Forum:The rating thing on the sidebar

Forums: Index > Village Dump > The rating thing on the sidebar

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4929 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

I propose we get rid of it. Doesn't really serve much purpose anymore, probably because most of us tend to ignore it and the rest like to abuse it, and it takes up space. 1234 ~ 07:03, 15 June 2011

It serves the purpose of rating articles. Hundreds of people have used it (on many pages you can't vote because it's over the limit). Look at what you said Lyrithya, that people here fall into one of two categories: those who ignore it and those who abuse it. Didn't you miss at least two other categories, those who notice it and those who rate articles fairly? So far your only argument is it takes up space. Not very much space, and it makes that space colourful instead of a solid blue wall. Aleister 00:48

I'd offer counter-arguments, but see below. I'm more eagerly awaiting Fnoodle's results, anyhow.

1234 ~ 01:24, 16 June 2011

I agree with Aleister. This is just deletion for deletion's sake. It's Mrthejazz... a case not yet solved. 05:52, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

Vote: Remove the ratings from the sidebar?

Score: 10 and a Zombiebaron

1. Delete.

1234 ~ 07:03, 15 June 2011

1. 0 stars. Having a 5-star rating system is just silly anyway. What makes a 3-star article? A 4-star? A 1-star? Who knows? If we absolutely had to have one in the future it should be a simple thumbs up or down. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 07:14 Jun 15, 2011
2. Delete. Yes, remove this faggotry. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 07:21, June 15, 2011 (UTC)
3. because the rating on my page is total bullshit --Roman Dog Bird 08:09, June 15, 2011 (UTC)
4. Keep. How would we voice our displeasure at how crappy your pages are? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 15:52, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

   Write some pages for me and you can do it all you want on the talkpages? That is what they're for, no? But there just need to be pages at all, first, right?

1234 ~ 15:54, 15 June 2011

1. The ratings have zero impact on anything on the site. You can't sort by rating, the random article button isn't weighted by rating - all it does is sit there. And that's to say nothing of the inherent complexity of a 5-star rating system versus a simple thumbs up / thumbs down system. "I liked this" or "I didn't like this" is simple; what differentiates one star rating from another is ambiguous, which is why I can't be bothered with Wikipedia's new "rate this article" feature. It's too much thinking for an informational site, let alone something that can't be quantified like humor. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 20:20 Jun 15, 2011

2. The current star-rating-system-thing was the product of several years of research and hard work. It was supposed to be a universal rating system, used to help noobs find good pages. So, I say that we either finish the project (that is, figure out some way to sort pages based on their star-score) or scrap it. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 16:00, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

   If we do remove it now, it's not like we won't be able to put it back if anyone ever finishes making it work. Comment it out, but note what it does and what it ought to do in case anyone competent comes along, or some such...

1234 ~ 00:11, 16 June 2011

1. Keep Lyrithya, you're obsessed with making changes which have no positive impact; that may in fact have some kind of negative impact. What benefit will get rid of the star rating have? mAttlobster. (hello) 19:55, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

   It takes up space that could better be used by something else. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 20:20 Jun 15, 2011

2. Delete. I never liked it anyway, i'm glad it's going. Note: This forum was rated poor. -- Lollipop - CONTRIBS - WRITINGS - SHOP - Now adopting! - 20:46, 15 June 2011
3. Zombiebaron. I'm sure there was once a purpose to it, but now it's just a distraction. I've seen good pages rated bad and, especially early on in my n00bliness, it had an erroneous affect on my first impression of the article. It should either be "cleaned up" - make sure the ratings reset whenever a rewrite is made of the page in question, and make sure that the ratings are somewhat remotely close to whatever we deem to be the "overall quality" of an article (gee, I can't see how that would create drama. It should be quick and easy, too!) - or it should be scrapped. I vote the latter: Delete. ~  Talk 21:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
4. Nix it. Serves no purpose. Put some motherfucking maintenance shit or a link to my userpage there or something. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 00:18, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
5. Keep. I like this feature. It is a way for readers to rate the pages, and most of them seem fairly rated. There is nothing wrong with the ratings, and installing just a thumbs up and down thing may dumb down the wiki. Aleister 00:45 16-6-'11

   I see where you're coming from, and you make a very good point with the thumbs up/down being just a 5-star system for blondes. But my experience with the side ratings can be summed up with the word inconsistency. Some great articles have ratings of 1 or 2, some shitty articles come in at 5. I could provide examples, but all that would do is prove that such articles exist, which seems to be an acknowledged fact (correct me if I'm wrong).

   My thing is this: if it's inconsistent in judging articles, why do we offer it as a possible standard for readers? Also, Wikipedia's scrapped theirs, and I heard something about us being a spoof of them. Shouldn't we follow suit to make us look more legit? ~  Talk 01:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

6. Keep. Deletioncruft. It's Mrthejazz... a case not yet solved. 05:56, June 16, 2011 (UTC) Delete. After reading Skully's arguments, I've decided to change my vote. I really have no reason to go against him except stubbornness, although that IS a pretty good reason. It's Mrthejazz... a case not yet solved. 01:55, June 18, 2011 (UTC)

   It's not like it has no reason behind it, it's taking up valuable sidebar space, giving the n00bs the false impression that article ratings reflect quality (they don't), and moreover it has absolutely no use whatsoever. See User:Fnoodle/toprated if you want to see the "results" years of voting have given us. Hint: it's not that useful. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 06:06 Jun 16, 2011

   So let me get this straight...what you're saying is that Uncyclopedia is giving people false impressions? That's the best defense for it that I've seen. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 07:25, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

7. Keep. NO!¡ DJ Mixerr 18:17, June 16, 2011 (UTC) (talk)(contributions)
8. Delete. The UI is cool, and I must give all credit to Spang for it, but that's about it. The backend code is everything but pretty IMHO (see the code for yourself). --User:Jack Phoenix/sig 22:03, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
9. Delete. It gets in the way when I'm trying to type into the search bar. --Black Flamingo 13:31, June 18, 2011 (UTC)
10. Delete. The ratings system, in my opinion, is a waste of space and serves no concrete purpose on this site other than sometimes misleading readers. I mean, four and five-star rated articles have been voted for deletion! Need I say more? --Scofield & 1337 13:52, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
11. Weak. Based upon NRV idea, I see no advantage in it staying, but no real reason for it's deletion. Middle ground option is keep it as a gadget that is optional but default is off. Those who want it can have it there, and those that don't, don't, and we then avoid giving any IPs or n00bs the idea that we value it's feedback. Pup 12:50 25 Jun '11
12. Burninate!  it is not a reliable metric, replace with vote by sms money rasing scheme. --K evillips эвилипс MUN,CM,NS,3of7 03:10, June 25, 2011 (UTC)

Vote: Does your ass itch?

Score: 2

1. YES -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!) 20:32, Jun 15
2. YES so I'm taking a shower – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 20:42 Jun 15, 2011
3. No. --Roman Dog Bird 01:17, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
4. YYess--K evillips эвилипс MUN,CM,NS,3of7 03:12, June 25, 2011 (UTC)

Vote: Keep the ratings system, lose the pages

Score: 3

• It's the only way to be sure. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 00:19, June 16, 2011 (UTC)
• I MUCH prefer this idea. Personally, I think this site has been losing its way recently, wasting time with writing humourous articles and such. This is at the detriment to the site's main purpose - voting, rating, deleting and voting on deleting rating! Nameable • mumble? 15:42, June 17, 2011 (UTC)
• For.More room means BIGGER STARS!!!! —DCCLXXVII (complaints • resume • • • • WP • UMF • GoogHelp • AWA • WA) 06:19, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

You asked for it, you got it

Fnoodle's sorting all the pages based on rating right now. Once he's done, he'll plop them all on User:Fnoodle/toprated (warning: huge page) for your viewing pleasure. Then you can tell me how useful or useless the system is.

And no, there is no way to sort or weight them based on how many people have voted. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 01:21 Jun 16, 2011

Can we reset all the votes now that we know they actually count for something kind of? -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 01:25, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Unless you wanna ask Wikia to do it. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 01:25 Jun 16, 2011

Deleting the pages seems to reset them. We could delete all the pages like Modusoperadi said...

1234 ~ 01:28, 16 June 2011

Let's do that. Fnoodle deletes every page and restores them all. Nothing can possibly go wrong. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 01:30, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

I'm up for half of that plan. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 02:35 Jun 16, 2011

Result: About half of our pages with ratings are rated 5 stars. I guess we're doing better than we thought! Go Uncyclopedia! Or... or the rating system is totally pointless. There could also be that. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 02:37 Jun 16, 2011

This result seems way off from my memory of wandering the site. I just did a 20 random pages run and got only 2 rated 5. Most of the 20 had no rating. Maybe the bot didn't count ones with no rating, and rounded up a 4.2 to a 5. Just that the 50% number seems way wrong. Aleister 3:19 16-6-'11

Well, I can assure you, this result was pulled directly from the function Wikia wrote to retrieve the ratings. Also, 50% of the rated pages have a rating of 5. Not every rateable page is in the Special:Random pool. The random pool has about 26,000 articles (UnNews is excluded) and the total rateable pages on the wiki comes to about 300,000. And no, that's not an extra zero there; check Special:Statistics, under "pages". So you're comparing a statistical sample that has almost nothing to do with the result. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 03:37 Jun 16, 2011

I just did another random run of 20, with similiar results, so the sample I've taken is a little bigger now. And I'm just going by Random Pages and not user pages, talk pages, etc. And if you factor in the unrated pages in the main pool that number comes way down from 50% to maybe 25% or much less. I don't know what difference any of these numbers makes in this discussion, but it seems these kind and wide range of stats can be used to buffer any point of view about the ratings. And the only reason I'm bothering with this is that there seems to be a decision already made (see my comments above about how the question itself was presented and then worded) and I'm just taking the other side. Aleister 3:55 16-6-'11

I changed my wording 2 or 3 comments ago to specify that it's 50% of rated pages. Sorry for the confusion. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 04:12 Jun 16, 2011

If we ever had to have a rating system

It should be an FA-only thing. It makes sense. FAs are unlikely (or at least, not supposed to) change dramatically or get deleted whereas the rest of the wiki is in flux. Also, a rating system for a bit under 2,000 articles that we push as our "best content" is more likely to get results than several hundred thousand pages (everything is eligible for ratings right now - talkpages, userpages, templates, images, you name it) scattered throughout the land that is Uncyclopedia. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 02:49 Jun 16, 2011

Limiting it to mainspace would be a start. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 05:11, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

I believe you mean content namespaces. And I'm not starting that up again. Besides, most of our articles are subject to change. FAs rarely are. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 05:54 Jun 16, 2011

I don't suppose

You could find a way to make it so that people can only rate articles that aren't theirs. Many of these 5 rated thingies are probably that way because some person makes an obscure article that nobody reads and 5s it, never to be read again. If only one person rates it a 5 and that person is the creator, it still counts as a five, even if its crap. That's what's screwing up the rating system.

Don't know enough about wiki stuff to have solutions, but you guys are the wiki masters, so maybe you know. It's Mrthejazz... a case not yet solved. 06:05, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not, because the rating system is deal with internally on Wikia's end, and getting that kind of data is virtually impossible, if not totally impossible. The only reason I say "not totally" is because I can't quite make out their not-English-at-all API documentation to find out. But even if this were true, the ratings still serve no purpose. They don't impact anything on the wiki. We don't have a specialpage listing the most popular articles. They're not taken into consideration by Special:Random. And the star system is arbitrary as all hell. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 06:08 Jun 16, 2011

I think there is one important thing that they're good for. Ego boost. If some joe shmoe gets an article and people rate it 5, that person is going to feel proud, and you don't screw with pride because it pisses people off. Most people yeah the rating thing's no big deal, but I imagine there may be a few users who are depressing enough that would be upset if their precious 5 rated article was no longer rated or anything. All of that said, I'm open to changing my vote. You guys have discussed replacing it with a different voting mechanism. If someone were to follow through with that, like the thumbs up thumbs down thing, I would support this. BUT, I've got a feeling this would just turn into one of those things were the old system gets taken apart, ideas are thrown around, but nothing really comes of it. That I don't want. It's Mrthejazz... a case not yet solved. 06:16, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

That's not a very legitimate ego boost, and of course could easily be turned into an illegitimate ego bruise by some n00b coming around and voting one star. Real ego boosts are what monthly awards, VFH, and even Pee Review (can be) for. And I know what you're talking about with the "a lot of ideas getting thrown round and nothing getting done" bit. But the point is, I don't think we even need a rating system, on the grounds that:

a) There's no decent way to integrate the rating system into the site's functionality. As the results of months of voting on our current rating system have shown (see here), the information we've got is utter bullocks. Twenty four thousand rated articles and almost none of them corresponding with quality. We already have legitimate systems put in place to determine whether content is quality or not, and they're barely scraping by as-is.

b) There is no efficient solution to the rewrite problem. When an article gets a massive overhaul, or is the victim of article rot, the older ratings become less and less representative of the content. The only possible solution I see to this is some sort of admin-only manual reset button, which causes problems on two fronts:

1. Wikia would need to develop such a thing. Fat chance.

2. Loads upon loads of admin busywork along with controversy about what is considered a "rewrite".

c) The system is massively open to abuse. Anyone can create a user account, so anyone can vote. More importantly, there's no "voting history" page anywhere to be seen, so no one knows who's voted on what or how many people have voted on an article.

d) Even if all of these issues could be resolved, what would the ultimate benefit be? To find good/bad content and act accordingly? We already do that, and there are much more accurate ways of culling terrible articles than a rating system. The only legitimate purpose I can see of a well-implemented rating system would be audience feedback, and while I agree that's important, there has to be a better way of doing so than an obscure box in the sidebar. It's not quite noticeable enough while simultaneously taking up space that could be better used for something else in the upcoming Vector reskin. What we have right now is a mess and I think we'd be better off getting rid of it entirely. If someone can come up with a better idea down the road, we can certainly implement that, but in the meantime, we ought to get rid of the broken thing.

As an aside, you and others seem to be under the impression that this system is something the admins can develop and/or modify at will. Unfortunately, it isn't. It's all handled Wikia-side, which means any changes and developments would need to be asked of Wikia. And let's be frank here, Wikia doesn't owe us anything. We don't make Wikia any money, we don't add much to their traffic ranking (anymore). The odds of them implementing a new system based on our specifications is quite low. As I said, I know what you're talking about when Uncyclopedian issues dissolve into a lot of talking and not very much doing, and I'd like to lead a discussion about a new rating system sometime in the future, but for now, that's not an excuse to keep a broken thing around that's taking up space and quite possibly negatively influencing readers and n00bs. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 22:31 Jun 17, 2011

Possible Solution

I realized within 12.043 units of the space time continuim, even as a n00b, that the rating system was a complete wank. Most articles are un rated and the ones with 5 stars are intestinal sludge. The concept of rating articles is important to have though. One way i thought of to correct this is to have a weighted voting system. For example, a semi comatose, slighly evolved turnip n00b's vote would be worth 20 per cent of say, an admin. And maybe 50 percent of a regular user. This would escalate up until the Dalai Lama, whose vote would of 1 star could potentialy destroy the whole site. Conversely, a vote of 5 stars would achieve enlightenment for all Uncyclopedian carbon based life forms. A team of highly trained para military proof readers could scour new articles and give them a rating based on a set of standards invented by the Queen and her legion of evil beavers.HauntedUndies. 12:20, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered VFH? You seem like you might be a good voter.

1234 ~ 12:30, 16 June 2011

So it would be like the rating system on newgrounds? It's Mrthejazz... a case not yet solved. 14:33, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

Ofcourse you meant the great beaver and its loyal legion of queens ... Cause the opposite makes no sense. --ShabiDOO 04:42, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

Three level system

The rating system isn't a bad idea, but instead of stars it should probably be of three ratings (assuming there will be a new space soon): ICU, UserSpace/(the new space if it happens), Main Space. I doubt this will be endorsed, but in anycase, instead of it being about which articles are great, its a quick way for users to say if the article should be tossed, put back onto a users space or deserves to be in the main space. Anyhoo...I don't think that the rating thing should go but should be replaced with something else. --ShabiDOO 16:08, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

Mmm? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:25, June 16, 2011 (UTC)

In any case, we already have a rating system

VFH.

And none of you assholes vote on it anymore. Assholes. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 00:01, June 17, 2011 (UTC)

The man has a point. Why bother to keep a completely inconsequential voting system when we can't even maintain the one critical to the site's operation? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 16:15 Jun 17, 2011

Is VFH critical to the sites operation? --ShabiDOO 18:40, June 17, 2011 (UTC)

Yes. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:10, 17 June 2011

What about VFP? I've never voted on that, I always considered it a bit too scary. But then, I am actually blind. Nameable • mumble? 22:52, June 17, 2011 (UTC)

Still important, though not as much so, in part due to our severe lack of decent image manipulators. The main page randomly displays a new featured image every time you load it (with a specific weighting system in place) whereas we are supposed to have one new featured article per day. So VFH is much more critical. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 22:54 Jun 17, 2011

Have an example

Here's an instance of someone mistaking the rating system for a legitimate article quality metric:

"Now I'm not all butthurt or anything, but what's with the big ICU stamp already? It seems a few have read this article and decided that it was at least somewhat good as it has a 3.5 rating." — Yuewolf on Talk:Carbon monoxide poisoning.

The user removed the {{ICU}} tag without asking shortly afterwards. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 21:34 Jun 19, 2011

Wellp.

I removed it. It's in the page history if we ever want to put it back. 1234 ~ 16:09, 20 June 2011 so well==FaceplaceLike== or a share this function. something to get our content out of the ivory tower of self indulgent back scratchers, except for <insert name here>, everyone else licks bullocks. --K evillips эвилипс MUN,CM,NS,3of7 18:40, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on it. *mumbles incoherently*

1234 ~ 02:05, 21 June 2011

I would say "our content isn't really made for sharing" but instead of whining in that department I think I'll re-focus my efforts on making Uncyclopedia more sharing-friendly. Somehow. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 00:31 Jun 22, 2011

I made a dropdown. It needs actual links. You could help by fixing them for me.

1234 ~ 03:09, 22 June 2011

All content is made for sharing, with the right audience, even Goatse. Is this a secret website that must be discovered to be cool? The Onion's most outrageous articles have been shared. Even if we share the dumbest of dumb, it may cause some luddite that does not explore much, to discover the comedy gold. I forget the metrics but some large percentage of page views are generated by sharing. It is the reality. I know many people hate bookface yet, there we are. Are we afraid that we will attract, gasp, n00bs? We were all n00bs face it. Ich Bin Ein N00ber. I don't suggest we add the CIA Endorsed, NWO, facebook Like button, but what Lyritissarria says, some way to share, like skully said. Sure there are add-ons to our browsers to add to Facebook, twitter or bit.ly but that requires effort on the part of users, which some do not have. For example, what some of us consider to be normal, other users struggle with (Browser upgrades, configuring pop-mail, IRC, IPv6, Speaking Klingon, the need for tinfoil hats, self-hosting a wiki, Linux, Mac OSX, repeating spacebars, proper use of :, not being a dick, and etc). Making sharing easier will draw viewers and ultimately new editors to the site. If this is not an open wiki, but a secret club that needs an invitation, then change the settings.--K evillips эвилипс MUN,CM,NS,3of7 16:37, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

P.S. is there any way to check visits on pages, much like with uncyclopedias counter checker website thing? --ShabiDOO 16:46, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It's easy to tell page visits. They rummage through the fridge, leave dirty dishes in the sink, and don't close the door on their way out. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 18:00, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

But like...seriously...does anyone know? --ShabiDOO 17:23, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

We used to have one. Just the one. All the pages had to share it. One of my pages got it for a day. That was pretty sweet. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:38, June 24, 2011 (UTC)

FYI, that wasn't the point I was making at all. Not even close. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 22:47 Jun 24, 2011

But it served so well in my agenda of it takes a village to make a wiki--K evillips эвилипс MUN,CM,NS,3of7 03:15, June 25, 2011 (UTC)