Combining the two most recent threads of Site Feedback, here now is a list of the ratings I've given. Again, like all threads in here, an easy and cheap way to inflate your post count is to add your own giant list and ensure that everyone's good and bored by the bottom of the page.
Votes from CRZ:
10 for (username removed) 10 for (username removed) 10 for (username removed) 10 for (username removed) 10 for (username removed) 10 for (username removed) 10 for (username removed) 10 for (username removed) 10 for (username removed) 10 for (username removed) 10 for (username removed) 10 for (username removed) 10 for (username removed) 10 for (username removed) 10 for (username removed) 10 for (username removed) 10 for (username removed) 9 for (username removed) 9 for (username removed) 9 for (username removed) 9 for (username removed) 9 for (username removed) 9 for (username removed) 9 for (username removed) 9 for (username removed) 9 for (username removed) 9 for (username removed) 9 for (username removed) 9 for (username removed) 9 for (username removed) 9 for (username removed) 9 for (username removed) 9 for (username removed) 9 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 8 for (username removed) 7 for (username removed) 7 for (username removed) 7 for (username removed) 7 for (username removed) 7 for (username removed) 7 for (username removed) 7 for (username removed) 7 for (username removed) 7 for (username removed) 7 for (username removed) 7 for (username removed) 7 for (username removed) 7 for (username removed) 7 for (username removed) 7 for (username removed) 7 for (username removed) 7 for (username removed) 7 for (username removed) 7 for (username removed) 7 for (username removed) 7 for (username removed) 7 for (username removed) 7 for (username removed) 7 for (username removed) 6 for (username removed) 6 for (username removed) 6 for (username removed) 6 for (username removed) 6 for (username removed) 6 for (username removed) 6 for (username removed) 6 for (username removed) 6 for (username removed) 6 for (username removed) 6 for (username removed) 6 for (username removed) 6 for (username removed) 6 for (username removed) 6 for (username removed) 6 for (username removed) 6 for (username removed) 6 for (username removed) 6 for (username removed) 5 for (username removed) 5 for (username removed) 5 for (username removed) 5 for (username removed) 5 for (username removed) 5 for (username removed) 5 for (username removed) 5 for (username removed) 5 for (username removed) 5 for (username removed) 5 for (username removed) 5 for (username removed) 5 for (username removed) 5 for (username removed) 5 for (username removed) 5 for (username removed) 4 for (username removed) 4 for (username removed) 4 for (username removed) 4 for (username removed) 4 for (username removed) 4 for (username removed) 4 for (username removed) 4 for (username removed) 4 for (username removed) 4 for (username removed) 4 for (username removed) 4 for (username removed) 4 for (username removed) 4 for (username removed) 4 for (username removed) 4 for (username removed) 4 for (username removed) 3 for (username removed) 3 for (username removed) 3 for (username removed) 3 for (username removed) 3 for (username removed) 3 for (username removed) 3 for (username removed) 3 for (username removed) 3 for (username removed) 3 for (username removed) 3 for (username removed) 3 for (username removed) 3 for (username removed) 3 for (username removed) 3 for (username removed) 3 for (username removed) 3 for (username removed) 3 for (username removed) 3 for (username removed) 2 for (username removed) 2 for (username removed) 2 for (username removed) 2 for (username removed) 2 for (username removed) 2 for (username removed) 2 for (username removed) 2 for (username removed) 2 for (username removed) 2 for (username removed) 2 for (username removed) 2 for (username removed) 1 for (username removed) 1 for (username removed) 1 for (username removed) 1 for (username removed) 1 for (username removed) 1 for (username removed) 1 for (username removed) 1 for (username removed) 1 for (username removed) 1 for (username removed) 1 for (username removed) 1 for (username removed) 1 for (username removed) 1 for (username removed) 1 for (username removed) 1 for (username removed) 1 for (username removed) 0 for (username removed) 0 for (username removed) 0 for (username removed) 0 for (username removed) 0 for (username removed) 0 for (username removed) 0 for (username removed) 0 for (username removed) 0 for (username removed) 0 for (username removed) 0 for (username removed) 0 for (username removed) 0 for (username removed) 0 for (username removed)
Here it is again, a bit easier, thanks to a "| uniq -c":
17 10 for (username removed) 17 9 for (username removed) 36 8 for (username removed) 24 7 for (username removed) 19 6 for (username removed) 16 5 for (username removed) 17 4 for (username removed) 19 3 for (username removed) 12 2 for (username removed) 17 1 for (username removed) 14 0 for (username removed)
I don't know if that tells you if I LIKE anybody or not, but there you go.
YOUR link to a list of votes should be somewhere on your Profile page - look for "view Your ratings"
1) I'm not very concerned with ratings, so I don't usually bother with them unless it's someone who I really dislike and I think they should know it, or it's someone I like and I feel they should be rated higher.
2) This is an interesting dilemma: If I see someone I like and their rating is currently a 7-something but I really don't feel they belong with the level of people I rated a 7, then I won't rate them. Why? So I don't drag their rating down. Same goes for someone whom I personally think deserves a 1 or a 2, but I won't rate them if it boosts their rating and makes them think someone actually LIKES them.
3) 0's are mainly reserved for people I view as trolls. As a matter of fact, many of the people I've given 0's to are also on my ignore list, and several of them have been banned or unregistered. If you suck, or I just don't like you, you'll probably end up somewhere between a 1 and a 4 depending on how well written and thought out your posts are.
4) I am ambivalent about a lot of you. However, I did go on a ratings spree for a week, and gave out a lot of 5's to people whose ratings were lower than I thought they should be, which seems to have a direct relation to posting in the wrestling forum.
5) I'm sure I'd rate at least another hundred people < 5 if I read the Wrestling forum more often. As it is, I think Site Bashing lets me frolic with enough dumbasses as it is.
6) Pieman got an 8. Dean got a 10. Maybe Pieman should write a column. Also, I'm sure Brewguy would move up a spot if he posted more.
7) The Zims have not been rated. Unless you count Assclown.
Well, that's all I can think of that might be semi-interesting.
-Jag
Of course, I'd find it really interesting to find the identity of the one person that is ignoring me.
Wake lost. I am a sad panda.
The Bad Boys of Punctuation Add liberally to any post for best results
Now that I look at the list, I realize that half of the posters I gave "0"s are no longer posting (at least I haven't read from them lately). I also realize that I should re-rate some people up (in fact, almost everyone I have rated should probably be higher).
Most people that I don't read on a regular basis don't get rated. And even some people that I DO read on a regular basis don't get rated (actually, MOST people I read don't get rated - hmm).
I don't give out "10"s for the simple reason that nobody I have read is perfect (I guess I wouldn't make a good teacher, eh?).
Maybe we could all make charts and graphs of number of people vs. ratings we've given them. Then we can all have charts and graphs and, best of all, long lists with lots of names.
Of course, for even discussing ratings, we can now all expect ours to drop by a few points (jinx).
I was Wiener of the Day. Once. A long time ago. Really.
Yay, rash decisions! These 10's are for people I agree with, people I'm sucking up too, or people with hot user pics. I'm that shallow. The 0's are my way of saying "Fuck you, you don't count, I'm ignoring you now."
I think that I am way too nice to some people, and some of the 5-7's are for either people I thought are too low ratings-wise, or whose political views are closer to mine (although I'm still smart enough to usually stay out of the Politics folder).
I will say that one of my ten ratings is for the Wiener I think comes up with the consistently funniest posts. The second one is for the poster with the biggest cajones on the board. And the third is Dr. Unlikely. Come on, you know he deserves his props (even if he only posts if there is a good 24 thread).
10's: 3. One because I'm nuts. One because even that vote won't help what I expect to be his poor rating. One because that guy is kewl!!!1 9's: 11. One of those is Reva Renee Renz. 8's: 15. 7's: 25. 6's: 13. 5's: 6. 4's: 3. One of them just because. 3's: 8. 2's: 11. 1's: 11. 0's: 19.
Pretty much, if I like what you tend to say, you're in the 6 - 8 range. If you do something awesome you'll get bumped up to 9. 0 is for trolls. 1 is for trolls in sheep's clothing. 2 - 3 is if you try to make legitimate posts and come off like a troll. 4-5 means I agree with you, but you tend troll-like.
When I first started assigning ratings I would read a post and then assign a rating based on certain characteristics (you got 1 point for proper spelling and grammar, 1 point if I agreed with you, 1-2 points depending on the length of the post, etc.) That got to be too much work so I dropped the metric and went more arbitrary, as evidenced above.
"Yeah, angles in the ring... someone thought of that a long time ago. They called it pro wrestling." -- the MCS
"I think mentally maybe I've just reached puberty." -- Vince McMahon (hollywoodreporter.com)
"How many poles did you get?" "I got just enough for . . . ninja!"
I tend to only rate people when I have an actual opinion of them - and I tend to drop them way down when they annoy me. In fact, looking at this, I really need to fix a few of these because I have a few that are unnecessarily low.
And, as is typical, most of those zeroes are long-since banned.
"The Republican National Committee announced today that the Republican Party is changing its emblem from an elephant to a condom. The Republican committee chairman explained that the condom more clearly reflects the party's stance today, because a condom accepts inflation, halts production, precludes a next generation, protects a bunch of pricks, and offers a sense of security while you're actually getting screwed."
Originally posted by Jaguar Maybe Pieman should write a column.
I did once write a review of some Orbital tapes I got from someone out west. I think that's how I got the contributor tag over there. I was asked last week why I have the contributor tag since I don't seem to actually contribute any content to the Guest Column folder. I don't have tons of time to write much nowadays, but am open to suggestion on what I should write about, Jag.
Looking at it, I might have to change a few of the 0's, but generally they are people who don't post here any longer, were spammers/hackers/annoyances and were banned, or posted once or twice and made no sense but weren't banned.
(edited by redsoxnation on 31.3.04 2249)
(edited by redsoxnation on 31.3.04 2252) Why is TVLand stealing my ideas from DEAN's Workrate Report's? They had to be stealing, as I thought I had the only demented mind that could put Bea Arthur and Abe Vigoda in a sex scene.
After reading this thread, maybe I should rate more people.
(edited by Keeper on 31.3.04 2351) Murphy's Law "The odds of the bread landing buttered side down are directly proportional to the price of the carpet."
I think the only true 0 is TiO. The rest are from one day when I decided to go headhunting anybody who mysteriously had a ten rating while only posting once.
I don't rate people all that often, or even post much. I read a lot, though.
Some people I've rated higher than I would if I were "in a vacuum" just because I think they're rated way lower than they deserve (and even in pity cases, I probably won't go over 5). I also tend to rate people higher if they like NWA TNA.
My only real rule is that I don't rate people based on their political opinions, unless they drag it out of the political forum and are, also, fuckwitted.
I'm somehow reluctant to give out 10s, I see. I guess I'm saving it for a special occasion. Eh, I should probably bump a few people up.
Most of the lower-rated folks, I have no idea who they are anymore.
I would probably rate more people if I used "full graphics" mode, both for/against sigs and pics, and also 'cause it'd be easier to remember who everyone is.
I've only bothered to give out 2 ratings (a 9 and a 7 seeing as you ask) and for the life of me I can't remember upon what basis I came up with the numbers. I'm sure both were entirely merited however.
This thread causes me to ask a question that I've long wondered -- Do you WANT us to rate users? I've used the ratings system in the same way as JayJayDean, in that I toss around zeroes to those people that I think need to be gone. I generally follow that rating up with an "ignore". I just checked my ratings, and was only marginally surprised to see that I had rated only one person with something other than zero.
Since it's your board, I've figured that your ratings were really all that mattered. I don't rate more than "zeroes" because there are enough parts to the board that I don't frequent (Wrestling, Politics, KZIM, Basketball) that I don't feel qualified to rate most users.
Originally posted by Sec19Row53This thread causes me to ask a question that I've long wondered -- Do you WANT us to rate users?
Of course I do! It does me no good to create features that nobody uses (even if I do that ALL the time). I should add that I much prefer people hand out ALL eleven ratings as opposed to just tens and zeroes, otherwise it's an even more useless gauge than it already is...
#
#
#
