Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Let’s talk about ratings

By

I was wondering if we could chat a bit about how ratings are used and if it makes any sense to come to a broad consensus in this regard.  I bring this up because I’ve been subject to a few very low ratings recently which have caught me by surprise.  I almost made a comment on the “Rules of the Road” thread archived on the left margin, but wasn’t sure anybody read that regularly.

In my opinion threes and zeroes should be used sparingly and with the utmost care, but it seems some people have taken to using them simply to express disagreement.  I for one don’t rate lower than a four for disagreements and even then it’s usually if I feel the same points have been made before and continuing the discussion probably won’t change minds.  I generally save my threes for offensive comments and zeroes for direct insults or clear attempts to hijack the thread.

I realize there is going to be some subjectivity to this and that we will not all interpret the numbers exactly the same way, either as recipients or in how we use them ourselves.  I also don’t mean to come across as thin-skinned, but I am definitely curious as to whether others have noticed this and would be interested in other takes on this matter, especially from our editors.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    • Huh would probably 3 me if I said it was partly sunny out when he thought it was partly cloudy đŸ˜‰

      • I also give you the occasional 6.  Even a blind chicken…;)

        <

        p>I also get the same in return. (repeat joke)

        <

        p>It’s not like any of this affects your “permanent record.”  The site doesn’t even present averages or trends, just a list of ratings given and received. Outside of deletions, they don’t even affect the post itself, outside of providing an indication that people may want to read (6) or ignore (3) the post in question.

        <

        p>I tend to use 3 to call bullshit and 4 when I see a point, but think its under researched or supported (and yes, sometimes when I just plain disagree).  I hardly ever use 5, since I find it condescending.  I do sometimes wish there were a “really, really excellent” rating.

        <

        p>It is instructive to know that MCRD and billxi have more deleted comments than anyone else when attempting to decipher their posts.  The question of why they’re still here is probably best left to the blog owners.

      • Christopher is engaged with all sincerity.  That is the context. So mocking him is insensitive. That’s why I gave you a 3.  

            • 3’s already worthless, and even scrofulous is better than worthless.  Unless tuberculosis is contagious, then I guess it might be worse than worthless.  But even contagious infected scrofulous children are still worth something, that’s why we treat them.

              <

              p>No, 2: is something worse than worthless, but not way worse (which 1 would be), and certainly not so much worse that it should be deleted (0).  2 would be something that costs you a little something, like having to go to google to look up a word, compelled to by your comment…hmmm  

              • I wonder why billxi gives my untargeted ‘scrofulous’ comment a 0, while dcsurfer calling me a moron gets a pass. Ordinarily, I would ignore both (unless it was someone else being insulted; then I’d rate it 0), but this seems to be the thread to point out inconsistencies in ratings.

        • Christopher does engage with sincerity. He is very open-minded and seems to be genuinely curious about and interested in all of the opinions that float around here.

  2. In general, I think it’s bad form, even tacky, to downrate people with whom you are having a disagreement/debate.  Someone else here once made that observation and I have subscribed to it, fairly closely, since then.

    <

    p>I believe  3s and 4s are used here to express degrees of disagreement (when they’re not applied to chronic disrupters).  In my view, a 4 can be worse than a three because of the inherent arrogance of the assessment. IOW, just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean they are thoughtless, ignorant, insensitive, or ill-informed–all things implied by a “needs work” rating.  If you don’t mean those things, don’t use a 4.  If you do mean those things, then expect a reactionary reciprocal rating.

  3. There is currently no way for me to say that I think a particular post (or posts) are a waste of time — not a violation of the RoR, but still generally bad for the community (as opposed to something I disagree with).

    <

    p>I’m thinking of, for example, the recent flood of comments from one contributor about the “conspiracy” to impose martial law. They don’t violate the RoR, but they’re still damaging. I’d like to be able to rate them as a “1” or “2” (“troll” or “spam/flood”, respectively).

  4. I try to limit myself to sixes and zeros: Sixes to express agreement, love, and happiness; zeros to express inappropriateness. My thought was that we’re here for discussion. It’s good that there are people here I disagree with. Why irritate them with downratings when I can state my disagreement? It’s like being a member of a boxing gym: you appreciate having sparring partners.

    <

    p>Lately, I’ve been handing out fives when someone I disagree with states something well — especially when that comment has become beset with downratings.

    <

    p>But I think the goal here is to have productive conversations. Threes and fours divert from the discussion at hand to bad feelings about being downrated. Fives usually seem like B-pluses or A-minuses; they’re almost condescending.

    <

    p>So that’s my advice: be extreme.

    • Take this recent “all 3” example from RegularJoe or this one from billxi.  Neither of them deserve deletion by the rules, but both are pretty close to non-sensical.  They don’t need work, they’re just worthless and a large number of folks agree. I’m not even sure I disagree with them.

      • If 3s and 4s worked as a means of suppressing vacuous nonsense, I’d be all for them.

        <

        p>Maybe they’ll keep JoeTS from saying dumb things about the weather. They could be good for that.

        • and in respect for Christophers sincerity, I should confess that my 6’s are a way of expressing my genuine admiration for a BMGer who says what I think better than I could, and relieves me of making a comment.

          <

          p>And I rarely downrate because, I guess, I try to limit/transform my output of negative energy. A full time job in the rest of my professional life, I must say.  

          • If I see a comment I’m tempted to respond to, I don’t, but rather come back later to see if someone else commented as I would have and then uprate that response.

        • So :

          <

          p>6 suggests you might want to read the post.
          3 or 4 suggests you might want to  rebut, or jump in and help elaborate.  
          0 says there may be ‘things we’re no longer allowed to call trolls’ lurking.  

          <

          p>5 says the rater spent too much time in grad school. đŸ˜‰

Archives