Login to BatWeb
Forgot your password?
BatMUD Forums > Bs > Re: news ratings
1) make news rating limited (rating points or so), You get one point when
rating an article +1 and lose one point when rating -1
2. make those point dependant on character age and "karma" (i.e. how YOUR
articles have been rated)
3. Once you have rated certain amount of articles by a person -1, you
automatically news ignore the person and can no longer rate their post (even
if you remove the ignore).
4. Make posting "karma"-dependant. I.e. when you have low karma, you have to
wait longer between news posts.
rating an article +1 and lose one point when rating -1
2. make those point dependant on character age and "karma" (i.e. how YOUR
articles have been rated)
3. Once you have rated certain amount of articles by a person -1, you
automatically news ignore the person and can no longer rate their post (even
if you remove the ignore).
4. Make posting "karma"-dependant. I.e. when you have low karma, you have to
wait longer between news posts.
got only 65 votes (positions 2-etc have onlu 20-30 total votes), come on, at
least 10x times people should read news if we assume there are 2000 more or
less active players and 35% of them would only read news
\o/
Cilwand, only Saddam Hussein had 100% of iraq people voting for him. Bring
back the rating, i think it's a good feature. Just ban those people abusing
it.
back the rating, i think it's a good feature. Just ban those people abusing
it.
Darkwell wrote:
Cilwand, only Saddam Hussein had 100% of iraq people voting for him. Bring
back the rating, i think it's a good feature. Just ban those people abusing
it.
back the rating, i think it's a good feature. Just ban those people abusing
it.
perhaps Favorit will
(And generic articles received a way less than those 20 votes even )
\o/
Cilwand wrote:
Darkwell wrote:
Cilwand, only Saddam Hussein had 100% of iraq people voting for him. Bring
back the rating, i think it's a good feature. Just ban those people abusing
it.
back the rating, i think it's a good feature. Just ban those people abusing
it.
perhaps Favorit will
(And generic articles received a way less than those 20 votes even )
abusable.
^o^
Darkwell wrote:
Cilwand, only Saddam Hussein had 100% of iraq people voting for him. Bring
back the rating, i think it's a good feature. Just ban those people abusing
it.
back the rating, i think it's a good feature. Just ban those people abusing
it.
I must ask, how can you "abuse" news rating? That would be like saying
someone is abusing the bc command.
The ratings are/were/will be stupid. They will never accurate. They should
never be thought of as accurate. They apparently were fun for some. I'd add
em back but it isn't my system so that's just my opinion. Maybe Favorit could
add them back and disable negative ratings as a solution
With no negative ratings, people who "bot" ratings will bot all the ratings up
by a constant amount (assuming they don't selectively bot the ratings, which
is a bad assumption). Then we can see the "best rated posts" and we won't
have a worse rated post but who needs to see that anyways?
Duke
A r c h w i z a r d
1y, 102d, 11h, 26m, 20s old
Level:
420 [Wizard] Duke wrote:
Darkwell wrote:
Cilwand, only Saddam Hussein had 100% of iraq people voting for him. Bring
back the rating, i think it's a good feature. Just ban those people abusing
it.
back the rating, i think it's a good feature. Just ban those people abusing
it.
I must ask, how can you "abuse" news rating? That would be like saying
someone is abusing the bc command.
The ratings are/were/will be stupid. They will never accurate. They should
never be thought of as accurate. They apparently were fun for some. I'd add
em back but it isn't my system so that's just my opinion. Maybe Favorit could
add them back and disable negative ratings as a solution
With no negative ratings, people who "bot" ratings will bot all the ratings up
by a constant amount (assuming they don't selectively bot the ratings, which
is a bad assumption). Then we can see the "best rated posts" and we won't
have a worse rated post but who needs to see that anyways?
Now, THAT is a post I'd like to rate 1!
Nullnullatte wrote:
Duke wrote:
Darkwell wrote:
Cilwand, only Saddam Hussein had 100% of iraq people voting for him. Bring
back the rating, i think it's a good feature. Just ban those people abusing
it.
back the rating, i think it's a good feature. Just ban those people abusing
it.
I must ask, how can you "abuse" news rating? That would be like saying
someone is abusing the bc command.
The ratings are/were/will be stupid. They will never accurate. They should
never be thought of as accurate. They apparently were fun for some. I'd add
em back but it isn't my system so that's just my opinion. Maybe Favorit could
add them back and disable negative ratings as a solution
With no negative ratings, people who "bot" ratings will bot all the ratings up
by a constant amount (assuming they don't selectively bot the ratings, which
is a bad assumption). Then we can see the "best rated posts" and we won't
have a worse rated post but who needs to see that anyways?
Now, THAT is a post I'd like to rate 1!
and its general idea if you have forgotten it already.
Duke wrote:
Darkwell wrote:
Cilwand, only Saddam Hussein had 100% of iraq people voting for him. Bring
back the rating, i think it's a good feature. Just ban those people abusing
it.
back the rating, i think it's a good feature. Just ban those people abusing
it.
I must ask, how can you "abuse" news rating? That would be like saying
someone is abusing the bc command.
The ratings are/were/will be stupid. They will never accurate. They should
never be thought of as accurate. They apparently were fun for some. I'd add
em back but it isn't my system so that's just my opinion. Maybe Favorit could
add them back and disable negative ratings as a solution
With no negative ratings, people who "bot" ratings will bot all the ratings up
by a constant amount (assuming they don't selectively bot the ratings, which
is a bad assumption). Then we can see the "best rated posts" and we won't
have a worse rated post but who needs to see that anyways?
all articles get it and it wont make any relative difference and anyway if 20
people bother to rate it just 2 abusers wont mess it totally. At least usually
it showed me what people generally think mostly went to right way.
Dracandross
Dracandross wrote:
Duke wrote:
Darkwell wrote:
Cilwand, only Saddam Hussein had 100% of iraq people voting for him. Bring
back the rating, i think it's a good feature. Just ban those people abusing
it.
back the rating, i think it's a good feature. Just ban those people abusing
it.
I must ask, how can you "abuse" news rating? That would be like saying
someone is abusing the bc command.
The ratings are/were/will be stupid. They will never accurate. They should
never be thought of as accurate. They apparently were fun for some. I'd add
em back but it isn't my system so that's just my opinion. Maybe Favorit could
add them back and disable negative ratings as a solution
With no negative ratings, people who "bot" ratings will bot all the ratings up
by a constant amount (assuming they don't selectively bot the ratings, which
is a bad assumption). Then we can see the "best rated posts" and we won't
have a worse rated post but who needs to see that anyways?
all articles get it and it wont make any relative difference and anyway if 20
people bother to rate it just 2 abusers wont mess it totally. At least usually
it showed me what people generally think mostly went to right way.
Dracandross
to check the posts worthiness of reading.
Theres no country (except Iraq was) where
voting goes 100% well. Even in Finland
Donald Duck gets each election hundreds
if not thousands votes.
Rating is little way to give everyone of us
feeling that we can affect something.
Whats bad in that?
© 1990-2025 Balanced Alternative Techniques ry. All rights reserved. BatMUD™ is a registered trademark of Balanced Alternative Techniques ry.
The individual comments are the property of their posters, and may not reflect the views or opinions of the administration.