this one is, and it's pretty obvious when someone is trying to take over... Here, it has to be more of a judgement call. So I'm all for getting rid of it. (Keep the polls, though... at least there's some comedy potential in those!)  c • > • cunwapquc? 05:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with the above agreement that a one-way rating system is not the way to go. Uncyc articles get wildly different numbers of pageviews - so what does it mean if a high-traffic article like the old George W. Bush one gets a score of +50 and some obscure but brilliant article that is linked to by two other pages gets +3? It doesn't mean the former is better, just that more people got to it and, with nobody having the option of voting down, enough upvotes accumulated over time to give it a high score. —rc (t) 05:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)