vph wrote:Hi there,
I'm a newbie to the forum here. I think a rating system is an interesting feature for a forum to have, but I can understand why it's difficult to implement it properly, as designed and no side effect. So I understand why people are not much interested in having the feature right now.
Nonetheless, the theory of rating system is interesting in its own right. If we could come up with one worth implementing, I feel it could take phpbb to a newer dimension.
Others interested in continuing this discussion?
There are a few things I'm still not sure with the Karma Rating theory described here.
Dersursine wrote:I like the whole idea, but why not do something simple like slashdot has? Users get points by reviewing reviews, and then get to use those points to review peoples posts.
I have one point from reviewing peoples reviews.
I go to a new thread and like what User A said, I then spend my one point to rate him one a scale of 1-5 based on that post.
User B logs in and is asked to review a few random reviews.
User B gets to see the thread I was looking at and the user I rated, but does not get to see my user name.
User B then rates my review as Fair or Unfair, which then gets calculated into how often i get points to rate people with.
I hope that kinda made sense... Its just my initial thoughts on the idea before I head to my next class.
vph wrote:Defining 'karma' isn't an easy thing. My understanding is, in Buddhism karma is about cause and effect. What you get now is the effect of what you've done. Its vague definition in a mysterious way suits well for the name of a rating system.
It looks like in this theory here, every user has a karma weight. I think the karma weight of a user should be affected in TWO ways:
(1) When he creates a thread and gets feedbacks from others, other users will rate his topic. These scores -- after being normalized (perhaps more weight given to those with larger karmas) with potential outliers being filtered out (for example, dropping max & min) -- collectively will be affecting the thread starter's karma weight in some way. This means that if someone is "doing good" by starting a good topic, his karma weight should increase. And vice versa.
(2) When he rates someone's post. His karma should be based on how much his score agrees with the average score. Remember that the "average score" mentioned in (1) is presumed to be the best approximation to the quality of the thread. This means if someone is "doing good" by making good judgment his karma weight should increase. And vice versa.
Taken (1) and (2) together, I feel then the Karma system stays closer to its meaning. A person is responsible for his action.
That doesn't mean the system can't be cheated. If all responders to a thread form a coalition against (or for) the topic starter, and if the system can not detect such a scenario, then the rating of the post is not what it should be. But there is no way to detect such a thing automatically without human judgment, as far as I know. In this case, then it is best to put the matter in the hand of the moderators.
I think these ideas need to be straighten out first before defining a set of mathematical rules.
vph wrote:I think the theory in itself is interesting. It's not surprising that the realizations thus far have been ineffective
Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 9 guests