The rating and different avatars based on number of posts made have always brought out people who post nonsense or spam if you like.

The rating is unfair to those who post with content as opposed to the spammers. It's difficult to see a solution to this. You could remove the post count altogether, but in the end I kind of like the changing avatars and seeing how many posts I have made. :1eye:

* What do you think about this idea? *

Introduce a new Quality Rating (I will refer to this as QR) alongside the post count and avatar.

Who can change the QR?Only a moderator could change the QR.
When and how to add to the QR?Everytime a poster accumulates another 100 posts (i.e. at 100, 200, 300 etc) a mod would make a quick assessment - perhaps by checking a some most recent posts or by memory - and add either +1 or -1 to the QR.
How would the QR look?It could be as simple as this example: Quality +3
You could also add some levels attached to the numerical QR value, for example:
QR 5 "Quality poster"
QR -10 "Lowlife spammer"
I'm sure some with some thougth many interesting attributes can be invented to describe the different QR levels.
Can we work with this idea? :help: :book:

[ September 03, 2002, 02:21: Message edited by: Earl Grey ]

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 31 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: A Quality Rating for the posters? (31 votes.)

Would you like to see some sort of Quality Rating for each poster? (Choose 1)
* Yes - 58% (18)
* No - 42% (13)

A good idea but unless the mods have some easy way of keeping track every members' next 100 posts (to know when it's time to evaluate) it's high maintenance.

It would be easier if everyone started at some initial point, but you've got some people who are maybe 1 post away from an even hundred, and people who are 99 posts away from an even hundred. Even waiting until posters get to an even hundred means keeping track of when they do. And if a counter was programmed, the list would have to be actively looked over, and several recent posts would have to be evaluated because it's already sounding subjective as is.

Again a good idea, but it sounds like too much effort for too little results.

Nice idea! But the mods and admin's would have to do an awful lot of work since there are 3500 members on the boards!

How about every 25 posts?

[ September 03, 2002, 10:17: Message edited by: Padeen Dragonblade ]

This would have to be handled very carefully. Most of us would assume that we would have a positive Quality Rating, but logically a significant number (depending on how its done, perhaps half) would get a negative QR. It wouldn't be nice for the moderators to have to tell lots of people on this site "actually sorry, but you suck". Doing it in a spirit of fun to a few people is one thing, but I don't know about doing it to lots of people on this site. Better might be some sort of credit for particularly good posts.

Er Padeen, evaluating every 25 posts is way harder than every 100.

your right Big B. You should thought make the number something like 300. that way the mods wont have to do it every now and then.

Too much work for too little gain, not to mention that people would feel like they're being watched and assessed all the time, which is certainly something I don't want to do. Nor permanently labelling them as "good" or "bad" posters.

There already is a system of user ratings available where users can rate other users, but I think it's a more or less pointless idea so I've disabled it. It'd make sense if there were no gems, but it'd be just redundant if it was there with gems as well.

The idea of having a quality rating appears to meet with general approval, the problem being how to make it viable without taking up lots of moderator time and making people feel insulted.

It would be good if we don't dismiss the idea of a QR too soon but try to come up with a good solution.

Here are a few changes:
- QR is only positive values.
- Moderator assignes extra QR point on the spur of the moment when he either feels the poster has made a very worthwhile post or when he feels the poster has accumulated a good amount of posts without spamming.

I think these changes
* do not insult posters
* do not make posters feel more watched
* do not take up extra moderator time

Any feedback on this suggestion? :)

The QR system is cool, but far too idealistic, IMHO.

Instead, perhaps whenever an administator or moderator has decided that a poster has been a "good boy/girl" by adding good conversation, helping others on the boards, etc. he/she gets a "+". Whenever a poster is a "bad boy/girl" because of spams, bad grammar, flames, etc., he/she gets a "-". Minuses cancel out Pluses and vice versa. So basically a poster with 2 Pluses is more helpful; a poster with 5 Minuses is a spammer, flamer, etc.

This is probably just a lot like Earl Grey's system, but it allows people to recognize others' bad poster qualities.

But that's probably just wishful thinking too.

[ September 03, 2002, 23:48: Message edited by: C'Jakob ]

Tal, what do you mean by no gems? Do you mean that the only people that would get anything at all would be those who contributed to the site?

While I definitely think it's a good idea, it would take up too much of the mods' time and it could make people getting a negative rating feel badly, even if they are not spamming.

Although it is nice to be highly recognized by an evaluation system, I don't think this is what people generally expect from this site. Being a regular visitor, you get to know which posters you like to read and which ones you prefer to avoid. A QR system would not make me change my mind towards bad posters, especially considering I might have different opinions than the evaluators.

You also have to consider that some people might get hurt or offended and what have you by such a system. Some reactions might also be undesirable and could prove to be more cumbersome to the mods. Do we expect to be judged or evaluated by our comments? There are probably more than enough people here that get evaluated on a regular basis!! :book:

Also, the fact that this site is so well organized with regards to spamming makes it so much more interesting to visit the boards. Since I couldn't care less about spamming, I just don't access the appropriate reserved threads.

So although the idea is interesting and could be nice, I don't expect and don't think it would be necessary to implement such a rating. But this is just my humble opinion!!

Rastor, I mean that the people with no gems would get stars or some graphical representation for the +/- rating.

This is not really an idea for quality rating, but an indication of how long people have been a registert member. Where it says moderator or administrator in white, normal members who have been registert for example less then half a year, would get the title Newbie Member. Other title could be Supreme Member, Experienced Member, Junior Member or whatever. I don't know if this is easy to do, but it would give a better indication for how long people have been here, and how experienced, then just the post count. I know there is also a registration date, but that is hardly noticable, I think nobody actually looks at that.

Whilst that is a pretty good idea (I'd have to get a great title :D ), I think it would probably make that whole area look too cluttered, imho.

[ September 07, 2002, 12:06: Message edited by: Wildfire ]

Hmmm.... you've also got to take into account (Silverblade), with the age of the member. A 40 year old for example shouldn't be called a Junior Member (little experience), because he/she may have been on other boards before and might have lots of experience with such games as those hosted here.
It's petty I know, but what I'm trying to say is that the Quality of a Person's posts, should not be based on the time they've been a member, age, or knowledge, but just that... the Quality of Their Posts. Therefore I would agree more with Nobleman's Idea.
Just my 2 cents, but do you see where I'm coming from?

I say all systems are fine how they are. Gems are cool, leave them be. Silverblades system, I think I have seen on another site, and it looked crap. The quality is up to the reader to decide, what if they like a bit of spam and flame every now and then.

I got my idea not from an other site, but actually from this site. Just after Tal installed the new ubb thingie a while ago, I noticed that there were already titles like I mentioned. So, it is already in the system. And Gopher I totally understand what you mean and I think it is even impossible to take in account age , but such a system I mentioned in my previous post, would give an indication about the experience you have in this forum. Every forum is different. And quality comes with time.

Silverblade, what was up when the new boards had been implemented was not based on how long a member has been with the site, but how many posts he/she has made, just like the current gem system. I'm not sure if one like you describe would be feasible or not.