Re-Visiting "The World Table"

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_MrSimpleton
_Emeritus
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:35 pm

Re: Re-Visiting "The World Table"

Post by _MrSimpleton »

Here is a little gem of a discussion one "Russell McGregor" started "Rating System Its Uses And Abuses"

There in, reading through the discussion, Russell rails against retaliatory ratings done by others; yet at the same time Russell defends the practice when he engages in it.

Russell McGregor:

""Quid pro quo" ratings go some way towards redressing that distortion. Likewise, rating someone's posts high for no other reason than that they have been subject to an unwarranted attack, also goes to correct the distortion. In that way, both of these measures are similar to the "noise cancellation" measures that can actually improve clarity of a signal; the resultant ratings are closer to the "true" ratings that would persist had the attack never been made."
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Re-Visiting "The World Table"

Post by _honorentheos »

The ratings system never made sense. My understanding of the theory was that fear of receiving poor ratings and a lowered reputation would serve to discourage low signal-high noise posts or blatant personal attacks. And the desire to have high ratings would encourage better quality posting.

But this still required people to not behave like people will with or without a ratings system. Having a name and personality associated with any post inevitably would lead to ratings being given for reasons unrelated to the content - which happened. Use of the rating system as a form of social currency to reward ingroup and punish outgroup members rather than reward "good" content and punish "bad" content was inevitable. Because, if they'd given it any thought, they'd have realized there's a reason good and bad should be in quotes in that context.

My impression was there was a complete conviction that removing anonymity was part of what they thought would make the board successful. I think at a minimum this was due to the thinking that requiring a person to post with in real life identity swinging in the breeze would discourage certain known persons antagonistic to other personalities on the board from joining. Or if they did, it would result in exposing their identities. But I think it was more likely considered a deterrent than a trap. Either way, they misdiagnosed the problem, likely based on certain apologists’ particular paranoias.

That, and the board was ridiculously cumbersome to navigate. This was probably more unforgiveable than any of its other faults, frankly.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_Markk
_Emeritus
Posts: 4745
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:04 am

Re: Re-Visiting "The World Table"

Post by _Markk »

honorentheos wrote:The ratings system never made sense. My understanding of the theory was that fear of receiving poor ratings and a lowered reputation would serve to discourage low signal-high noise posts or blatant personal attacks. And the desire to have high ratings would encourage better quality posting.

But this still required people to not behave like people will with or without a ratings system. Having a name and personality associated with any post inevitably would lead to ratings being given for reasons unrelated to the content - which happened. Use of the rating system as a form of social currency to reward ingroup and punish outgroup members rather than reward "good" content and punish "bad" content was inevitable. Because, if they'd given it any thought, they'd have realized there's a reason good and bad should be in quotes in that context.

My impression was there was a complete conviction that removing anonymity was part of what they thought would make the board successful. I think at a minimum this was due to the thinking that requiring a person to post with in real life identity swinging in the breeze would discourage certain known persons antagonistic to other personalities on the board from joining. Or if they did, it would result in exposing their identities. But I think it was more likely considered a deterrent than a trap. Either way, they misdiagnosed the problem, likely based on certain apologists’ particular paranoias.

That, and the board was ridiculously cumbersome to navigate. This was probably more unforgiveable than any of its other faults, frankly.



Not being able to quote or edit made it a real hassle to use.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
Post Reply