Post Ratings Breakdown

Hi,

Okay, this isn't exactly done, and it's probably not the most intuitive thing in the world, but it should give you all a basic idea of how the post ratings are being distributed so far:

http://www.movieforums.com/community/ratings.php

You can find the link under "Miscellaneous" in the "Quick Links" menu above. Feel free to toy around; you can view ratings by day, week, month, all-time, or even choose a specific date. You can also filter by positive or negative ratings.

As you can see, historically about 90% of the ratings are positive, and perhaps not surprisingly, women hold the top three overall rating spots (Cait, Sam, and nebbit). Damn you women and your clearly superior interpersonal relationship skills!

Anyway, this shouldn't be considered totally complete, nor particularly important. I do hope, however, that it'll cause more members to rate more posts (and more often). We were rating about 100 a day as a community at first, but now we're down to 20-30 on a good day. Just remember: this system works better (and I can implement more new features) if more people rate more posts.

Feel free to post any questions or comments. I hope you all find it, if not useful, somewhat entertaining.

coolness...although i wish i could see my ratings...

__________________
http://www.last.fm/user/diezelpower/

I'll see if I can toss in a quick "search by user" feature, or maybe throw in a quick rundown for each user in the User CP, or something like that.

Cool!
I like that it shows the highest rated posts. Interesting stuff, there.

__________________
Review: Cabin in the Woods 8/10

i find it funny that Holden is on the Highest Rated Users list for both positive and negetive rep.

__________________
letterboxd

Very Groovy. Yeah, Holden is an odd 'un.

__________________
instrumental rock band that I am in.

SHHHH! He'll Hear you...




Nice work Yoda. I would second the movement for a 'search by user' feature, but im afraid it would only dissapoint me terribbly...

*raises hand*

Please sir!

I've just had a quick squiggle through the new ratings breakdown and noticed some folks with 30 odd reps in one day without a specific post appearing from them in the 'most repped' section.

Does that mean we're still supposed to be retrospectively repping posts? If so then fine but has the barrier been removed where you can only rep a MoFo once, good or bad, then spread some love (or bile) around before repping them again?

If I was a cynical person, which thankfully I'm not, I would sense the possibility of a system being rigged.

__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan

Yes, there is no limit, now, though I may add one. The possibility for rigging does exist, but it's a lot harder to do so now, I think. You only get one point per rating, for example, and you still can't rep yourself, so you'd have to have someone else in on it. And if I want to, I can find out who's repping who, so I think such a scheme would be relatively easy to pick up on.

thats cause i was online last night and went around specifically repping people for over an hour...

So can new users rate posts?

__________________
TOP 100 | "Don't let the bastards grind you down!"

Ahhh good.

I was just wondering if someone had a strange mental condition which drove them to offer bizarre favours in return for an appearance on the 'all time' rep list. Imagine two newbies who decided to rep all of each others' posts...

Such a person needs, I'd imagine, gentle psychiatric help.

Indeed they can.

Perhaps they got little bits of rep for lots of posts, rather than lots of rep for one post. That could happen. It doesn't mean all 30 of those rep points are necessarily from the same person.

If lots of people rep someone for one post, then that post shows up on the Best Liked Posts of the Week thingy. 30+ points in a day for one person who made only a few posts recently, and many of those in "word association" means that one or two people rep'd many of that person's posts that weren't recent.

That was my second paragraph.

Ah. Yeah, I looked at the day's rep thing and I see what you mean now. Surely people should not be getting rep for word association unless they come up with something *really* clever...

The whole rep thing would make loads more sense if people gave out as much negative rep as positive. Maybe you are all too nice, I negative rep posts all the time....

I'd have to agree. As of right now -- old and new posts combined -- about 90% of the total ratings are positive. It may sound odd to want more negative ratings, but I think posts worthy of negative ratings are there, but people just aren't rating them so. Hopefully that'll change. I'd encourgage everyone using the system to negatively rate any posts that are pointless (and there are always quite a few on any forum) or uninsightful, as opposed to only negatively rating posts that are vulgar or rude.

The more accurate and numerous the ratings, the more I can do from a programming standpoint to highlight the best posts.

I have a question....if there are loads of posts with +1/-1 rating (as there must be), what decides which posts go in 'most popular posts' of the day for +/-?

Can I cash in my points for MoFo loot and purchase a MoFo t-shirt, sticker, back scratcher, mug or ice scraper?

__________________