Answers - Questions

Look just above the 1st post in any thread - you'll see a "Rate this" button, or somesuch name.

BTW - I've given you a little star, just to prove it works!

(You also get an option to rate the thread when editing a post)

Chris, Moose et al:

Why does the table with star ratings for the thread appear when editing a post, but not when submitting the original post?

Yours in puzzlement,

John

Waahh! I wanna rate my own question!

What is becoming increasingly evident is that we need a rating system for Bad answers and Extremely Bad answers (or questions).

Some contributers (even Guru's) provide bad (verging on dangerous) answers that 'guests' may act on (at the peril).

Happy New Year to ALL!

INDEED! A bad Q/A rating might relieve some of the pressure that seems to build up over some of the postings...

Happy New Year back atcha - didn't Tasmania used to be called Van Maanen's Land, or something like that?

Van Diemen's Land (1663 map, 'borrowed' from wikipedia):

Some contributers (even Guru's) provide bad (verging on dangerous) answers that 'guests' may act on (at the peril).

One might even say: "Some contributors (especially gurus) provide bad..." "Guru" means only that you post a lot, not that you post anything useful or correct. Therefore, without strong evidence to the contrary, statistics should tell you to expect more drivel from gurus than from other posters.

Happy New Year to you too!

Ah yes... exactly...what we need is a drivel quality measurment system (DQMS).
Then we should factor in a brevity quotient (BrevQuot).

Another problem is guests who thank one personally but don't rate the good answer. Like this brief thread, so... maybe compulsory tracking down of guests and force them to rate the answers by showing them endless repeats of 'I Love Lucy'?

Anyhow gota go before I blow up the DQMS and exceed my BrevQuot

Del

I think DQMS is excellent -- it rolls off the tongue well, and sounds kind of official. BrevQuot sounds good too, but makes me squirm a little. I take some pride in being able to say in 400 words what others can say in 4.

A slight inclination of the cranium is as adequate as a spasmodic movement of one optic towards an equinine quadruped utterly devoid of any visionary capacity.

Come, come - eschew obfuscation sir!

I have criticised others in the past for giving links with no hint of what they may lead to, so here's a sample from

http://alt-usage-english.org/ucle/ucle11.html :

A lithoid form whose onward course
Is shaped by gravitational force
Can scarce enjoy the consolation
Of bryophytic aggregation

It's worth a look!

Good stuff.

Say no more!

There already is (are) one(s)--for posts and for boards overall:

Each board has "Gold Stars" rating button at top--it is where participants rate themselves!

Each post has a "Rate" button at bottom. The post Rate button facilitates voting for "Earliest Somewhat Plausible Reply" and/or for "First Post Read (red) Before Zone-Out or Interest/Attention-Span Overload."

What more could a body ask??

What more could a body ask??

Like I said previously, we want to attribute negative points for 'dangerous' answers!

I am not aware of this function being possible!

dangerous answers!

I don't believe these exist in any quantity, and where there is even the mildest hint of risk we get n+1 panicky posts about safety as if the sky is falling in.
There are more good answers criticised as dangerous ... than there are 'dangerous' answers.

Every man is his own safety officer, and yes, before the sky falls on me, I do realise there is need for warnings...(where appropriate).

Del

OK! I'll take the bullets out of the Ozzie! Just hope you stay about to audit Q&A's!!!!

Like I said... but you can't have it all without doing a little vote "post" analysis of your own...using the criteria I stated, or any other that appeals to you.

"...want to attribute [meaning, give] negative points for 'dangerous' answers!

I am not aware of this function being [im]possible!"

You originally said, "...extremely bad..."; so it would seem that in a one man one vote system you would need an extremely great number of "extremely bad" votes--but who could say if an extremely-bad vote pertained to an extremely bad or dangerous post (Q or A) or to the goodness and lack of deviousness, on balance, of the voters? See what I mean?

That said, how 'bout this for a system that would not be impossible.

In addition to the vote choices already provided, each potential voter would be provided a third choice: to attribute extreme badness or degree of present danger by casting a "Beej" vote. As before, only one vote could be (irretrievably) cast; no mincing between good, so-so bad, and Beej bad, don't you see? In effect, the extreme badness or danger of any one post would become a factor of non-Beej member readers' willingness to surrender something they hold dear, their vote, to Beej as a way of attributing Beej factor for badness/danger extremeness. This is important because there should never be disagreement when it comes to what is extremely dangerous or bad. An added virtue of Beej-ing, is that one simple search--and there's the "Beej'ed" shortcut listing on each forum, too--will quickly produce all that is extremely bad or dangerous in CR4, and reveal the extremeness of same--no delving and digging through endless fora, threads, and posts.

Like with that cartoon Tasmanian devil, people would soon learn always to post so as to avoid being Beej'ed. CR4 is made safe for bulletin democracy!

Naturally, as with any new system, we would want to wait before implementation to see if it passes the Del test.

...The Dell scratch test, that is.

Yep, I like the Beej'ed thing but don't want to be remembered for infamy!

' Each post has a "Rate" button at bottom. The post Rate button facilitates voting for "Earliest Somewhat Plausible Reply" and/or for "First Post Read (red) Before Zone-Out or Interest/Attention-Span Overload." '

Is this your (subjective) use of the post Rate function, or am I missing something here?

You are missing something there.

Please?

John, what I meant was: the first choice you gave doesn't apply--for one, because I rarely use the button, and if I do it's usually after waiting and seeing numerous posts. (I tend to be a look-then-jump'er as opposed to a jump-then-look'er.) This way I (inadvertently) avoid what I have seen as a general trend in discussions: where posts earlier on are more likely to "get the nod" while later good answers (often with more specific accuracy and conciseness or adroitness) are short shrift-ed. I think this (shall we say?) urgency to vote, can be due in part...because folks naturally tend to want to compliment what best reflects their own preconceptions; and are inclined to use voting as a way of gaining and reinforcing group acceptance...so that once a decision to "compliment" an early "answer" is made, the voter becomes invested in that answer--this to the possible exclusion of, and detriment to, later answers. Needless to say, it is also likely that there is an urgency on the part of question answerers and solution givers to "get in first" with an answer in order to enhance their answers' visibility--and thus enhance the chance of gaining more compliments (acceptance) in the form of more votes. (I don't think this is invariably a conscious process.) It is this aspect which, as you say, could reflect a "subjective" inclination on my part; but I feel confident in saying it is not an arbitrary or ill-conceived inclination.

More to follow on a different aspect--why post rating system improvements, no matter how ingenuous, don't work as well...--of the subject being discussed.

I coulda sworn dovy's post/tread acquired 3 stars - own up the misery who knocked him back down! (Only 2 visible as I post this).

Hello JohnDG,

It's now showing 4 stars, because I just added a vote, giving total of 3.5 = 4 stars.

Interesting weblink alt-usage.....and I'm still reading it, thanks.

Kind Regards....