We learned a lot from testing the new rating system, but we don't think it's ready for prime time.

[Skinner]

Two days ago we unveiled an update to our recommend/rating system. Overall, the response to the change was quite positive -- much more positive than we expected. Most people seemed to be using the system responsibly, and the ratings seemed fair and relatively accurate. I think this test demonstrated that there is value in giving our members a more comprehensive rating function than what we had.

But we do not feel that the new rating system, as we designed it, turned out to be a good fit for DU. So we have decided to go back to the drawing board. We are going to temporarily return to the old "recommend" system that we had before, and stick with it until November or so. We think that unveiling any new upgrades before election day would be too distracting to this community.


So, what good came from this exercise?

We learned that the vast majority of DUers can be trusted to use a comprehensive rating system in a responsible manner. The DU admins felt that most of the ratings were justified and relevant to the content of the discussion threads to which they were assigned.

Even though there was some resistance to the idea of negative ratings, in practice they did add value to the site. I think they acted as a sort-of "pressure valve," so the community could express their disapproval without having to resort to flaming. (Having that option might even create a situation where the moderators do not feel the need to lock as many threads as they do now.) And I think they made it significantly less likely that highly extreme or divisive posts received high ratings. With this in mind, I think it is likely that any future change to the rating system will include the ability to rate threads down somehow, perhaps by letting people "unrecommend" when recommendations have already been given.


And what were some problems?

I think that the system we created was just a little bit too cute. Color-coding, distracting graphics, words assigned to each rating level -- it was unnecessary, and off-putting. Plus, it made the system seem more complicated than it actually was.

It is completely unnecessary (and even pointless) to give people five options to choose from when rating a discussion thread, because everyone just gravitates to the highest and lowest options. Having additional options made rating threads more confusing. I think we really only need two options: one positive and one negative.

The Greatest Page was significantly less useful, or at least it felt less useful. The fact that there was so little stratification among the highly-rated threads made it hard to pick what was supposed to be the "best." Ironically, the "problem" (if you can call it that) was apparently that we actually do have lots and lots of really great threads here on DU. But seeing them all given precisely the same rating of "5" felt deeply unsatisfying to me, and made the greatest page seem unreliable. I felt like I needed to hunt around to try to decipher which item was the "real" greatest thread. Also, removing the column in which the greatest threads were sorted by time was a mistake that made the page less useful.


So, we're taking down the new, improved rating system, and going back to the old tried-and-true "recommend" function. The old recommend function is not perfect by any means. There are many things about it that I do not like. But it is what we know, and we have already become tolerant of it's shortcomings. It should be sufficient to get us through election day, when Barack Obama is elected the 44th president of the United States.

Thank you for your patience and understanding as we try new things and work to improve this great community.

Skinner
DU Administrator

[ClassWarrior]

1. Thanks Skinner. It seemed random and subjective, and I just avoided it.

NGU.

[girl gone mad]

2. Glad that you guys are trying new things..

but I'm really happy that DU will return to "normal" for now.

[shadowknows69]

3. I guess I missed all the threads saying it was a positive change

But being that my virtual DU life is in your hands I'll take your word for it.

[madmax]

4. You still da man, Skinner

:hug: :bounce: :woohoo: :yourock: :applause:

[gateley]

5. One thing I REALLY liked, Skinner, was being able to tell from the

thread whether I had already recommended or not. Right there on the same page! No more "stop trying to stack the votes, gateley, you've already had your say" messages.

Hope that can be incorporated into the next New! Improved! incarnation.

Thanks for all you guys have done -- looking forward to see what you'll unveil next!

[Skinner]

11. That is a feature that you'll probably see again sometime. (nt)

[tavalon]

91. Excellent!

I loved that part of the feature!

[Eurobabe]

146. Error: You've already recommended that thread

:rofl:

[MattBaggins]

6. You forgot a few

1. It helps to promote High School clique mentality of who is cooler.

2. Too easy to game.

3. Just asking Freekers to come over and help out with number 2.

[question everything]

137. Exactly my reaction

Already we have an environment here that certain DUers will always get to the "greatest page" even if all they say is whoof. This system just generated more cliques. On the other hand, there are many thoughtful posts by people in the lower rung that sink quickly.

And.. we are told that we are not supposed to "call out" another DUer, yet the negative "recommendations" did just that. Of course, I have the same opinion about the ignore function. No one reads all the threads and no one has to comment on each post read. I don't know why people cannot just leave a post they don't like alone. I have seen threads where someone is just obnoxious that others ask him why he even bother to post.

If one has nothing positive or negative to contribute to the subject matter, one should just move on.

[Regret My New Name]

139. That happens here?

I never noticed it here on this site... I mean, at least it doesn't seem as noticeable as at other sites I go to. Maybe it's because I don't spend as much time and there are far more people to keep track of that at other sites.... Or maybe I just because I don't reall pay attention to the recommendations.

[question everything]

176. Oh yes. We are the mirror image of the right wingers

For many years we used to look down on them is living in a black and white world, no shades of gray, no nuances. Like Bush they follow the "you are either with us or against us."

Sadly, the same happens here. Too often. If you are trying to post a thoughtful idea and you are not one of the "chosen," you will barely get one or two comments and it will quickly sink to the next pages. Worse, if you have "lower posts count" you will really be derided.

I have to console myself that people hide behind the anonymity of the Internet, where they can shout, and hurl insults and curses at complete strangers, that this happens everywhere.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

152. yes, I thought so, too

I like the idea of getting rid of "average" and "skip it" categories but keeping the 2 positives.

[Zuiderelle]

7. It was a nice idea. But I think a good decision to take it down and rehaul it.

[rug]

8. Just don't replace it with smileys.

[RedEarth]

9. Thanks Skinner

too many good posts never made it to greatest page.

[pleah]

10. I think the option of being able to unrecommend would be good.

I kind of like the multiple choice on rating, but I liked the single rating system, too.

[Boojatta]

21. How about a personal maximum number of unrecommends equal to...

half the number of recommends that you have made so far on a given day?

For example, if I have already recommended six threads today, then I can unrecommend at most three threads until I do some more positive recommending.

[pleah]

27. Why make it more complicated than it needs to be?

[moodforaday]

112. It needs to be hard

otherwise you could see valuable posts massively voted down by vindictive readers and/or freepers.

[moodforaday]

111. Interesting. That, or even

a harder way: you get one unrecommend for every recommend your own posts have received. Decrementing, i.e. you'd have to earn recommends to be able to flag posts down.

[Boojatta]

126. That's more interesting than my idea.

In a sense, one would have an unlimited supply of opportunities to recommend, but one would have to earn every opportunity to unrecommend.

[Quantess]

132. But that's a moot point for people who hardly ever start a thread.

Like myself, who hardly ever starts a thread. That would give a person like me unlimited ammo :evilgrin:

[Regret My New Name]

141. Or make it half recs given in a day plus the current day of the year divided by the day of the month

plus 42 divided by the number of dwarfs in snow white times the current price of gasoline minus 42 plus 42 times the change in the dow joans from the previous day divided by zero.




I think that would work well, no?

[trthnd4jstc]

40. I think the unrecommended idea is interesting also. n/t

[moodforaday]

110. Not good on DU

As other have noted, as soon as you have the ability to vote a thread down, you're inviting freepers/detractors to register just for the purpose of sinking important information. That problem simply does not exist if all you can do is vote posts up.

Up/down voting might work on a technical forum (though might - people get highly emotional about their cars and computers too), but I think it would only create problems for DU.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

153. Agreed. -nt

[pleah]

157. I hadn't considered that. I think , at this point, that people need

to be more careful what they recommend.

Good point, thanks.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. Averaging out caused problems - controversial threads and mediocre ones were indistinguishable.

Some way of telling threads that got lots of 5s and 1s from threads that got lots of 3s might be good.

[Junkdrawer]

13. People like more information, not less.

Change the Recs column to a Vote/Average column.

If I see 28/4.5, that tells me more than a big blue "Must Read" and more than 28 recs.

[Vincardog]

34. I am with Junk on this one. Why not show the 5 Counts? if it is 10,0,0,0,10 that says more than avg

[Buns_of_Fire]

14. It deserves an "A+" for effort!

Even a negative result is a worthwhile learning experience. Regardless of the outcome, I think you guys STILL did good!:thumbsup:

[depakid]

15. It was a worthy effort- but ultimately I agree with the assessment

A simple recommendation count- while flawed for obvious reasons, worked better and was less distracting than the new system.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

16. All you needed was a clear four point system-

1. -Good

2. -Doubleplus Good

3. -Ungood

4. -Doubleplus Ungood

It would work, I tell ya! :evilgrin:

[rucky]

17. Another thing I noticed about "Average" threads

seem to be pretty interesting. They tend to have animated discussion and differences of opinion, so people rate them up and down. While the flame-y ones seem to be rated accurately, because most folks rate them down.

So the ones that get alot of up/down ratings, with little net gain/loss, may deserve a special label: "interesting"? "hot topic"? or something like that.

[Mimosa]

18. Worth a try, just to see what members think

Darn, I missed it!

I was redesigning my own forum. ~LOL~ And members said, 'no, no, no.' I think we all want a big change NOW! It's the longing for better days, better things ahead which we all desire.

[peace13]

19. Thanks.

Good decision. Peace, kim

[TexasObserver]

20. As you said, allowing some form of negative rating helps sate the need to post a negative comment.

That's what I liked most about it. When a thread title is misleading, I want the option of saying it is either Disruptive or should be Skipped. If I have that option, I'm less likely to register my negative assessment on the thread.

[Name removed]

178. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MelissaB]

22. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you for bringing the "greatest" back.

:applause:

[ElboRuum]

23. I actually disagree that it should be taken down.

Probably because I disagree with the dings.

I think that the system we created was just a little bit too cute.

Funny, I thought it looked pretty professional.

It is completely unnecessary (and even pointless) to give people five options to choose from when rating a discussion thread, because everyone just gravitates to the highest and lowest options.

My biggest point of contention. Firstly, I was to understand that your average DUer was a little more nuanced than just yes/no/don't care, and I don't think I'm wrong in saying that with some assuredness. Secondly, there is a big difference between a ho-hum Average post, a rankling Skip-It post and an "I see a tombstone in your future" Disruptive post. After playing around with the rating system, my first inclination is NOT to just go for the top and bottom but to actually nuance the rating it's given. YMMV.

Additionally, I found myself more inclined to rate the posts I was reading if I was given a choice as to how it was rated rather than simply recommending.

The Greatest Page was significantly less useful, or at least it felt less useful. The fact that there was so little stratification among the highly-rated threads made it hard to pick what was supposed to be the "best." Ironically, the "problem" (if you can call it that) was apparently that we actually do have lots and lots of really great threads here on DU. But seeing them all given precisely the same rating of "5" felt deeply unsatisfying to me, and made the greatest page seem unreliable. I felt like I needed to hunt around to try to decipher which item was the "real" greatest thread. Also, removing the column in which the greatest threads were sorted by time was a mistake that made the page less useful.

OK, there IS a case to be made here. But I think I have a pretty easy fix for it. If the "greatest" is based on the average rating, simply factoring in the number of ratings should be sufficient to break ties. For example, give Must Reads a value of 1, and Recommends a value of .5 and add them up. If two posts are rated the same, then look to the number of recs to decide how they should be collated. If post #1 has 10 Must Read recs and 2 Recommend recs, and post #2 has 100 and 20 Recommend recs, post #2 is "more greatest" by sheer volume and goes first on the listing. And you could continue to use the number of recs as a determinant as to which "star bin" it goes in.

There's a ton of ways to do this, but I think this problem can be worked satisfactorily.

Anyway, there's my $1.05 (real $0.02 calculated to take inflation into account).

[ColbertWatcher]

24. Maybe "Skip It" could be changed to "move to another forum"?

And then reset the "rating" after the move? The ones that may rank as "Skip it" in GD might be a blast in the Lounge. Maybe "Skip it" could be "Silly" or "Fun"?

I think "Must Read" is a good rating because it's self-explanatory as is "Disruptive".

"Recommend" is okay too, and can be used like the old "rec" was used.

Some of the more interesting OPs start as a "did you see this!" or "awesome opinion by such-and-such writer" article from a news source. Another good source for interesting OPs is a DUer's well-thought-out investigation. Those would rate as "Must Read" or "Recommend". However, the conversation in the replies are not very interesting, because they are mostly reinforcements of the idea that yes, this is interesting, or I agree.

Which is why I say "Average" says nothing and is a waste of a rating. Maybe it can be changed to something to define not the OP necessarily, but the responses. Sometimes the most innocuous OP inspires a great conversation in the replies. The first few people who read the OP declare it "Average" but, hours later a great conversation has been going on and the "Average" rating does the thread no justice.

I would also suggest that later (much, much later) DU implement a way for the OP to somehow "label" their own post based on content using radio buttons. It might even help the search function, which doesn't work very well. This can help avoid threads with sensational subject lines getting more attention than others.

[Arugula Latte]

25. Here's a suggestion, for what it's worth:

How about giving threads a little color-coded symbol right in the thread (right-hand column?) if they get above a certain amount of recs? Let's say if a thread gets 20 or more recs it gets a star of a certain color. Then, maybe if it hits 40 recs it gets star of a different color, and again for 60. (Or maybe just keep added stars so it's clearer -- one star for 20 recs, two for 40, etc.). I dunno...Just thinking out loud. It would make the highly recommended threads "pop" more while you're actually in the discussion forum.

[DeepModem Mom]

26. Thank you! nt

[Mind_your_head]

28. Thank you for always working to improve DU

but, especially thanking you for putting it back to the way it was (for now at least)! :thumbsup:

[pleah]

29. A small request on the old rating system.

Could you please remove the go back page? With the new system, you didn't have to go through that step. It would be great if you could remove that step.

[yardwork]

30. I agree with your summation of the benefits and negatives.

I liked being able to rate some threads down, but I missed the numeric system for rating up really good threads. I agree that it's best to have just two ratings - one positive and one negative.

Thank you for continually working to improve DU! It's great to see these trial runs.

[rubberducky]

31. Thank, thank you, thank you!!

[stewert]

32. Just Use Views

Write a script that keeps the threads with the most views at the top of the page. Then the threads that have the most views stay near the top. The threads that get the most views are clearly the most important to the DU members, right?

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. You can already sort by number of replies

and the number of views mainly varies as a function of replies - through people looking at the new replies, and checking for replies to their own posts, and so on. Not something I want to do, but if you do yourself (do I detect a hint of sarcasm in your last sentence?), it's more or less available already.

[lpbk2713]

33. You never really know until you try it out.

Thanks for trying.

[Gregorian]

36. DU is already by far the most user friendly website on the internet.

I complained. But even I was getting used to the system.

One thing I noticed was that people read threads but didn't rate. So that's an interesting part of things.

[wildbilln864]

37. My two cents: I liked it. nt

[jannyk]

38. Thank you for admitting it wasn't such an 'improvement' for all the reasons you

stated.

Personally, I didn't like it at all - but I really understand and appreciate, the effort that went into it.

[Stinky The Clown]

39. "If you never fail, you aren't trying to be better"

Go Skinner!

:thumbsup:

[ellie]

41. I liked it

I thought it was hilarious and allowed me to avoid threads that were worthless. A real time-saver.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

42. Once the ratings were moved to the left I had no problem with it but it IMHO would be a nightmare to

anyone with OCD!

[KoKo]

86. They were on the "Left" before. I think you meant when they were moved "Right?"

was it was okay with you, as it was with me although it was still disruptive visually?

On the LEFT was a DISASTER...I could live with on the RIGHT...except for that GLARING BRIGHT BLUE!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

94. My goof! I have a form of dyslexia confusing my right from my left!

[mhatrw]

43. Kudos. Troll rating sucks.

[TheWraith]

44. I think a lot of people would be happy with just the ability to vote threads up or down.

A "De-recommend" feature would let us flag stupid threads and get them off the Greatest page.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

45. I know you guys are probably overwhelmed with feedback, but...

...my $.02, for what it's worth:

My experience with the "Must Read" threads today was that by and large they were the worst offenders in reinforcing the "echo chamber" aspect of DU which I dislike. Honestly, I'm more apt to rate an intelligently written post that I disagree with violently as "Must Read" than anything else. Another "eighteen reasons why Bush is a knobhead" thread is not really likely to generate much useful discussion, much as we might all agree with it.

Having been through many such experiments on various different message boards over the years, I think the only place where I've actually seen such a system come vaguely close to working is on Slashdot (I hate to big-up Slashdot, but their system actually *does* come close to working.) Their categorizations are not really 1-5 so much as allowing people to indicate that the post has a particular disposition (intelligent, funny, flamebait, etc.) I actually think this works well, because people will be more apt to rate a thread they disagree with as "intelligent" as opposed to "must read."

[chalky]

108. I do like THIS idea...

of being able to rate a post with a particular disposition. :)

[tpsbmam]

168. You're thinking along my lines.....

but you did a better job of sorting out what to do about it. What I found incredibly irritating about the system was weeding through everything. There were too many "must read" threads that I didn't consider anywhere near a "must read" for me and I wasted time clicking on them. It's not that the threads *shouldn't* have been interesting for the people who did the ratings, it's I look for different things as "must read" items. For example, on the bailout I read some very well reasoned & researched threads coming down on both sides of the bailout/don't bailout argument -- whether I agreed or not, i tended to vote them "must read." And then there were the personal rants most of us have here -- those were also sometimes voted must read. Those aren't "must reads" for me, though I don't dislike them and sometimes contribute to them. So it'd be nice to have some kind of differentiation -- that's the system that would really be useful for me.

[bobbolink]

46. So why did you erase the recommendations that we had already accrued, then?

Is that really fair, just because something we thought was important happened to come along at the same time that you tried something new?

Couldn't you have transferred the recommendations to the thread as it was?

[Skinner]

48. We didn't "erase" anything.

The two systems are different. A rating logged in one system is not the same as a recommendation in the other system.

[bobbolink]

87. I went from 11 to zero.

If it wasn't erased, it just magically disappeared, then, I guess.

[slackmaster]

47. Excellent write-up, thank you very much!

:hi:

[valerief]

49. Skinner, you're flip-flopping!!!! Remember, we'd rather have Cute than Newt.

I realize they have no relation to one another but they rhyme and in the world of persuasion, the rhyme is the paradigm every time. (Sorry, but I get like this when I'm hungry.)

:hi:

edited to add: BTW, I liked the new system!

[grantcart]

50. Nice thread but I can't find my 'must read' button

[Dead_Parrot]

51. One suggestion for next time, if I may...

...would be tweaking the system to allow some of quieter forums to get some "greatest" time: Although LBN, GD and GDP are fine with having 10 votes before a rating, Editorials might have a bit of a struggle and you'd never see Science or Environment/Energy again...

It's a good idea though - hope you can get it straightened out. :thumbsup:

[Utopian Leftist]

52. the Front Page

Please excuse my ignorance if this was addressed elsewhere, but is this the reason that the front page no longer shows the five most recommended threads? Because I miss that feature VERY much! I don't have time to peruse the various topic boards. I liked having the five most popular threads always showing up on the front page because that way I never had to search around for the most important news of the day.

[travelingtypist]

53. It takes a "real man" to admit a mistake and try to fix it...

...a la what Randi says to her former Republican callers.

Thanks for giving us back our Greatest page. When I'm short on time, looking at the Greatest page gives me a sense of everything that's happening in a quick scan. It's great.

:thumbsup:

[SweetieD]

54. I liked the rating system to be honest.

[FourScore]

55. I'm sad my post is no longer at the top, but I aprreciate everything you're doing.

Whatever system you settle on, whether old or new, this my favorite place on the internets.

[BrklynLiberal]

56. Wow. So I did not slip thru a fold in time and go backward. thank goodness...

[Faygo Kid]

57. Thanks. I found it confusing. Like Homeland Security alerts. Plus, all those tubes and wires.

The old ways work for me. Why, when I was a kid, I had to walk seven miles through the snow just to post on DU. . .

[Laurab]

58. Thank you, Thank you, Thank YOU! n/t

[alarimer]

59. What about using numbers?

Like a ratings scale, say 1-5 or something. It would avoid the negativity of "skip it" and yet allow people to determine how useful the thread it.

I would not allow any rating scale in the Lounge, however. There are a number of petty people who seem to like to pick on others for no reason so I wouldn't give them any ammunition.

[tandot]

60. Having one positive and one negative rating option sounds great

I also think that the column sorted by time is very important to a lot of us.

Thanks to all of the administrators for all of your effort. I can't wait to see the new and improved version after the election!

:yourock:

[pamela]

61. Yay!!!!

I really missed the old Greatest Page with the posts sorted by time. I can't tell you the number of times a day I hear something on the news and check the Greatest Page to see what folks are saying. I missed the immediacy of the time sorted page and was becoming very frustrated. I hate being one of those folks who always complain about changes so I tried different ways to navigate DU these past few days. Mostly, though, I just gave up and spent less time here.

Anyway...Thank you for going back to the old method. I think that waiting until after the election is a very wise move.

[immoderate]

62. GOBAMA!

And thanks for your efforts!

--IMM

[Spiffarino]

63. I liked it

The five options didn't bother me at all. I like having a choice and it didn't seem complex at all. Hope you bring it back soon.

[Raine]

64. I love that you guys will admit when you make a mistake

it' so refreshing in this day and age. Keep up the good work! :yourock:

[philosophie_en_rose]

65. two comments

First, a column of recommendations and then a column of negative recommendations would be simple and helpful. I agree completely that we don't need other labels.

Second, I wish there was a way to change votes. Sometimes threads change and it would be nice to be able to take the recommendation back from a thread that turned into a flamefest.

[tbyg52]

66. DU rocks, even while the experiment was on! Thank you! nt

[Dystopian]

67. Thank you, Skinner!

:applause:
You get a KandR!

peace~

[OhioChick]

68. Thank You!

K&R

[habitual]

69. thank you so much

oh this is so much better. :)

[cyberpj]

70. Thanks for the update - to keep us fresh and changing, and thanks for the review - I agree

with the 'too cute', too many ratings and not enough distiction for The Greatest threads. All things I could only notice while trying out the system however so I think it was a good trial.

But I'm glad things will stay the same again until after elections for now.

I know the info you collected will give us an even better upgrade after that.

[EFerrari]

71. It was a lot of changes at the same time, too?

And, it was very cool to see DU not go for the negative ratings in a mob. DU is the best. :)

[RoyGBiv]

72. Frankly, I'm disappointed ...

I don't think 2 1/2 days is enough time to test any system, much less let those resistant to any and all change calm down a little.

But I won't argue the point since you've made your decision.

I will say this, though. I hadn't felt it prudent to offer much opinion one way or the other about the (once again) current rating system, but the attempt to do something better has brought out my loathing for it. I never really liked it, and I grew into an intense dislike. I'm one of apparently a minority that avoids the greatest page altogether because of how threads (original posts actually) are rated.

[Miss Chybil]

73. I like the "Thumbs Up/Down" system I've seen on other sites.

I'd also like being able to give each response a thumbs up or down. Maybe, it would be good to have a rating for the OP and then a thumbs up/down on each response. Maybe that's too complicated, but it would be nice to see the most powerful/appropriate/educational responses be able to rise to the top of the response column. You could give people a choice, when they "view all" in a particular thread to choose whether they want it chronological, or highest rated to lowest, or lowest to highest.

I know this is a little off topic, considering you're trying to figure out a way to rate "greatest" threads, but I think the responses are just as important within the thread, as the thread itself. Just a thought...

[BlooInBloo]

74. I was ok either way. The new system had its problems, but so does the old one....

Robbing Peter to pay Paul, it seems to me.

[bleever]

75. Sounds like you use DU as much as I do.

:toast: I toast your health, sir.

I didn't find that my sense of the degree of Greatest was improved, since I read all of it anyway.

Mostly for me, the Greatest Page serves as a very good first edit of the mass of stuff that goes by, and as assurance that in case I miss a few hours or (gasp!) a day, I know I won't miss anything because it will be up there.

[Willo]

76. One thing I found in how I generally used the "must read" and "recommend"

which I think directed how I viewed the other rating options:

I indicated a thread as "must read" when it discussed and linked to a article or video with important information.

I indicated a thread as "recommend" when the OP expressed an opinion or shared a personal experience that was interesting.

In one instance I marked a well-thought out opinion piece as "must read" because I wanted to give it the full rating value I thought it deserved.

Using that system, I didn't see a need to place a lower rating (that franky, seemed to critique the writer), on threads just because I read them. I think not rating those threads says more without personally attacking or offending the writer.

What I found is I would like the ability for the writer to categorize their own threads and then others can rate it (or not). Perhaps categories like News, Opinion, Poll and a category for the numbers and graphs (i.e. see Phrigindumass). Not too many categories, not too specific and optional for the writer.

The colors and positions didn't bother me. Rec'ing and stayin' (Palin-speak), without going back was great.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

154. I used "must read" and "recommend" in a similar way -also do NOT like neg or average ratings-

for reasons you mentioned

[L. Coyote]

77. Put in a sort feature based on # of RECs for now.

That would be useful in the really active forums. Easy to do too.

[flowomo]

78. a good move.

My main problem was that OPs were being rated -- not threads. Some horrible OPs were generating interesting and helpful discussions -- including sometimes very excellent reasoning as to why the OP was off base -- and yet the whole thing would be rated poorly because people were using the ratings to comment on the OP.

[HamdenRice]

79. Thanks big guy. And with confidence in how the system works, K&R! nt

[NightWatcher]

80. I think it had too many options. Maybe try a "thumbs up" and "down" choice

then we could see how many agree and how many disagree with the OP, or also the subthreads and posts.

[harmonicon]

81. thanks! I agree with every point you made - like you read my mind, without me once commenting it

[Chichiri]

82. FWIW, I liked the new system.

eom

[Olney Blue]

83. My favorite feature was staying on the same page with the recommend-

didn't have to go through: are you sure you want to recommend?

[KoKo]

84. Thanks, Skinner et all...it was a bit of a "traumatic move" before Election Day

...We are all so stressed

and while there were huge amount of folks who loved the system..at first..as it it went on it seemed to sort of be a disruption, for some others.
Thanks for trying something new. And, I imagine that if you can have us "filtering" our own posts rather than having to recruit "Mods every Quarter" would seem like a relief. If DU posters could "self-Police themselves" it would make life around here easier for Mods and Admins, for sure.

I'm sure you will tweak to come up with something that works. But, Thanks for giving this "a rest" until after the Election.

:applause:

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

85. I liked the new system

though, like you, I think that 5 levels were a bit much. I'd like to see three, though--Recommend, Skip It, and Disruptive.

[JerseygirlCT]

88. I admit, I did find it distracting

And I found myself skipping over posts without a rating - which means I probably missed good stuff that I would have otherwise read.

I agree with your decision.

[southerncrone]

89. Glad to see the "old" system back.

I felt like I had to overthink how I wanted to rate a post--too many choices--so I just did nothing. I don't think that was your objective w/the new system.

Never could figure out what 5.0 meant, either.

Remember the K.I.S.S. philosophy---keep it simple, stupid.

[tavalon]

90. Please pin this

The hardest thing about both of these changes was not being able to find your post about it. Yeah, I know you could say "Go to the home page" but then, you would know my dirty little secret. I've homepaged the latest page, not the front page. I don't use the front page really at all. I go there on Sunday to pick up the Top Ten, but otherwise............

Also, thanks for ditching the new thing. I love that we often upgrade but this one felt irritating.

[LiberalHeart]

92. Thank you! Could. Not. Stand. The. Colors. Nice to be back "home."

[anigbrowl]

93. Skinner clearly needs to be made head of the SEC

I hear Wall Street's rating system isn't working too well either.

[eleny]

95. Thanks - with thoughts about negative ratings

If someone rates down one of my OPs but they don't post about why they feel that way I'd never learn anything from them. If it gets a recommend I can assume that they agree. If it sinks, I get the message. While a thumbs down button click might give the rater some momentary satisfaction I don't see a value to DU if members aren't prompted to share thoughts and perhaps debate a little.

Thanks for listening.

And thanks for returning the great Greatest page. The original is so helpful.

[Jamastiene]

96. An easy simple suggestion:

Instead of Recommend or the color coded ratings system, why not just a +/- deal (where you don't have to click back)? The clicking Back thing is back now, I see. I liked that you didn't have to click Back with the color codes, so the color coded ratings system had its pros.

The way the idea would work would be:
You would actually be giving everybody a recommend and "unrecommend" option or +/-.

For threads that do make it to the greatest page, the recommend/unrecommend (or +/-) system could rate the threads according to how many MORE votes for recommend that thread got.

If you wanted, you could also list total votes so members could (if they wanted to) go read why the members of the board may be split in our opinions on a certain thread.

A very simple example would be:
Thread A got 3 + votes and 0 - votes which would make it rated at a 3 (numerically)
Thread B got 3 + votes and 1 - votes which would make it rated at a 2. Thread A would still be at the top.
Thread C got 2 + votes and 0 - votes which would make it rated at a 2 also. That would move Thread C below Thread A but tie it with Thread B.

Then you could just make it sortable by time (the old way) on the Greatest Page for anyone who'd prefer to use it that way. You could also still add the flaming image for "hot topics" where the votes are split maybe around a 60/40 ratio after a thread reaches 50 votes (or 100) or more. In other words, if 60 people clicked the + sign and 40 clicked the - sign, the "hot topic" flaming image would really apply more there than where most people just agree with each other (or are just playing in the Lounge).

It's just a simple idea involving a little tiny bit of math. There may be tons of flaws in the idea that I don't see though. Still, it is some kind of suggestion anyhow. :shrug:

The ratings system wasn't that bad, but the 5 part rating system made members uneasy. Nobody wanted to be rated average, skip it, or disruptive, except in the Lounge where we like to horse around between doses of our prospective meds :evilgrin: I'm going back there now.

[Divine Discontent]

97. the only thing that seemed out of place to me was the large blocks of color

small dots of color that went from red hot being good to dark blue being cold and how many had rated in total would be great. thanks for the test, it was neat!

[marions ghost]

142. great suggestion IMO

yes you only need a small color coded indicator. I like your idea of 'hot to cold' --probably people would perceive as many as six different colors, say 3 in the red range and 3 in the blue range. That might give a more accurate and immediately perceptible reading of a thread's rating. The burning flame could appear when you reach 3 Red level.

There's no need for words cluttering up the color dots--much simpler.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: several thumbsup for some rating system along these lines

[Divine Discontent]

149. thank you so much, marions ghost, for appreciating my thoughts on this, lets hope they like the idea

:)

MORE AT www.cafepress.com/warisprofitable

[onehandle]

98. And the most moronic threads will make their way to the front page. Please keep trying.

There has to be a way to keep the most jingoistic crapola from floating to the top.

[leftrightwingnut]

99. There has to be a way to change your rating. In case you make a mistake.

I accidentally released the mouse button on the wrong choice once or twice.

Even a + or - may need a way to change one's mind. Youtube's system seems reasonable.

[mcg]

100. Could you streamline the Recommend process?

Here are some opinions of mine.
Having to reply yes to 'Are you sure?' is a nuisance.
An Unrecommend function would be better (it would only
need to appear if the viewer had recommended the thread).
Also the "Thank you ..." page is a waste of time.

[Laelth]

101. The Ability to Rate Down = The Ability to Censor

While I can see the usefulness of a down-rating as a pressure valve that might reduce flaming, I personally feel that any down-rating system that could keep a thread off the greatest page would lessen the value of this site as a place where Democrats can safely disagree and explore ideas that may be either new or unpopular. If fifty members were willing to recommend a thread, for example, it would be very sad if fifty other members who didn't like the thread's ideas could vanquish the thread into oblivion.

Personally, I feel that only the moderators should have the right or the ability to censor DU's content. Even then, that content should only be censored if it breaks DU rules. Giving the membership censorship power seems short-sighted to me. With the general membership controlling the site's content, only popular ideas will be allowed to rise to the greatest page where they will receive the most attention. Sometimes unpopular ideas are the ones we most need to hear.

Just my two cents. Thanks, again, for all you have done and continue to do.

-Laelth

[Wednesdays]

102. The new system's better

A lot of scummy threads got rightfully buried.

[Pab Sungenis]

103. If I could offer suggestions...

I've seen other boards and sites that used similar systems to what you worked up for DU, and here are some suggestions for modifications to this type of system:

(1) Limit the selection to a simple "up-mod" and "down-mod" (or thumbs-up, thumbs-down if you prefer, like the comments section of Youtube uses).

(2) Set values for down-modded posts that single them out, or hide them altogether in the case of disruptive and troll posts. For example, say posts valued from -5 to -10 would appear "greyed out," and below that would not appear at all. Play with the numbers to see what works.

(3) Just as 5 recommendations are needed to make the Greatest page, the Greatest page would be for posts rated +5 or higher.

Just my two cents.

[Hun Joro]

104. I really liked not having to leave the page when recommending.

That's very helpful when working with a slow connection.

[mainegreen]

105. Yay! No more flamewar threads marked 'Average'!

:rofl:

Nice effort, but I agree, not a good fit for DU.

[Javaman]

106. It was a really interesting concept and I appreciate DU trying to keep things interesting.

Thanks Skinner :)

[Mira]

107. YES - I am so happy to find our old system. Thanks. I feel at home again

[liberal N proud]

109. I liked the disruptive selection

It was a way of tagging those disrupter's without actually sending an alert to the mods. I hate to do that except for extreme cases.

Mark something disruptive, don't reply and let it drop like a rock.

[graywarrior]

113. Aw, shucks. I really liked it.

[femmocrat]

114. THANK YOU!

Thank you for listening to us! I hated it, especially for the Lounge. It actually inhibited my posting "impulses"! It's reassuring to see the old system restored.

:loveya:

[20score]

115. There was some good and some not so good features in that system

To get to the greatest page seemed to be almost arbitrary and seemed to favor those already well known. So, for the greatest page I personally favor the original. I kind of liked the new rating system, but there was no indication of how people viewed the post until ten people had rated. (Maybe keeping the grey function you had at first?)

I think it's fantastic that you are trying to improve things and you're also responsive to the users. So, my two cents - please don't let people take other's recommendations away.

[adamuu]

116. I thought it was a step in the right direction

incremental changes... just like good Democracy!!!

[Lochloosa]

117. Thanks for trying. The "recommend" function does have it's drawbacks.

But in very short time we can make our own decisions to participate in a discussion or just move on.

[TomInTib]

118. Good. I was getting killed.

Good move, guys.

Tom

[kirby]

119. Thanks for all the hard work n/t

[kgnu_fan]

120. I really liked the whole thing as long as it is placed on right side

Thank you for keeping up with improvement...

[xiamiam]

121. thanks...I realized how much I rely on the greatest page..and it became useless for me..thank you so

much for changing it back...I love du...truly appreciate the work you guys do to keep us informed...kudos..

[magellan]

122. Well, I have to admit to being disappointed

I was still getting used to the new rating system and rather liked it overall, despite its "cute" factor. But there's no arguing with the flaws that were uncovered. If the tryout leads to better modifications down the road then so be it.

Hey, if we were easy to please and unconcerned about what really mattered we'd be posting over on FR.

:rofl:

Thanks guys. I'm looking forward to seeing what comes next.

[chknltl]

123. M&R...nuff said

[NBachers]

124. OK, here's my request:

When I rec, I get the box that asks me if I want to rec. When I click "yes," I get sent to another page, and have to wait until I return. Why not just let the rec go through while I'm on the same thread page? Do we need to change pages and then have to navigate back just to rec?

Another thing that happens: I'll make a comment. I post the comment. I get sent to a page where only my comment appears. I already know what my comment looks like, because I saw it in the preview. This "new comment only" page is not necessary. If I want to get back to the thread, I can either click back through several pages, or just shut DU down completely and re-enter DU.

If I click my way back to the thread, the comments aren't visible unless I click "View All." This makes for a lot of unnecessary clicking, page turning, and backing-out & re-entering DU. When my comment posts, why not just return me to the thread, at the point where my comment appears, with all the other comments visible on the page? It's the easiest way. No more trying to fumble my way back to where I started.

Am I making sense here?

[Mme. Defarge]

125. Thanks! n/t

[kster]

127. You are a Class Act

keep up the good work, and yes you should always try new ideas.

Thanks,

Kevin

:toast:

[iamthebandfanman]

128. i liked it, hate to see it go n/t

[slipslidingaway]

129. Thank you, I missed the great threads sorted by time the most...

the greatest threads of the past week could be a great feature for people looking to catch up quickly.

Leaving more time to recommend a thread was also nice, especially for the smaller forums that are visited less frequently.

Appreciate all the hard work that is done by management.

[moondust]

130. Thanks for trying.

Good effort.

[Silver Gaia]

131. Thank you, Skinner. :)

I applaud your decision to wait until after the election to try out changes again. And I thank you for listening to us. Thanks again for all you do.

[Shanti Mama]

133. different categorization might work

I would like to know if a post is rated well because it's funny, a parody, media spoofs, or if it's a serious thread with informational content. I like the former posts but when strapped for time I want to only check the latter. Yet, they're intermixed.

[Quantess]

135. Is it a "Big Scandalous Development", or is it a "DUer's Spouse got Deployed to Iraq" subject

Of course, both are going to be rated very highly, for different reasons. But then, in the original format, it is easy to tell just by looking at the titles. For the highly personal threads, the recs were not intended to mean "MUST READ", the recs are just a little show of support from DUers. That is something the new rate it 5 ways method missed. For the sentimental threads, you may give them a rec, but that doesn't mean anyone will be more informed by reading the thread. But, you want it to be rated high, so that everyone knows when a really serious event is happening to a DUer.

Similar for the photography contest threads. They don't deserve the "MUST READ" classification, but many people will still want to find those threads on the Greatest Page.

[PatSeg]

134. That's too bad

I really liked some of the features, but maybe it's best to wait until after the election for any major changes.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

136. Thank you.

I was happy when the color-coded column was moved to the far right, but am even happier that it's gone completely.

[krispos42]

138. Several places simply use a "thumbs up/thumbs down" system

Such as YouTube and UrbanDictionary. On YouTube you get a "net" rating that had a :thumbsup: = +1 and a :thumbsdown: = -1 so a post can have a rating of like +88 or -20. On UrbanDictionary it shows the number of :thumbsup: and :thumbsdown:, so it looks like :thumbsup:345/87:thumbsdown:

That might work better.

[Regret My New Name]

140. I don't think I've ever paid much attention to recs before I saw the new system

and wondered where all the pretty colors came from. Anyway, I say just give me absolute control over deciding what's awesome and what isn't. I have awesome awesomey taste. Problem solved :D

[man4allcats]

143. Re: letting people "unrecommend"

Unrecommend? In other words, I recommend a post because I think it makes a good point. Someone else disagrees and so "unrecommends" my recommendation. What makes their vote, their opinion count more than mine, so much more than mine, in fact, that they are allowed to cancel my vote? If they don't like the post, they don't have to recommend it, but they shouldn't be allowed to negate the recommendations of others with whom they disagree. I've seen this sort of thing before. As I recall it was in an election in 2000. I think it involved a guy named Gore who actually won that election and another guy named Boosh or Basher or Bush or something like that who ended up being appointed to the post when the real winner's votes weren't fairly tallied. I always that particular outcome was remarkably undemocratic; certainly not the sort of thing I'd want to see instituted on DU.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

155. I recommend your post. It's a must read.

[man4allcats]

180. Many thanks.

I do what I can to try and keep them honest just as I hope others do what they can to try and keep me honest. We are all subject to errors in judgment. That's why oversight is essential; something America seems to have forgotten in recent times.

[marions ghost]

144. I was drawn to

read the "skip-its" before the "must-reads." So I found it distracting to have such a category.

It's kind of like how you deal with kid's behavior--you don't draw attention to what you'd like to eliminate, or in this case allow to die a natural death in the archives. Better just to ignore these threads and let them sink. Also just ignoring these doesn't bring out the cop mentality to excess.

I could still see a ratings indicator of some sort, tied to relative no. of recs. But very simple, very visual. (small squares of color changing from red to blue, like litmus strips?)

I don't know that labelling a thread "disruptive" is better than alert. (Again the naughty like to be recognized). But I know the goal is fewer locks. How about something milder...like "dud" --instead of words, could be indicated by a symbol that is the opposite of the burning flames. Maybe a blue "thumbsdown" or a blue ice cube (meaning freeze out, give the cold shoulder)

Or maybe just a black splat, for disruptive.

[jeff30997]

145. rating system was a troll.

:P

[snappyturtle]

147. It was fun....like a new toy....after the novelty wore off the old cuddly teddy

bear was nice to return to. Loved the rating all on the same page. Stellar effort.

[patomime]

148. It was cute...

but needs some tweaking. I liked all the pretty colors!

[corkhead]

150. Thank You! The Greatest page was the center of my universe, with the chronological listing

I was able to keep up with every thread that had 5 or more recommendations. With the new system, I was overwhelmed because stuff was staying at the top of the greatest page too long and given my limited time to spend on DU, I was having trouble sorting through everything to find what I wanted to read.

The ability to give a negative rating was also burying anything controversial, and then I wasn't seeing those posts and the stuff on the top of the greatest page was all more "preaching to the choir" threads than before.

I truly missed the "classic" greatest page and I am very happy to see it back. Thank you for the noble effort none the less.

corkhead

[dipsydoodle]

151. Respect !

Good to know you're always prepared to go back to the drawing board when necessary.

I did try the newie but remained baffled. I only just noticed it had changed back to the oldie for the time being. :hi:

[LWolf]

156. My thoughts:

I appreciated it when you moved the graphics to the right, which was less intrusive than when they took up so much space before the thread title.

I liked the ratings. I can see that the natural inclination would be to rate threads with extremes, but I rated a bunch "skip it," because I didn't object to the THREAD, but to the placement of the thread in that forum.

Since I've already expressed myself about all the presidential election topics crowding other topics off the front page of GD both to site owners and mods, "skip it" was the only way I had to express that frustration. I did rate several presidential election threads in GDP on the high end of the choices.

I think I used all of the ratings available, although I didn't rate every thread I read.

I'm glad to know that the majority of the board used the ratings responsibly. Especially during a presidential election, tempers run high, flames run hot, and such a system is an open temptation to make it personal.

[TransitJohn]

158. A simple "thumbs up/thumbs down"

Rating system would be great, I think. "A straight up or down vote!!!" :hide:

[Dawgs]

159. Fail!! Looks like you caved to a bunch of McCain supporters.

I prefer change, not 'more of the same'.

[Tarc]

160. Damn, I kinda liked it actually

Just go with 2 options then, "recommend" or "skip". Going back to the old system is a step backwards.

[Froward69]

161. HEY I LIKED

The 7 day column. it would have been a good reference to current events. instead of having to search for whatever. however the new five tier system would have been good after 50 or so recommends. Then the best information could have "floated to the top" better.

Just my nickles worth.

[geiger]

162. I liked it. Gradations, including negative, are okay, I think.

[raccoon]

163. Thank you. It was rather distracting. nt

[CitizenPatriot]

164. What a thoughtful repsonse to this

You guys rock.

I just want to add that I appreciated knowing which threads were more drama oriented than news oriented, as it allowed me to avoid reading things that aren't helpful to me. By the time you've opened a thread, it 's too late- you've read that opening line and now you're bummed or pissed. For this reason, I thought the "disruptive" or whatever it was comment was helpful, though I understand people feeling it could be abused by visitors with bad intentions.

Thanks for all you do with the site.

[bunnies]

165. awww. :( I guess I was one of the few that liked it.

If a few colored bars can throw people here off that much... well... nevermind.

[cboy4]

166. Excellent explanation. I think you made a wise

decision.

[orleans]

167. smile. (k&r--i'm back in business here!) n/t

[ProfessorGAC]

169. Another Example Of "If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It."

Glad to see it was short-lived.
The Professor

[Juan_de_la_Dem]

170. Regardless of outcome, I really like/appreciate that you are working to improve

the site and experience. Thanks

[beac]

171. Would it be possible to keep the feature of being able to recommend without navigating away from and

then back to the page? That was my favorite aspect of the new system, honestly. :)

[Yes We Did]

172. I don't see why you don't just use a 5 star rating...

Or 5 flags, or 5 donkeys...

1 is bad, 5 is great... no text needed... just 5 "what-evers"

[Haole Girl]

173. I'm glad it's gone

Especially in the Lounge. :hi:

[grace0418]

174. I liked that you didn't have to go back to the thread after recommending.

Actually, I liked the new rating system just fine, but I agree the Greatest Page is better now.

[eppur_se_muova]

175. Kudos for being responsive to complaints/suggestions.

I thought it was mostly OK, just needed a little fine tuning.

And of course, big props for always trying to improve DU!! :patriot:

[klook]

177. MUST READ!!!

Uh, I mean "Recommend." ;)

I agree with the assessment, and concur with the decision to stick with the old system for now. We have bigger fish to fry (McHalibut and Arctic Barracuda).

[Swamp Rat]

179. Thanks a lot!!

Though I really appreciate innovation and change, and your effort, I LOVE the old rating system... so clean and efficient, with no way to abuse it.

[patrice]

181. I LIKE 5 rankings. They NEED to be named differently. Perhaps there needs to be another

rating process on top of the primary one to identify material for the Greatest Page.