I just saw a thread where the OP's post was rated by someone as "Awful" (based on losing about .67 for a single Awful rating), and I felt that it was a "troll" rating so I decided to rate them as "Excellent". Their average rating is 3.03 and the Awful rating put the post at 2.35 but after I rated it as Excellent the rating jumped to 3.26 instead of what I thought it would be (3.03ish).
Based on this, I don't think "Awful" ratings and "Excellent" ratings are given the same weight, and I'm wondering why this is. I've heard it takes 7 "Awful" ratings for a post to become "sub-default" (assuming the rating starts at 3.0), but I'm thinking it takes less "Excellent" ratings for a post to hit 5.0. So I am wondering what is the formula used in averaging the rating of a post.
I also just noticed that the average rating seems off as well. After using my post history I added up the ratings of all my posts and averaged them only to find that the average is about .2 lower than my actual average. So perhaps could an admin reveal both formulas or figure out why it is like this? Thanks.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- Site and Forum Feedback
- Are rate-downs / rate-ups worth the same?
Are rate-downs / rate-ups worth the same?Follow
awful = 1
excellent = 6
excellent = 6
Do what now?
it takes the average of all rates too. So any given post starts with the 2 rates you automatically rate yourself whenever you post. So if your default rating was a 3.03 and you had 1 awful and one excellent rate, it would look like this:
3.03
3.03
1.00
+ 6.00
-------
13.06 / 4 = 3.265 = rounded to 3.26 by the system
3.03
3.03
1.00
+ 6.00
-------
13.06 / 4 = 3.265 = rounded to 3.26 by the system
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Thanks to both of you for clarifying that. I thought Excellent was worth 5 but now it makes sense with 6, and the double auto-rating I would have never guessed. :)
yep, on non-forum pages it's a single self-rating, but on forums we made it 2 because otherwise it would be way too easy to put things below default.
Do what now?
While the topic is abreast, I'd like to ask about another element of the system.
There have been occasions when I read a good post which had already ben rated up, and i wanted to contribute my own bump to the score, but my opinion of the post was that it was "good", but not excellent.
I assumed that giving it a "good" rating would increase its current score marginally, but not as much as giving it an "excellent" rating would.
To give an example (with numbers pulled out of a hat, absolutely inaccurate), let's say the post had a score of 4.02.
I rated it "good", hoping it would bump the score up to, say, 4.10, rather than rating it as "excellent" which I assumed would bump the score up to, lets say, 4.50.
However, my "good" rating actually lowered the post's score (it went down, let's say, to 3.98) rather than increasing it.
Is this because my "good" rating is averaged into (rather than added on top of) the posts ratings, and thus pulled the overall score of that specific post down a little?
Edited, Thu Feb 17 13:40:24 2005 by Tenmiles
There have been occasions when I read a good post which had already ben rated up, and i wanted to contribute my own bump to the score, but my opinion of the post was that it was "good", but not excellent.
I assumed that giving it a "good" rating would increase its current score marginally, but not as much as giving it an "excellent" rating would.
To give an example (with numbers pulled out of a hat, absolutely inaccurate), let's say the post had a score of 4.02.
I rated it "good", hoping it would bump the score up to, say, 4.10, rather than rating it as "excellent" which I assumed would bump the score up to, lets say, 4.50.
However, my "good" rating actually lowered the post's score (it went down, let's say, to 3.98) rather than increasing it.
Is this because my "good" rating is averaged into (rather than added on top of) the posts ratings, and thus pulled the overall score of that specific post down a little?
Edited, Thu Feb 17 13:40:24 2005 by Tenmiles
Each tier of the ratings scale has a value attached to it (you can see these from your journal, since all ratings in your journal are visible to you, but for any non-premium members who're reading this topic I'll list them.)
Nuke (-50)
Bury this post (-5)
Awful (1)
Default (2)
Decent (3)
Good (4)
Excellent (6)
Whenever someone posts, they start off with two ratings at their current base karma (as Kao explained). So, like, when I make this post it will have two ratings at 4.09 already since that's my base karma. This is what it would look like if you were an admin and could see the ratings right now:
Saboruto: 4.09
Saboruto: 4.09
Since the scores are averaged together to form the post's current karma, it's 4.09 because 4.09 + 4.09 / 2 = 4.09. Now, suppose you come along and decide that my post is "good" but not "excellent" and you rate it such.
Saboruto: 4.09
Saboruto: 4.09
Tenmiles: 4.00
When you add those together and divide by three, you get the post's new score, 4.06. Even though you gave me a "good", it lowered the post's overall score because your "good" rating brought the avarage down. Hope that explains it. =)
Edited, Fri Feb 18 03:58:41 2005 by Saboruto
Nuke (-50)
Bury this post (-5)
Awful (1)
Default (2)
Decent (3)
Good (4)
Excellent (6)
Whenever someone posts, they start off with two ratings at their current base karma (as Kao explained). So, like, when I make this post it will have two ratings at 4.09 already since that's my base karma. This is what it would look like if you were an admin and could see the ratings right now:
Saboruto: 4.09
Saboruto: 4.09
Since the scores are averaged together to form the post's current karma, it's 4.09 because 4.09 + 4.09 / 2 = 4.09. Now, suppose you come along and decide that my post is "good" but not "excellent" and you rate it such.
Saboruto: 4.09
Saboruto: 4.09
Tenmiles: 4.00
When you add those together and divide by three, you get the post's new score, 4.06. Even though you gave me a "good", it lowered the post's overall score because your "good" rating brought the avarage down. Hope that explains it. =)
Edited, Fri Feb 18 03:58:41 2005 by Saboruto
Okay, that's sort of what I'd figured. (Thank you)
It just dismayed me when I saw it happen, because I felt that the post was good (in the general sense, not the mathematical one), and didn't want to see its score go down.
Since noticing this some time ago, I have started to simply use the "Excellent" rating when rating up something that has already been rated up by others.
I have also, however, used somewhat more stringent standards (usually) for deciding to rate a post as excellent.
Edited, Fri Feb 18 04:05:11 2005 by Tenmiles
It just dismayed me when I saw it happen, because I felt that the post was good (in the general sense, not the mathematical one), and didn't want to see its score go down.
Since noticing this some time ago, I have started to simply use the "Excellent" rating when rating up something that has already been rated up by others.
I have also, however, used somewhat more stringent standards (usually) for deciding to rate a post as excellent.
Edited, Fri Feb 18 04:05:11 2005 by Tenmiles
Basically if you want to reward a good post you should rate it above what the current karma is, or you will actually pull the karma down.
This is an issue with people whose base Karma is above 4.00.
If they get posted as "Good" (which you'd think would be a reward) it is actually pulling their karma down.
For some reason I never knew that excellent was a 6. I always thought it was 5.
This is an issue with people whose base Karma is above 4.00.
If they get posted as "Good" (which you'd think would be a reward) it is actually pulling their karma down.
For some reason I never knew that excellent was a 6. I always thought it was 5.
Keep in mind, there are two places the ratings are used. Thread karma, and your overall karma. So let's say you had a thread that had been rated up to 4.09, but the person who posted it only had a base karma of 3.00. your 4.0 good rating would pull the thread down a little bit, but it would increase their base karma rating over 3.0.
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Quote:
let's say you had a thread that had been rated up to 4.09, but the person who posted it only had a base karma of 3.00. your 4.0 good rating would pull the thread down a little bit, but it would increase their base karma rating over 3.0.
Hmmm... ah right, of course (I hadn't thought of that)... I do remember being told that even rating up a post already at 5.00 would still add to the user's overall average.
Thanks for the answers, by the way.
Quote:
Keep in mind, there are two places the ratings are used. Thread karma, and your overall karma. So let's say you had a thread that had been rated up to 4.09, but the person who posted it only had a base karma of 3.00. your 4.0 good rating would pull the thread down a little bit, but it would increase their base karma rating over 3.0.
Oh, and that must be why rating a post that's 5.00 still increases overall karma...learn a new thing everyday^^
Recent Visitors: 52
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (52)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- Site and Forum Feedback
- Are rate-downs / rate-ups worth the same?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC