Blog Post

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.

on 4 Roots



Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
I thought your description for what a "useful" post is supposed to be is pretty clear. I'm suprised at the misuse. I did get a couple of "useful" ratings for my comment in the poll, which suprised me because I thought they were a bit underserved, but I'm assuming it was because I drew people's attention to the fact that we can edit comments, which I guess some people didn't know. I mean, whether you find a post useful really is a personal thing that's based on your specific knowledge that you had before you read the comment.

On the comments for the "blurbs", one poster wrote "This was a serious help on Blurbs, Pseudo. Thanks for the help.". Which seems fair enough, but the post has been downrated fairly heavily for "Useless, lacks substance, too short or is spam" and "Written without thought, or irritatingly stupid".

That seems a little harsh to me. Is this working as intended? It was just supposed to be a message of appreciation, and all he wanted to do was to just say that he found that blog post beneficial. Perhaps a 'like' or 'dislike' on the blog post would have given him a way to show his opinion without being downrated for it.

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Well, the issue you mentioned reminded me of some idea Pseudo mentioned long time before (as one of possible features in the new site). Generally, user would be able to determine if they wants their post rated or not (from "Please, don't rate it, it's just a loose conversation!" to "I put a big effort in writing this post, so you won't ignore it and leave without rating, will you?"). Here's the blog post for the reference: ∞ Fig Hunter ∞

Since some people there mentioned in comments that this could be used for trolls to get away with their poor posts, I'd like to clarify that it *isn't* true. As Pseudo stated in the aforelinked blog post, choosing if post is supposed to be rated or not wouldn't physically disable ratings for it; it's just an information for other users and it's up to them if they choose to rate it or not (although if they rate a "Please-don't-rate" post without good reason, they might come out as mean or overly serious or so).
The biggest thing which bothers me is that I don't really know where a hypothetical dropdown with ratings options would be. Maybe under this big Post button or so? O.o

You could also add a "G" button you mentioned in this post, so that people can show their gratitude through a simple button, but I guess that it may make things a bit messy. Or maybe it's just the fact that I already got used to UFELTA acronym and now adding one more letter seems just ugly for me? ^^'
*EDIT:* after reading Drostie's post about replacing UFELTA with ELFIA and Pseudo's reponse to Zaknafein where he was explaining what this G would be for, I started wondering about combining ELFIA and G criteria, especially since the G would actually serve purpose (3). I've came up with a few names, from which I like the most AGILEF and AG FILE or FILE AG. Any more ideas? ^^'

On another note: I quite agree with Sinapi that blurbs would reflect the person's popularity at the site much better than their posts rating; the main problem would be the fact that people could be too lazy to write blurbs, but maybe it's actually an advantage? After all, person would need to take an effort to give such a good impression that other people want to write positive blurbs on their userpage. I'm not sure about this particular one, but I think that basing personal orb on blurbs rather than posts is worth considering. Or maybe a combination of those two? O.o

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
I'm not sure whether I'll do that thing where people can choose whether to mark their post as 'please rate me!' or 'don't rate me!' or whetever, largely due to lack of room, really... I may have to think about it further.

I'm growing fond of the word 'FLUTEGA' for the rating system, if I add the G... I'd want the G to be sort of like the 'main rating' for a post, basically whether or not you like it as a whole, while the FLUTE bit would be for specific ratings and the A is for whether or not you 'side with' or support it in arguments or with suggestions.
I want the G and A separate from the rest for that reason, and FLUTE forms a nice real word. Ideally I'd like the G at the start, but that results in uglier words, I think.

I am thinking further about what I could do for a personal rating system thing. Perhaps I can simply let everyone choose a colour out of the spectrum to rate people as? But that'd just be like before, so hmm... I suppose this all requires more thought.

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
I'd say a post like that is a bit pointless, but I personally would have left it alone rather than downrating it... It doesn't really say anything that couldn't be said with a rating though; it just takes up space.
So I wouldn't exactly say that the people who did downrate it were abusing the system, but nor would I condone their ratings.

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Sinapi 25 Netherlands MelancholicCholeric INFJ 78C
My comment pertains less to the operation of the UFELTA rating system, and more to a thought I had about the overall rating system which determines a user's orb colour and at-a-glance reputation.
Thus far, there has been at least one case of a long-time user with a good reputation on the old site having his/her chances at a positive orb colour marred by a poor choice of words, misunderstanding of sarcasm, or otherwise - the phenomena confirms my earlier worries that this could happen. On the old FigHunter site, a user's orb colour was largely determined by the rating which another user could give them on their profile. While I see some good in the absence of this feature (for example, a user cannot just enter chat, make a hasty judgment on another user and then apply it immediately; a user's reputation is actually determined by the worth of their words), I am concerned about it because:

◊ User A's opinion of User B may not be reflected accurately because they only have the UFELTA rating system and posts to rate User B on
◊ User A has no way to apply their general opinion of User B without changing their UFELTA ratings of User B's posts
◊ This may provoke User A to try to change their UFELTA rating of one or more of User B's posts/comments, resulting in an inaccurate display of the worth of the post/comment, and an inaccurate display of User B's ability to make a worthwhile comment as a whole

I *do* prefer the new UFELTA rating system over the orb colour rating system for comments/posts - the system is much more specific to why a comment/post has received a negative, positive, or neutral rating from the audience. However, I feel that the orb ratings of a user on this new site would be more accurate to the community's true opinion of the user if there were some way to make a direct rating on a user.

My proposed solution to this: the blurbs. I feel that the blurbs could make a perfect direct rating system because:

◊ A user ends up having to give some reason for the negative, positive, or neutral comment
◊ These cannot be spammed to buff or cripple a user's rating any easier than a user can get away with making multiple accounts because User A can only write one blurb per User B
◊ Hardly a user (if any) gets away with making an alternate account(s) without you noticing, this is helpful because...
◊ You can see who writes the anonymous blurbs, which would aid in keeping the blurb ratings legitimate (i.e. no "ur so cool and i like u and u doesn't afraid of anything" blurbs for the sake of chalking up another negative/positive/neutral rating, if you were to implement an ability for you to remove such posts), and more importantly, detecting those written with alternate accounts

Although the blurbs system is fairly black-and-white, I believe that if it were implemented as a contribution to a user's orb rating (and balanced in a manner which keeps it from dominating the UFELTA rating system for comments/posts), it could become a helpful and fair means of not wrecking a user's reputation early on because of a couple bad comments/posts. This is, of course, assuming that we're all reasonable enough people here to not abuse the blurb rating system if such a system were implemented.

And, thanks for your time reading this. I apologise for the headache - go crack open a cold one to take the edge off, you deserve it.

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Drostie 32 Netherlands SanguineMelancholic ENTP 21C
I can in general agree with this idea. Old Fig Hunter had a system of this form on the old site ('Like/Hate/Meh') and it was pretty much utterly neglected by the time when I joined. Perhaps the associated blurb-text will help to change these dynamics, because there aren't really 'comments' any more -- but it will also be nice to give those blurbs a mechanical role in everyday life on this site.

As for Usefulness, I think we should just drop it. I think we need to come up with a clear reason why these ratings exist in the first place. I think they serve three purposes: (1) personal feedback -- "what am I doing wrong?"; (2) social feedback -- "what do people think of this guy?"; (3) catharsis -- "you rock!" / "you suck!".

The blog post laments that people are using Usefulness to directly express (3), when that is intended (I suppose) to be the purpose of Agree -- that is the reason why A is not afforded rankings. Agree should therefore be changed to an "Awesome/Awful" rating, to explicitly make it serve purpose (3).

Since Useful is not designed to serve purpose (3) and it cannot do a good job serving purposes (1) or (2) [i.e. the knowledge "people don't find me useful" doesn't actually tell you anything about why they don't, and what needs work], Useful should just be dropped. We should perhaps also drop the pretense that we exist to do something useful. This is an entertainment-based site, after all, and entertainment is the whole usefulness of the site. Usefulness is mostly contained within "E", then, and the aspects which aren't are contained within "T" which should really be "I" (Interesting/Insightful).

All bow down before ELFIA. Or whatever it becomes.

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
As the About page explains, the A rating is meant for things like debates and arguments, or even suggestions, to express support for a certain 'side' or idea, basically just to see 'who's winning' in an argument, or to show me which suggestions to pay attention to, or things like that. It is NOT meant as a like/dislike rating. This is why it doesn't count towards the total, since it says nothing about the quality of the post as such.

The About page also explains that the U rating is used for posts that directly help someone out. Like, say, there could be a forum thread asking for assistance with a programming issue, to which someone provides the solution; that's a Useful post because it pragmatically solves a problem. I also appreciate people locating bugs for me; that is Useful. These things are not Entertaining, though.

The About page also explains how not every post is meant to try to get positives in every criteria; instead, a person's balance of ratings received should show the types of posts that they make, or something. Are they a teacher? An entertainer? Things like that.

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
I don't know if I want to use blurbs for this purpose as such, but I am considering having the orb determined by some kind of personal ratings instead, or something. I don't know.

The reason I'd not want to use blurbs is because they are anonymous... but maybe that would lead to less 'revenge rating' and so on?

I think that the whole system needs rethinking in a lot of ways though, so I'll have to think about this.

Also, I am a teetotaller.

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Zaknafein 23 United States CholericPhlegmatic INTP 9w1 56C
Hmm. In my opinion, adding another letter isn't really needed. While it's true that it'd probably make the system more clear cut, I think that, overall, how you rate a post shows whether you appreciate it or not. If you rate a post as thought-provoking, friendly, or entertaining, odds are that you've already signaled to the poster that you're glad they posted it, and vice versa. Slapping on another button after you've already developed an entire system and made it functional and everything seems unnecessary, unless you really think that the posters need to demonstrate their gratitude for a post explicitly. If that's the case, I wish you luck with devising a new acronym. Perhaps... GLUFETA? GUFELTA? Eesh. I hope you come up with something.

Oh, and, out of curiosity, where does the Signature show up? I can't seem to see it on my posts...

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
The reason that I wanted to add a new criteria is because I keep seeing posts that I want to express my appreciation for, but none of the other six criteria fit, so I don't rate them at all. A 'G' rating might become the basic 'like/hate' thing while the other six would be more specific things that you wanted to congratulate the post for.

Signatures are not used; I'm thinking of just removing that from the Settings thing rather than adding them in comments, though.
Friendly Fox

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Friendly Fox 20 Brazil PhlegmaticCholeric ENFP 9w8 15C
Maybe "GEFLUTA"? Then both the G and the A letter would be separated, even from each other. But hmm... Yes, I think a gratitude rating would be good, since useful and agreement are both different from it. And... I'm just asking, but are you still planning on creating that thing you use to ask for or reject ratings? Though it probably won't be necessary, since 'greetings' and things like that aren't to be done in comments, I bet. One could send a message to the person he'd be greeting. Or if it's a general greeting... That's what the Introduction forum is for, isn't it?