Forum:The Ratings System...

Forums: Index > Village Dump > The Ratings System...

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5507 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Is a bit flawed.

1. No counting of votes.
2. Vote fraud is rather easy.
3. And there is no minimum vote stage, meaning an absolute shit page can end up with a 5-star rating.

All in all, rather useless.

I propose a new system.

It would result in a poll given out every week, with various articles listed and a voting table where people can put their rating (out of five, ten, or whatever, maybe letter grades...) and a short explanation. Then we could come up with a small, unobtrusive template for pages (that have been rated through the poll) that would have the average rating shown on it. The first part, which I feel should be dubbed:

UNCYCLOPEDIA FASHION WEEK!

This would take the top ten or twenty viewed articles and critique them, and then we take the best five or ten and put them under a listing on the front page for new users to look at, to spark interest in the wiki. If this was implemented, it'd be cool to see a site notice up for this to get users involved.

Now that I'm finished with that spewing of ideas, I can get back to spewing of another kind (hint, it's from my cock)... Colin ALL YOUR BASEHeaney! Casa Bey Superfly Portfolio 04:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 06:28, 17 Mar 2009

No. It would be nice, however, if the star thingy also showed how many people had voted, and what percentage of those think I'm sexy, want my body and, ideally, would like to let me know. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 09:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Linger ficking good--    22:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

<youtube>cgcaYz8iXNI</youtube>

The top ten and twenty articles? So search-term stalwarts such as Adolf Hitler, George Bush, AAAAAA would featured every week then? Also, the rating system is rather soft for when there is a plurarity of voters, rather than just three judges (like the Poo-Lit). Imagine if politics had the rating system "I'm going to give Labour a 7, because Gordon Brown is Scottish and they start wars, but Conservative only a 6 because Cameron is well creepy. The Lib Dems get a 3, because nobody cares about them!!!!!! BNP get a 10!!!!!". Democracy for the people, people for the nation, nation for the population. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 10:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be something like "Suggested Articles" or some such thing, so that people don't get disheveled by looking at something that would be popular and it being absolute shit. Colin ALL YOUR BASEHeaney! Casa Bey Superfly Portfolio 17:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I would once again like to request that we have some sort of "hot articles" feature like those found at Videosift, reddit, and stumbleupon. 'Twould be nice. Also, that's a whole lot of work. So nevermind.--<<>> 14:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Like anybody really even looks at the stupid ratings anyways. Just putting a template at the begining or end of an article would not stop the fraud, and just because you add the template doesn't mean people will even vote. What I'm trying to say is "Who really gives a fuck?" --206.40.108.58 14:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I second that. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 15:29, Mar 19

We already have a VFH system to highlight our best articles. We also have an informal Vote for Good Articles system to find good articles that aren't feature worthy. I would suggest that someone organize the featured articles by theme, or, highlight featured and quasi-featured articles in sectional templates.

Also, we might want to have templates that give the reader an example of a better article on the same subject, for example:

The one above is just an example. Ideally, if we decide to go with that idea, we should integrate the concept into the rewrite and maintenance tags and the like, to keep the number of templates down. Of course, I could see how linking to better articles could be abused or create drama. --Mnb'z 15:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Especially since that "better page" would inevitably be my userpage. Because I gamed the system, you see. I'm a "elite" "hacker", you know. I totally beat Angelina Jolie's high score in that videogame that one time, and I beat Penn and that Indian guy from Short Circuit too. Hacking their Gibson was easy, man. All I had to do was unite the world's "elite" "hackers". Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 18:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I can see your point about this being abused. I.e article spammers, noobs who put the template in good articles, noobs who link to bad articles, high profile articles being overly linked to et cetera. But, it might be helpful in getting casual readers to better articles. That being said, what about the more moderate step of highlighting featured/quasi featured articles in sectional templates? For example:

Sonic Characters

Amy Rose - Chaos - Cream the Rabbit - Dr. Robotnik - Dr Gerald Robotnik - Metal Sonic - Sonic the Hedgehog - Sonic the Preggo - Sonnet the Hedgehog - Tails the Straight - Shadow the Hedgehog - Minor Characters Good articles in green; articles needing improvement in orange.

(update: I also attempted to mark rewrite/fix/stub articles.)--Mnb'z 19:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I see absolutely no problem with the rating system at all. I have the worst Userpage (And you can edit it Here) on Uncyclopedia and it is ranked 1 star so the system must really be working well. Also the system knows when you already voted so you can't revote again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sawblade5 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)