User Reputation Ratings

[Administrator]

I dont know why it took me so long to realize this. There is a staggering number of people on boards like these that do not know their "hair loss science". These individuals often times are the most vocal posters with large post counts.

A larger problem I am noticing is the negative tone many posters here have. When a new guy hops on the scene with a happy comment or two, I see a bunch of replies that would make even the biggest smile droop.

Im going to institute a user rating system so that people can rate a person's post. I ran across a post from a guy named antoin666. He created a brand new thread calling Dutasteride a poison and warning everyone to stay away from it.

First guy who replied said "Horrible post". In this case, he's right. Posts like that - I am hoping you will mark with a 1 star, or a thumbs down. Whatever the icon ends up being.

Other posts are just plain scientifically wrong, and damage the accuracy and helpfulness of this forum. If an individual gains a reputation for making unscientific comments, their posts will appear with a bad reputation rating and people will know not to take their advice to heart.

Stay tuned.

Admin

 

[CCS]

Sounds great. But only let knowledgeable people give ratings.

Bodybuilding.com does something similar, but it turns into preference wars since anyone can change anyone's reputation.

 

[somone uk]

i am kinda with CCS but it would be hard to tell if the person rating knows what THEY are talking about
i do think that people would for example people might give me a low rating because i am extremely cynical of certain products rather than my science being necessarily bad

hairloss is a complicated subject, with more myths than facts and more snake oils than treatments so my concern is that good science would be regarded as bad
other than that it's a brilliant idea

i propose maybe only letting the mods rate the science :dunno:

 

[LeesHair]

It would be difficult to do, but I agree even a flawed system would be better than the "loudest shout wins" system which is effectively what we have now.

To avoid a populatiry contest though could we just all start from 0 and the moderators give or remove a point every time someone says something a) very clever and useful or b) REALLy stupid?

(I can see myself ending on -112 for making jokes, but never mind)

 

[vauxall]

I am totally against this. The system will be abused. Look at the Google Groups star rating. It's useless. I know personally of feuds starting from that ( I was not involved).

Isn't it just better to report the post to the admin?

 

[Cassin]

I will ban whoever doesn't worship me like a demi god and prove so by positive rankings.

 

[vauxall]

I will ban whoever doesn't worship me like a demi god and prove so by positive rankings.

I rate your post minus 25.

 

[powersam]

I will ban whoever doesn't worship me like a demi god and prove so by positive rankings.

What if I ninja you in the face, but then leave a positive rating?

 

[Cassin]

bastards!!!

 

[Administrator]

I've thought about all these issues you guys raise. I've seen this system in place on other sites.

Important to note: The results are aggregate and weighted averages. No single user can harm another users reputation to any significant extent. The reputation only is affected by large numbers of unique individual users. I believe this to be an extremely accurate type of rating.

I was impressed by group opinions when I used to watch "Who wants to be a millionaire". I found that when the contestant did the audience opinion option, the audience *always* got the question right. This is because when many minds get together to solve a problem, they tend to come up with the best solution.

So accuracy is maintained and in fact improved by allowing the "crowd" to weigh in their opinion.

Regarding a "knowledge-o-meter", I think this is fairly safe too. While its true that the average joe himself may not be knowledgeable, I think an aggregate opinion of a person's overal helpfulness and education on a topic does become apparent over time, with ratings. I suppose there is a possibility that an educated person could have an opinion that the masses don't agree with, and still be right, but the chances seem slim.

Anyways, we should give it a try and see how it pans out.

Admin

 

[captain_que]

I salute you. So many architects of negativity on these boards. Maybe now they can choke a little bit on their own vomit :bravo:

 

[Cassin]

lol

 

[powersam]

This is because when many minds get together to solve a problem, they tend to come up with the best solution.

The fact that George Bush got two terms in office would seem to suggest otherwise.

 

[Boondock]

I think this could run into problems down the line. It risks allowing people to be rated - and thus listened to - based on whether the majority agree or disagree with what they're saying. The problem with this is that the majority might be wrong in any given particular instance. If the problem is that the board nurtures too much negativity and cynicism, then it's possible that that culture could be reinforced by a rating system - the 'realists' get voted over those more positive because that's where most people stand.

I'm not saying don't implement it, and I'm not entirely sure it's a bad thing. Just let's discuss this a bit more first. From my standpoint, the current system works OK: people can make their own minds up as to who's talking gibberish and who's talking sense, and that's reflected in the responses people get. If this system is geared toward making this a positive, upbeat place, I'm not sure it's going to work.

 

[cuebald]

I can imagine Bryan getting an undeserved low reputation because of all the Estrogen clowns modding him down...

 

[powersam]

I can imagine Bryan getting an undeserved low reputation because of all the Estrogen clowns modding him down...

And soccer fans.

 

[mykal_P]

What about a system where you allot everyone only a certain number of ratings to use a week or by day. Maybe newbies get less or none to start since they haven't earned their wings yet, and veterans more due to their knowledge of the forum and their peers

 

[LeesHair]

I think it's worth a go, it doesn't have to be permanent if it doesn't work does it?

As long as it's on average, so if you happen to have an unpopular opinion on one thing you won't be forever branded retarded it should work.

I do worry slightly that we're trusting people on the interent to do the right thing, a premise that often ends in disaster, but can we give it a go, even on a voluntary basis?

 

[metalheaddude]

People over 1000 posts should get an automatic level of rating.

 

[Hope4hairRedux]

To be honest I dont really like the idea. It would lead to forms of elitism and hierarchy. The nice thing about this forum is that everyone can say what they want, and there is no wrong or right view.

What if someone wants to be negative? Let them be negative! This place isnt a place we go to say how happy we are about our hairloss.

I think the amount of posts you have could possibly equal something, but other than that, the idea sucks.

I dont want this place to turn into a pissing contest of who is right/wrong.

Let things just be as they are.