Dansa cant u just click some off button or off icon or something?

Aaron dont kill me for making this post

nope, i can't. ben's the only one who can disable stuff like that, drop him a note. i myself don't see why he put the star rating system back into place, it's unnecessary to have. that, and it gets abused--the exact reason why it was disabled in the first place.

Rated zero stars!

What would probably work best is if everyone else just didn't mention it. It's being done to get a reaction and it's working.

And now I'm talking about it! Damn, this person's good!

rdhull said:

i won't. since it's finally been brought to the right forum

Handclapsfingasnapz said:

.
[This message was edited Sun Jan 11 11:42:50 PST 2004 by AaronAlmighty]

.
[This message was edited Sun Jan 11 12:00:41 PST 2004 by rdhull]

I don't think the stars are so bad now, seeing as ya can only vote once.

Sure, if ya have more than one ID you get more than one vote, but still...I don't think it's as bad as it was before.

please ben can we get rid of it?

I like it. But it can be improved, perhaps.
What is the big 'abuse'?

I'm curious to hear a bunch of opinions on this...

It's fine.

The abuse in mention is the fact that there is a voter out there who votes one star for EVERY thread and being as most people don't vote a big percentage of the threads remain one star threads.

I think it's funny.

ben said:

jesus

hello...mcfly

rdhull said:

my "." post on this thread is proven to be true.

ben said:

Perhaps if no stars appear until there is a minimum number of votes? That way, the one rogue can't really distort things unless he pulls together a gang (which occasionally happens, but still)...

rdhull said:

and this is the guy who's going to pick a new moderator... god save the org

AaronAlmighty said:

I know, right.

maybe the ORG moderators should be the only ones able to give stars? BWAHAHAHAHA just kidding folks just kidding.

but seriously, maybe stars should have to be earned somehow like by the number of posts?

XxAxX said:

That's what I was actually thinking...



When I first came to the org, that's how I thought it worked!

ben said:

Well for me it serves no purpose. To date I have never used the star rating to select interesting threads. I always go for title&author.

So WHY do you like it Ben? Keep in mind thread by orger X is worth reading, and gets 5 stars because of corteousy (sp?) of the friends of orger X, whereas if the same thread would have been started by orger Y, zero stars would be 'given' by the ppl who don't like orger Y.

So IMHO, if you let the star rating guide you to interesting threads you'll have to keep in mind who started the thread as well, because of the politics here on the org (and how rediculous is that).
[This message was edited Wed Jan 28 2:25:34 PST 2004 by AlfofMelmak]

I agree with AlfoMelmak, the rating system serves no purpose for me either. I choose threads based on the title, and occasionally on the author. The only time I'm ever actually aware of a thread's star rating is when someone posts something like "thank you for rating my thread 5 stars" or "which one of you bastards gave this thread zero stars", etc.

What is a star rating supposed to tell us anyway? All it actually tells us is that some orger somewhere thinks a thread is either good or bad. Which is about as useful as you all knowing what I had for breakfast.

I guess the intention is that it will give some measure of guidance as to what's worth looking at and what's not, but it clearly doesn't do this. The best guide IMO as to what's interesting is your own judgement.

well, the one star bandit seems to have disapeered... timed interestingly enough, draw your own conclusion.

rdhull said:

told ya so.

Star ratings disappear in org 3.0.

ben said:

Natsume said:

well whoever the 1-star rater was, it wasn't me. i only give 0's and 5's. anything in between isn't worth the effort of even reading, let alone rating.

sosgemini said: