Can someone explain the user rating system?

[AllisonVSC]

What does it mean? What are the range of possible scores? etc. I tried using the search and looking at my profile info, but I can't find any info on this feature. Thanks.

[nyssa]

Haha I watched that as they set it up.

It went from just [applaud] to
[applaud] and [boo] and
[applaud] and [nonsense]
to what you see now. It was kind of entertaining.

I have no idea though. They really should explain that somewhere! Also, I don't think it's fair that one person could ruin someone else's score if they want to (apparently), there doesn't seem to be a limit on it.

[AllisonVSC]

I've only seen "good" and "poor" as choices for rating someone (or their post...I'm not even sure which it is a rating of exactly). I've seen rating numbers, like yours at 5, and other frequent posters at -6 and even a -9. Most seem to have a rating of 0, like me. I guess that just means that no one has rated yet, but without some explanation who knows for sure.

[Suin]

I understand it the way one gives a rating to somebody's post, if it was helpful or not. that's actually is not necessary point in this forum at all, as everybody says his/her own opinion and not considered to be an expert.

[AllisonVSC]

So, do you suppose that a 3 rating equate to 3 people hitting the "good" button while a -9 means 9 people hit the "poor" button?

[Karlshammar]

Yes, that's exactly the way it works. 3 could also mean that 6 people pressed good, but 3 people pressed poor, etc.

Summary: Good increases rating by 1, poor decreases rating by 1.

So, do you suppose that a 3 rating equate to 3 people hitting the "good" button while a -9 means 9 people hit the "poor" button?

[NYCtoNB]

Yes, that's exactly the way it works. 3 could also mean that 6 people pressed good, but 3 people pressed poor, etc.

Summary: Good increases rating by 1, poor decreases rating by 1.

it could also mean a single person pressed good over a period of time, i don't really understand the point though.

[ariell]

I think I'm the person you're referring to with a -6 rating, so as you can imagine, I don't think it's a very fair system! I think I've helped alot of people on this board over the past year so I am extremely frustrated to have this negative rating beside my name. It seems to be the case of someone having a grudge against me or deciding to take out their frustration on me yesterday since it all seemed to happen in one day, particularly after someone made a negative comment about me that has since been deleted.

I initially thought the rating system was a good idea because post counts don't necessarily tell you alot -- a person could have a high post count only from asking alot of questions, or even posting alot of irrelevant comments. But the system wasn't set up very well since initially, a single person was able to rate you every 6 minutes! Now you can only rate a person once every 24 hours which seems more fair. If it's used fairly then I think the rating system is a good system but obviously if people are going to abuse it for their own personal reasons then I don't think that's fair at all.

[diddagirl]

I think I'm the person you're referring to with a -6 rating, so as you can imagine, I don't think it's a very fair system! I think I've helped alot of people on this board over the past year so I am extremely frustrated to have this negative rating beside my name. It seems to be the case of someone having a grudge against me or deciding to take out their frustration on me yesterday since it all seemed to happen in one day, particularly after someone made a negative comment about me that has since been deleted.

I initially thought the rating system was a good idea because post counts don't necessarily tell you alot -- a person could have a high post count only from asking alot of questions, or even posting alot of irrelevant comments. But the system wasn't set up very well since initially, a single person was able to rate you every 6 minutes! Now you can only rate a person once every 24 hours which seems more fair. If it's used fairly then I think the rating system is a good system but obviously if people are going to abuse it for their own personal reasons then I don't think that's fair at all.

I very much agree ariell, you have been a great resource on this site for many people, and demonstrate a real knowledge of the immigration process. I think someone obviously is holding a grudge, and unfairly rated you based on personal problems instead of immigration stuff as the rating system is intended for.

[ariell]

Thank you diddagirl! 

[toby]

I agree Ariell, and gave you a "good" to see the effect.  You are now at 0; I'll return every 24 hours (a pleasant homework project) and give you another "good".  Pretty soon you'll be giving the very-popular Karlshammer a run for his money.  :-)

Meanwhile, I am stuck in the dungeon.  I guess a few critical posts I made generated some hostility.  Sigh.

[Karlshammar]

You're a good resource for the forum, Ariell, and have offered plenty of good advice. I see your score is now 0, so either you have fans that brought you up a lot or they reset your score. Either way I am happy with it; you should be in the positive.

[toby]

T'was I who did the deed. I want full credit -- maybe super-hero status from the forum moderator (is there one?).

[PMM]

Hi

T'was I who did the deed. I want full credit -- maybe super-hero status from the forum moderator (is there one?).

Yes there is, and if you "play around" you may find yourself banned if enough posters report you.

PMM

[toby]

Interesting.  WHat constitutes "playing around?"

Posting bogus messages (some members call these people "trolls") could well be banned, but on what evidence?

If I criticize someone for inconsistency, or for any other (presumably valid) reason, and that person reports me (as opposed to simply giving me a "poor" rating), can that lead to banishment?

In other words, is there a quota of "reports" after which one is summarily banned, or does the moderator look into the quality of the reports, dismissing some as mere mischief, crediting others as well warranted?

If the former, then the safer route is to let the questionable opinions pass unchallenged, say nothing negative, regardless of the apparent justification.