By how many agree, like, awesome and insightful points your profile has. Each one awards 1 point. And there are ranks for the stars that are given out for each. 500-1500k points is a 3* profile
By how many agree, like, awesome and insightful points your profile has. Each one awards 1 point. And there are ranks for the stars that are given out for each. 500-1500k points is a 3* profile
Thanks. Do "disagree" give -1 point?
No.
That doesn't seem right. The score should accurately represent everyone's contributions to the forums.
By how many agree, like, awesome and insightful points your profile has. Each one awards 1 point. And there are ranks for the stars that are given out for each. 500-1500k points is a 3* profile
Thanks. Do "disagree" give -1 point?
No.
That doesn't seem right. The score should accurately represent everyone's contributions to the forums.
It's not really contributions but by how much people like and agree about your comments or content on the forums.
By how many agree, like, awesome and insightful points your profile has. Each one awards 1 point. And there are ranks for the stars that are given out for each. 500-1500k points is a 3* profile
Thanks. Do "disagree" give -1 point?
No.
That doesn't seem right. The score should accurately represent everyone's contributions to the forums.
I like that the forums have received this improvement. Helps voice what people really think without having to use the old flag button for it's nonintended purpose
I feel like disagree is going to be abused anyways.
Kids these days
But it Alest better that flag someone for no reason at all and if you really do. Disagree. Then it better to put that down. But yeah flag was really absurd abuse all over the place
I feel like disagree is going to be abused anyways.
Kids these days
Yes but disagreeing with someone isn't the same as spamming the Flag button. Now I still slighly feel we need some other button to show others what we think of their posts.
To be honest, that's just asking for trouble in my opinion. Person A doesn't like Person B, so they downgrade all their comments. Much the same as Flags were abused. That's not really a gauge of their contributions. It's a popularity contest.
I've decided as my first use of the disagree button to disagree with the post thanking the devs for adding the disagree button, making my act of disagreeing with the button a validation of the button. In doing so I've made a post that cannot be validly disagreed with using the button. Because it is Monday, and that's how I roll on Monday.
I feel like disagree is going to be abused anyways.
Kids these days
You can't really abuse "disagree" like you could the flag button, because the flag button triggered a notification to the mods who would be forced to investigate. Disagree is just synonymous with posting a reply with the words "I disagree" only it is anonymous and no one has to do anything about it.
You aren't really supposed to "just disagree" with no other point, but since people wouldn't stop abusing the flag notification button this just redirects those people to a more appropriate nowhere.
The stars are a flawed system. There are people with 5 stars whose rating doesn't not reflect the quality of their contributions.
Actually, it does. They're based on positive reactions. Which means other people agreed with their contributions somewhere along the lines.
With no negative points, simply posting 3 or 4 times as many times as others would inflate someone's score. That's not an accurate representation of their contributions, only that they post a lot.
The stars are a flawed system. There are people with 5 stars whose rating doesn't not reflect the quality of their contributions.
Actually, it does. They're based on positive reactions. Which means other people agreed with their contributions somewhere along the lines.
It doesn't accurately represent the *ratio* of those reactions. One spends long enough on the forums, and you will amass enough positive reactions to earn stars, regardless of other previous comments.
The stars are a flawed system. There are people with 5 stars whose rating doesn't not reflect the quality of their contributions.
Actually, it does. They're based on positive reactions. Which means other people agreed with their contributions somewhere along the lines.
With no negative points, simply posting 3 or 4 times as many times as others would inflate someone's score. That's not an accurate representation of their contributions, only that they post a lot.
That's simply logical. If you're counting contributions, more is more. What removing the negative does is remove the possibility of abusing it just to negatively impact people we don't like. Given the fact that the Flags were removed through abuse, that's a very high possibility. What the TL:DR is, is we can't bring other people down. That's not what we're here for.
You're saying that people should be rewarded for spamming the forums as opposed to contributing meaningfully.
The stars are a flawed system. There are people with 5 stars whose rating doesn't not reflect the quality of their contributions.
Actually, it does. They're based on positive reactions. Which means other people agreed with their contributions somewhere along the lines.
With no negative points, simply posting 3 or 4 times as many times as others would inflate someone's score. That's not an accurate representation of their contributions, only that they post a lot.
That's simply logical. If you're counting contributions, more is more. What removing the negative does is remove the possibility of abusing it just to negatively impact people we don't like. Given the fact that the Flags were removed through abuse, that's a very high possibility. What the TL:DR is, is we can't bring other people down. That's not what we're here for.
Because a higher point to post ratio shows you are contributing and helping more.
I mean... It's not bad if you just post to post... I do it all the time. It's just that a higher ratio shows that you are an insightful part of the community.
The stars are a flawed system. There are people with 5 stars whose rating doesn't not reflect the quality of their contributions.
Actually, it does. They're based on positive reactions. Which means other people agreed with their contributions somewhere along the lines.
With no negative points, simply posting 3 or 4 times as many times as others would inflate someone's score. That's not an accurate representation of their contributions, only that they post a lot.
That's simply logical. If you're counting contributions, more is more. What removing the negative does is remove the possibility of abusing it just to negatively impact people we don't like. Given the fact that the Flags were removed through abuse, that's a very high possibility. What the TL:DR is, is we can't bring other people down. That's not what we're here for.
Without a system of down up becomes meaningless
Agreed. Someone could have 3k points on 10K posts and have more stars than someone with 2k points on 1k posts. That's just silly.
And TBH, if that person with 10k posts say how low their rating was they'd probably change what ever they were doing to get so few points. It'd make the forums much better.
Comments
You aren't really supposed to "just disagree" with no other point, but since people wouldn't stop abusing the flag notification button this just redirects those people to a more appropriate nowhere.
Quality is much more important than quantity.
I mean... It's not bad if you just post to post... I do it all the time. It's just that a higher ratio shows that you are an insightful part of the community.
And TBH, if that person with 10k posts say how low their rating was they'd probably change what ever they were doing to get so few points. It'd make the forums much better.