R. U. Serious wrote:Dhn (I think) proposed a system that is not based in points, but on specific attributes (funny, helpful, etc.; much like slashdot) which could help guide the way people use a rating-system.
R. U. Serious wrote:In a Karma System what exactly should be rated:
- The like/dislike of a user? (personality-based?)
- The agreements/disagreement-factor? (meaning of the content of his posts)
- The quality of the discussion that his posts create?
There is no clear cut answer for this. On support forums it probably should be the second one, where the meaning/content will be the most interesting (is it correct? is it complete?). And on forums that try to be a a high quality platform for discussions, you want people to rate according to the third: Did the user not use personal attacks or unfair rhetorics and did he give a well reasoned explanation and arguments for his opinion? On forums that are mainly oriented to build communities of people and where talking offtopic and killing time is the main attraction, the ratings will tend to be personality-based.
The problem is, that this is often not a clear-cut case, and the even bigger problem is, that users will even be a lot less likely to give any thought to it. What you will get, is a lot of users rating for a lot of different reasons. And what is the meaning of the average of that? I'd say there isn't any. Some pointed out that "karma" fits so well, because it is so vague, IMHO that's the reason why it will not work very well.
Dhn (I think) proposed a system that is not based in points, but on specific attributes (funny, helpful, etc.; much like slashdot) which could help guide the way people use a rating-system. Another helpful thing IMO is (and I know a lot of people will disagree), that only a closed group of people are allowed to rate. "Forum-Membership" alone is to loose a thing to define who can vote who can't, because it is too easy to create sockpuppets and the like. With a closed group that gets appointed e.g. by the the forums' admin/mod-team, you can more or less be sure that if you only choose trusted and mature members, that there will be little gaming int the system. A side-effect that some people will not like (but which I find is a positive feature) will be that that appointed group will in a way set the tone of the forum - it will "choose" what is exemplary and/or accepted behaviour and what is not.
vph wrote:But I'd like to argue that the "vague" notion of what "karma" is, is actually a good thing. First, let's address a question. Is it fair to assume that the theme of a (sub)forum is unique?
If it is so, then the judgement of threads in that forum will be based majorly on one attribute. Is this a fair assumption?
If, on the other hand, we clearly vectorize rating in terms of concrete attributes, like usefulness, funniness, etc., I'd like to argue that it's either complicated (multi-dimensional) or redundant (most of the time only one dimension is rated).
The advantage of 'karma' is in its polymorphism. We dont have to make a judgement what the criteria upon which topics in a given forum should be judged (and hence attempt to break them down into discrete attributes). As long as, the assumption that topics in a forum follow a theme holds, then the metamorphic, singly-attributed notion of 'karma' works just fine, I'd like to argue.
The most important question of all is whether all users of a forum will judge topics according to ONE attribute (whatever that is). It's a difficult question.
When the theme of a forum is well defined, and when there is only one attribute to judge the topics by, I tend to be optimistic that users will come to terms with themselves to judge according to ONE common attribute, whatever that is. To them that is ok. That is how they conceptualize what 'karma' is.
theamazingTWOeyedman wrote:So what would happen if i only rated bad posts?
vph wrote:PS: just for side technical issues. I think karma weight shouldn't be a interger, but rather a number, say between 0 and 1. The advantage is you can view is as probability and update karma weights according bayes' theorem or something like that. Also, karma rating should be an optional feature.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests