Change "Good Answers" to "Good Threads"?

'Good' is extremely subjective...
You only have to look at Kris' 'Bath Breaking' thread..._{<do I have to? >}
It got 5 stars with ludicrous alacrity...I still havn't forgiven him (I've hidden his pitchfork...)
While my junkyard Battery thread languished amongst the detritus....

You've just got to face it...There ain't no justice in the world.

Del

_{do I have to?}

Yes. It's an unwritten requirement of CR4 membership. People who get told off by Admin have to read it all again before being allowed to post. It's the law ! Those unable to commit grievous sins must visit the 'thread of shame', aka " Junkyard Battery Contest". It's Ok though Del, I'm petitioning Trevor Baylis to lift the contract on your tail.

Hello StandardsGuy

<"They are in competition with others to give a better answer. In some cases, people are teaming up to vote each other a good answer.">

How can you be sure of this, please provide evidence of such members doing such a scurrilous pair of tricks.

I think the GA system adds some interest for readers, encourages a genuine think about the problem, sometimes further research, which hopefully results in a fairly complete answer to the question or problem as posed.

As far as I'm concerned, I give out a GA point, if in my opinion, the answer given was interesting and/or satisfactory above the normal range of replies.

There does not appear to be a "competition" for GA points, as I see it.

Of course all GA points are subjective, and what one Member considers a "Good Answer", may be considered by another Member as trite, meaningless, inane, or other subjective response.

As far as "Good Threads" points, these are already installed to use, and I have accordingly given this one a score of 3.

Kind Regards, from far away

I agree with Sparky.

However, I have noticed that some original posters don't like to be told "bad question" and sometimes use The off topic' to punish those who tell them that Their question wasn't even up to del the cats battery deal...

In those cases i will vote good answer to the person who honestly told them their question was not so good. As a means of informing the original poster that he needs to reconsider.

I have a bunch of almost good answers hanging on various threads, but unless they really capture someone's fancy, thats what they are almost good answers.

No harm, no foul, and sorted out for easy reading by someone looking for the wheat and not wanting to read every posting.

milo

What you guys are doing here is absolutely unfair (ok, ok that seems to be the standard). But, when I try to find the famous backyard battery caper: ne nada. What gives??? Do I have to produce my very secret decoder ring to get to it, and get in on the joke? Or it goes under some cover title to confuse us babes in the wood?!?

Here it is..it didn't seem to come up when I did a seach . Dunno why...?

Del

Ughhh! arghh! Sir, you have a responsibility in detracting this trusting soul into that den of principally perverted punsterism. Until now I was happily keeping it at arm's length in the form of Spider Robinson's books. Now you(and your like minded fiends) come along, big as life.

Ohhh, my life will never be the same (or was it ever, I am confused).

In my opinion I don't see any point in it.

People are associated by having good answers by their name association more then they are by the numbers under their icon.

I simply do not pay any attention to it, and I don't pay any attention to the checkbox for off topic stuff. I am most concerned about the content, not some rating of good or bad or on or off topic.

Toomuchfun here Too!

I agree whole heartedly with you. If I find a subject to be interesting and I believe that I can contribute worthy comments, I will attempt to do so. My real friends like me most of the time, my family is not ashamed of me, at least that I know of, I don't really care if I am popular or not, never did. If I never get a good vote from the "good ole boys" it isn't going to effect me one way or another. I simply hope that my contributions will ultimately enlighten others. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE, POUR YOURSELF A CUP AND PULL UP CR4 ON YOUR COMPUTER AND SEE WHAT OTHERS THINK. You may learn something that you didn't know.

Toomuchfun

I would like to see a different change in the scoring. Scoring should have:

[ ] Good answer

[ ] Bad answer

[ ] Off topic

I strongly suggest that there is a real need for BAD ANSWER as I have seen several on topic answers that provide un-safe or wrong advice. And it would be OK with me if the name of the rater is carried with each vote.

The existing system allows you to disagree with a "good answer" vote, and if enough people do that then the comment is no longer considered a "good answer".

I'm not sure how this is accomplished. Can you elaborate a bit? I see only 1) Good Answer and 2) Off Topic. How, for example would one vote "disagree" within the existing system?

Whats harm in having competition for better answer? It serves the purpose of CR4

You are un-necessarily charging all of teaming, which I do not believe. Most of the answers voted good are really good.

I do agree about bad answer's suggestion. There should be provision to vote post as bad answer, so that answers leading in wrong direction will get punishment.

Besides, there should be some control on off-topic path. Some times, at the end of discussions, original thread is forgotten.

These threads are part of a learning experience where people share their views.

When someone is incorrect in their assessment or unsure of the information they have, they share it here and people will confirm their answer or redirect them to new information that gives a better educated point of view.

It's not about punishment. It's about respect and helping one another.

The very least anyone should do is humble themselves to the answers they receive and consider it first before responding.

My response immediately shows and off topic score of 5 when I just posted it. No one rated it yet. That is not right, especially when my answer is right on topic.

Apparently you failed to un-check the off-topic box (it goes automatically to OT when replying to an OT response). I gave you a vote for on-topic to help compensate.

Thank you. I noticed that too and did remove it on the post I made immediately following that one.

Someone just gave you one.

"...Some times, at the end of discussions, original thread is forgotten...."

Oh, my, are they ever! But I regard that as part of the appeal of this forum. It's one long stream-of-conciousness brainstorming session that reaches from London to Brisbane by way of Budapest, Namibia, and Miami. And Delhi. Now that's some stimulating thinking!

Wouldn't life be boring if you couldn't shift targets when the need or urge required it?

Discussions are suppose to grow and bloom and change shape. It may be that the original concept has been superseded or something more relevant or fun has been discovered.

Remember limits are for physicists, engineers just have to make it happen anyway they can and as cheaply as possible.

My score for that thread :Change "Good Answers" to "Good Threads"? was changed and reduced from 3 to 2, I don't know why. I was the 1^st member of posters which rated a "Good Answer" (04/29/2008 9:34 AM).

Question: Is there a CR4 voting/rating rules that permit reducing of score?

Hello Abdel Halim Galala

Yes, it the alternative choice on the Rate box for each Post, after that button is clicked upon.

You are unable to Rate any Posts made by yourself, of course, as you will see if you try it......

Kind Regards....

Hello Sparkstation,

"You are unable to Rate any Posts made by yourself, of course, as you will see if you try it......" .... Yes, I understand that.

But my question is : Is there in CR4 voting/rating's rules that permitting the reduction of score? i.e after you were rated for such a post with "3", is it possible to be reduced to "2"? and why?

Note. I noticed now that the same reduction of score happened to G.K. post# 27, from 3 to 2, how?

I mean, are there a CR4 written rules warning the member that if he rate his post, his score will be reduced?

You said:

"But my question is : Is there in CR4 voting/rating's rules that permitting the reduction of score? i.e after you were rated for such a post with "3", is it possible to be reduced to "2"? and why?

First, you must realize you have asked the wrong questions. Consider this:

Do CR4 voting/rating's rules permit users to disagree with a "good answer" attribution or score? If so, why?

Answers:

• Yes. And why not?
• If a person could not cast a dissenting vote, then it would be as if the first one or two voters had nullified the (potential) votes of everyone else--had suspended CR4 franchise to all other members...not much different from a coupe before any fact.
• Corollary answer: This would be why it is that oft-asked questions, about "Why can't we give "bad answer" votes, are without logical (or practical) foundation.

Understandably, this might be something that is not "instinctively" perceived in some regions of the world, so you can't be faulted for asking. If, instead, your purpose in asking was to get the answer (the above answer) for persuasion purposes, please be careful. You must use the above information in such a way that any who you try to persuade will see how the polling principle above works to their advantage as much as to their (political enemy) opponents' advantage.

First, you must realize you have asked the wrong questions.

Why you specify my question by "wrong", while CR4 administration gave me the required clarification for the same question. Please compare between your reply and CR4 reply.

Quote

Hello,

Thanks for your email. Yes, there is a way to vote that can reduce the
score of a "good answer". Typically, this happens when someone marks a
good answer as "off topic". This decrements the good-answer vote by
one.

Moose

Unquote

Thanks Moose and CR4 administration, but you .... Guest, I don't like your reply

Hello Abdel Halim Galala

It does appear that some CR4 readers misuse the Rate button, and thus each - if entered, detracts from a +, and conversely each use of a + opposes a -.

Charitably, it may perhaps be said that "an error was made", or the proper usage of the Rate button was not understood.

Kind Regards....

Thank you Sparkstation,

There is no any problem, only I wanted to get a clarification since it was the 1^st time for me to know that there a CR4 rules which permit a decreasing of the voting/rating.

Just like the Australian ballot was intended to work...which is why I tried to help Abdel by pointing out that asking the right question would have led him to his own, correct (Eureka) answer. I do hope it dawns on him sooner or later...that there was no contradiction between Moose's answer and my own. Your answer is very gracious and worth of compliment.

UG

My Dear Abdel Halim,

Your question was: ...and why?

So it's the "and why" that lay at the heart of you concerns; and which I tried, ever so nicely, to address. I don't mind your frustrated reply. But you have asked for an explanation and also said you do not like.... So which is it to be?

Should I explain why the suggested question was the better question in that instance? Or not? Or have you already come to the realization by now.

UG

My dear Guest,

Thank you very much for your explanation. You are welcome.

"...so I can't complain too much..."

Sure you can - you've proven that repeatedly! I gave G.K. and you each a GA vote though, because you have stated (perhaps re-stated) exactly what is good and useful about this forum. And muchos kudos to the creators and maintainers of it! All are worthy of a...

LOL....irony/understatement is a lost art ! My other gripe is the search fascility within CR4, but given how much the good folks do in their own time to make it happen, I can't complain, especially since there are 'work-arounds'. Mgaulin is back (in this thread), presumably from a well earned break, so he may spot my comment here and put it on the (extremely) long wish-list of features that people have expressed an interest in seeing developed. No biggie, just a minor passing thought ( OK, open a new browser window and use something like Google advanced search features). When all's said and done, it's up to users to make the effort to read stuff, and use there own judgement in deciding what is 'good' comment. Being an active member enables someone to find their way around best, and all are able to offer help as well as take it.

The whole good answer/bad answer thing should be done away with. I agree with the point we read the thread for content. I'll mentally take away the ideas that seem appropriate. I do agree with the method of reporting material that should be removed.

Truly enlightening or informative comments are often not marked good because it is not a popular viewpoint.

P.S. I very much enjoy the good natured humor here.

Well, see, you are entitled to that point of view! And while since I think the GA/OT system is OK, I can't vote you a GA (you probably wouldn't want it anyway, right?), but I refuse to call this OT (because it truly is not). My opinion of it being "bad" is not useful, so I don't inflict it.

My view is that while some things are NOT off-topic, they still are NOT good answers. Something can be on-topic and simultaneously worthless without being internally contradictory. And answers that are off-topic can still be good answers, just not of that particular question/thread. Doesn't matter how many GA votes they get to put them back in the on-topic category, they're still off-topic although good. Some of us seem to specialize in these...

The purpose of a "bad" answer vote would be alert the community when an on-topic answer is unsafe. I have seen recommendations that would over stress or violate a safety system by over-pressuring a vessel or defeating a safety ground. These unsafe answers do not occur often, but I have seen them.

But Enviroman - you make a good point. The "bad" answer could be over used and it would result in the stifling of good interchange. Perhaps it would be best to add a vote titled "un-safe", "caution", "warning", or other term that is internationally recognized. The vote could require a short mandatory justification.

I too have seen some incredibly unsafe answers - as well as some that were merely dilatory - but most of those almost immediately garner a number of posts in response that start off "No, no, no!" (presuming the OP reads them). 'Tis true, "bad" is too subjective. Also true tho', that "off-topic" is not always the most useful of ratings. At least not in direct opposition to "good answer".

A "good question" is essentially the same as the 0-5 star rating for the thread. The better the question, the better the answers, and thus the better the thread. But for answers that are on-topic but off-the-wall, incomplete, not well thought through, or otherwise not good, perhaps there should be a "not good" rating - NG. Thoughts?

But the road to hell is paved with good intentions....

I've seen people whinging about 'unsafe' answers which were perfectly safe insofar as any operation involving connecting to mains can be....

Everyman is his own safety officer...caveat emptor...ya cannae push ya' Granny off a bus ...etc.

Del

My, how very Darwinian of you, Del! Cats have 9 lives, so can afford to spare one now and again, eh?

Any answer hinting it's OK for the average homeowner to hook a new wire to the electrical supply, or twist a fresh pipe onto the gas main is tantamount to recommending suicide. If not familiacide. Wot's it called if one does in the entire neighborhood? Mass mayhem I suppose. Where's the road lead that's paved with bad intentions?

Or even just goofus ones? _{Jeez, I try one time to be a responsible citizen...}

Ha...

Actually you've hit on the nub of the whole doodab.

This is an Engineering forum for Engineers...can't one assume a level of competence? Or failing that ...at least enough wit to recognise when one ISN'T competent?

That was one key lesson I used to try and give trainees...the ability to recognise when they didn't actually know what they were doing...

Before now I've got as far a mounting a workpiece in the chuck of a lathe...and then thought ..'hang on I'm not familiar with this machine and I've done very little turning..' I removed the workpiece and walked away and wated for the model shop guy to come back from lunch.

Del

PS Can you hold this big lump of plutonium for me while I hit it with this sledge hammer and drip acid on it...I just wanna see what happens ?

I would like to see the Unsafe button but when i see one thats clearly Worng, I have no problem posting right away with one of these :

Danger will robinson followed by an explanation of why its hazardous...

milo

There's the rub..... a soon as you pay someone (or even not)a wage , you have a responsibility if they are too stupid not to know about the dangers of x,y,z etc. A whole bunch of legislation came in to protect employees from unscrupulous employers, but now we have a situation where it's gone loopy. Fart in your office, and someone may sue you, because Lawyers will say it's your fault that someone forgot to laugh. Victims of incidents that should be dealt with are 'marginalised', and lawyersRus will choak the system with the rest. My current fave for nasty TV adverts is the one that suggest people get their elderly relatives to sell their homes on an ownership-to-rent basis. The actor has an especially nice smile as he says how his mom is now better off, now that her assets are turned into cash. I think the one I'm thinking of was about to fly to Oz. A bit like those 'sue your employer ad's' where the victim explains how much good it's done his employer. The scales tipped a bit too far somewhere.

Right (and worth a GA vote!) in every way. That's why there should be a "no biscuit" vote, AND a laff-o-meter vote...

know cluessssssssss why so dum,,,,pissing on king glass and all good<<<<<<<<<<<<sure$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$4

Gee I was counting on you marking my answer good, EnviroMan.

"The whole good answer/bad answer thing should be done away with."

Geez, and I would have too, except for the above quote, which was the first line of your post #31. If you hadn't said THAT, I most assuredly would have given it a GA vote! Will you settle for this?

Well OK, it' looks like I've been outvoted, then what would you think of the "Good Threads" in addition to the "Good Answers" ?

I think the star rating system covers that but somebody further back suggested a rating for "Good Question".

I thought that was a good idea.

Often asking the right question is the first step to revelation.

BAB

But does "Good Question" include discussions? What about blogs? That's why I termed it "Good Threads" to include all 3.

Frankly I can't see how turning GAs into a bunch of malarky about clothing is an improvement. 'sides, complimenting the threads of an engineer who actually has them, much less who is willing to show them, is the closest thing to giving a back handed compliment of his competance; or calling him a trainee.

Ahem..."good threads" ≠ "great pants", sorry.

But is not the "rate this thread" button at the top of the page (near the "subscribe" button) the way to do that? It lets each reader vote 0-5 stars for the thread. What we don't have is a way to say an answer is not a good answer when it is on-topic. Rating an answer off-topic is not the same as "bad answer, no biscuit".

We need a "no biscuit" button!

We need a "no biscuit" button!

There it is again, talking about clothes.

They should put those little stars (or, okay, biscuits) on little buttons, and the little buttons on suit coats. 1 or 2-button coats for slouchy "threads". 5-button coats for emaculate threads. Get it? Enviroman?

I'm on that like a cheap suit - all over and ugly! Hey, anything for better definition, right?

OK - After reading all the entries in this thread. I give up on my "bad" answer suggestion. But now believe that there is a real need for a humor rating. The humor rating would improve efficiency allow the serious user to jump directly to the important humor.

Hey, CR4 could add one of the EM-ER NA Laff-O-Meter™ buttons for an extremely reasonable rate (no up-front costs, low royalty payments, omissions and exclusions apply) and satisfy that quite easily! This is a digital OS-friendly spinoff from the previously analog EM-ER NA Clownometer™ used mainly in non-electronic applications. The button itself replicates the red central feature of the Clownometer™ as shown below...

Gosh, are you guys still arguing this issue, I thought it was put to bed a week ago. I guess I will have to unsubscribe to get it out of my mailbox.

Aw, don't go so quick.......take a little puzzle to bed ; http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/20700/Mathematical-Crossword-Puzzle

Beware of the answer posted toward the end.

In a word. No. The system is what it is and I for one hope some day to contribute in such a manor that a GA is assigned to my name. For me it is a check and balance for my input. I do think a BA should remove an appropriate number of GA's because we know better.

Here's my proposal for the rating system:

When you click on the Rate button, you are allowed to rate the post or comment on 2 aspects - relevance to the topic and accuracy of the information. Both use the same scale of -5 to 5, with zero meaning "don't know" or "don't care."

This should allow more flexibility and meaning to the ratings. For instance, if someone makes an off-topic comment, but it contains good information, you can express that better with this system. Also, if someone makes an attempt to answer a question, but their information or reasoning is not that sound, you can indicate that.

Once while traveling near Broken Arrow OK. I watched some nice people with shovels turning a mole hill into a mountain. Would happen to know their name?