Uncyclopedia talk:Rating System

I may be drunk, but really, WTF are you talking about Chron? I mean, a "Rating System" needs two very important things:

a) Ratings

b) a system.

Can you elaborate on either? Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 02:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaah, I see it develop before my eyes...it's like magic, without the magic. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 02:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I rate Famines discussion with himself 3/10 (he used the M word) Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN³ NotM BLK |_LG⁸+::: 07:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh, that's generous. I rate it a solid 1.5/10 - drunken ramble without an understanding of what was going on. Plus alcohol making it sound far funnier than it actually is. Maybe even a 1/10. Don't give that moron too much credit. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 03:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

So true... --Boy Toy bitch at me 03:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

on a scale of 1 to 10, I'm a Something.42 --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 21:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I give his ramble 9/10, -1 for spelling correctly --Chronarion 19:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that too. And done in discrete edits. Honestly, I'd have to call for another -1 because it wasn't horribly multi-edited to be semi-coherent and formatted correctly. God, I'm seriously letting my standards slip. I can't even be trusted to drink and edit appropriately. This is a sad, sad time for me. I have failed myself, and will now banish myself into a dark cave, to meditate upon my failures, and to do pennance for my misdeeds. I will edit this wiki no more. Adieu. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 01:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

SO true. --Boy Toy bitch at me 01:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Famine gets a 8/10 from me. Mostly cause he answered himself within two minutes....--Señor DiZtheGreat  CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 00:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments/Criticisms

I like the system a whole lot more now that I've seen some solid ideas about what it'll be but there are a few bits to it that I'd like to comment on:

• I don't think that we should allow anonymous IP rating of pages. Let's say someone with a dynamic IP comes back to a page they voted on a few days ago and it says they haven't voted yet, that person may very well think that there vote wasn't remembered and vote again (and again and again, etc.). On top of that, there's the matter of people intentionally jumping IPs.
• There should be some scheme for taking ratings from old versions into acount on a page. There is no reason that someone fixing a misspelling should invalidate a pages rating. There are a number of ways this could be handled and I kind of like: deweighting votes based on how long ago they were case (-10% weight per revision or such) or just count all ratings the same regardless of when they were placed.
• There will need to be a page that lists all the articles someone has rated (kind of like watchlist) and indicates if a page has been revised since it was last rated. It might be nice if there were marks on page histories to indicate when you had rated a page.
• Instead of gold stars, we should use little puzzle potatoes.
• There should be an indication both of an articles average rating and the rating that you last gave the article, perhaps little pips underneath the average rating marks.
• There should be a numerical rating next to the graphical rating and it should be accurate to 1 decimal place because sometimes the difference between 4.0 and 4.4 is more interesting that the difference between 1 and 2.
• The number of users that have cast ratings should be displayed and factored in. Perhaps this could involve small text saying that X people have rated an article. Also, if we have any best/worst rated article lists, they should require a minimum number of ratings to show up.

--Sir gwax (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Love the idea, agree with above. Pointless comment really, but that's life. --Joewithajay 21:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If page ratings were to decay over edits as suggested, minor edits should be excepted.Conniption 13:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Had a thought about this issue... if we throw all the ratings out every time someone does any old edit, that'd be stupid in my opinion as pages that are frequently updated (or vandalised) would never gain enough votes to have a meaningful rating. On the other hand if ratings are too 'sticky' then any page that used to be crap but is completely re-written will be held down by the old page's votes. One way out of this problem - and I've no idea of the feasibility of this in terms of coding - is to actually measure the amount that the page is re-written. This seems to be already be done by the software with the 'diff' pages that let you compare versions (eg this page). Perhaps it would be possible to create code that counts the number of characters in the old version of the article, count the number of characters marked in red on the diff page and say something like "25% of the page has changed, so instead of 16 votes for this page there are now 12 votes", and throws away the 4 oldest votes. The downside of this is complexity but there seem to be a number of upsides, not least that we can revert pages that have been blanked or vandalised and not lose any votes at all. -Conniption 16:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Would it be a better use of our time and code to find ways for users to offer input without having to quantify and/or compare? For instance, a "nom" system (anyone who's nerdy enough to have done any MU* gaming will understand), where if you really like it, you hit nom, and that button tabulates, rather than have "oh..this article is .5 stars better than the last one." Cause you know what? Today, UserX got laid. Every article is a 5! Tomorrow, UserX will be castrated. Guess who's gonna rate everything as shite? This is an extreme example, but relevant to the main point: on a site where absurdity and jumping into the fray are encouraged, a rating system that quantifies comedic and artistic value into an entirely objective-seeming yet subjective system will only serve to nullify the creative spark. The current voting system is preferable, it's a little more transparently subjective, and much harder to skew just by randomness or mood. Instituting a more accessable system is absolutely necessary, lest the same ten people vote on every award. The system, however, must be one of encouragement in reward, not reward for reward's sake. --The Rev. Sem. Jayrod Nail Your Theses MUN WH 07:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the whole idea of a rating system, but I agree with Jay. But what if there's some method of preventing the "mood-affected", vandalitic, random, and careless votes from tainting the honest, well-founded, and cherished votes? Like if everyone who votes provides a reason for their opinions (just as most people do on VFH, VFP and the like). Wikipedia has the rating system, doesn't it? How do they do it? --Señor DiZtheGreat  CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 00:19, 4 July 2006 (UTC) P.S: Jayrod, fix your sig so it doesn't leave all this raw code lying around. I almost stepped on a damn piece...

I'm against the whole damn thing, because it looks like it can, and will, quickly become a piece of crap. This is a wiki, not a meme site.     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)   00:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)