FIG HUNTER
. . .

Posts relating to Features :

1
Pseudolonewolf
6 years ago

Alternatives to UFELTA

◊ Posted by A β Pseudolonewolf
Categories: Features The SiteUFELTA
I've been thinking at length about what to do with the rating system, and it might be worth giving it an overhaul.

I want to keep the general concept the same, but the actual letters could change, maybe. I mean, I thought of the UFELTA criteria fairly quickly one day and didn't really refine them very much, and now I find that they may not be the best way of rating a post's qualities.

I could do 'FLUTEGA', where 'G' is a gratitude rating as mentioned before, which basically just shows whether you thought the post was overall worthwhile or worthless. The FLUTE ratings would be a way of positively or negatively pointing out specific aspects of the post that you liked or disliked.

Or I could change the letters completely... One idea that I had was tying them to how the post made you feel, emotionally, with aspects like...

The post made you:
Smile/Frown
Laugh/Angry
Think/Bored
Appreciative/Annoyed

...for example. The problem there is that the negative emotions all seem fairly similar, and/or vague, even though they're not meant to be. There's a difference between a post that really angers you and one which you merely think is annoyingly lacking in worth.
Of course, better emotion categories could be devised that would work better than those. ('SLAT' sounds amusing though.)

If you have any ideas for what criteria posts could be judged on, which would apply more widely than the UFELTA ones, suggesting letters would be appreciated! Not as additional ones to what we have now, but entirely new sets of them.
9 Comments
1
Pseudolonewolf
6 years ago

UFELTA's U rating

◊ Posted by A β Pseudolonewolf
Categories: Features The SiteUFELTA
I'm going to be updating this blog regularly, perhaps multiple times per day, making short posts on single thoughts rather than lengthy reports at the end of a week, so once a new post is added, it doesn't necessarily 'replace' the ones before it.

As such, it might be prudent to check the Blog page, and look at all the recent posts, to see if you miss any, or something.

Anyway, I've been noticing that the UFELTA system has mainly been used so far to give U ratings, many of which seem unnecessary to me, or 'undeserved'.

I mean, even if a post is lengthy and says a lot, that doesn't make it *useful* if all it does is express an opinion, such as how someone feels about the new site, in the case of recent comments.

'Useful' is meant to mean pragmatic usefulness, such as answering a question, solving a problem, or giving you some knowledge that you didn't have before. It could also be for reporting bugs; I'd rate posts as U+, for example, if they reported a bug in detail such that I was able to locate and fix it.

I myself have given U- ratings so far to posts that say essentially nothing, that seem like they were posted only for the sake of posting, but I wonder whether instead they could just be 'thoughtless'? I suppose this system will take some getting used to for us all.

I've been thinking that perhaps there could be an extra letter added, which basically means 'thanks', or 'I appreciate this post'? Basically a like/dislike button, which it seems at least some people are seeing the A rating as now, when it isn't.
"Agreeing" with a post isn't the same as liking it; the A rating was mainly added for the sake of arguments and debates to see how many are on each 'side' or something.

T for 'thanks' is already used for 'thought-provoking', so maybe G for 'gratitude' could be used?
This leads to ugly words though... I need for A, and perhaps G to be isolated from the rest at the end (would these G ratings count towards the orb or not?), meaning that things like 'UFELTAG' or 'UFELTGA' may be the only options... Or 'FLUTEGA', something like that?

Anyway, I'll need to think about it some more. Adding an extra letter won't be a trivial exercise.
11 Comments
2
Pseudolonewolf
6 years ago

About Blurbs...

◊ Posted by A β Pseudolonewolf
Categories: The SiteFeatures Blurbs
Blurbs allow you to 'review' people anonymously, but they've already been seeing abuse, it seems.
Some of them are obviously not written seriously, as if the writer thought that they could get away with essentially breaking rules due to the anonymity of the feature.

This doesn't work though, because as the Blurbs tab on userpages says, the author is stored, even if it's not displayed, meaning that I can look in the database to find out who wrote a certain blurb, and punish them if need be.

Normally I wouldn't WANT to see who wrote blurbs, especially on my own profile, but I would see the need to look up that information if there was rule-breaking or trolling going on.

So keep this in mind, and write good and serious blurbs that reflect your genuine feelings, rather than inane meme-filled rubbish that just wastes space and says nothing.
15 Comments