Star rating on certain threads, definition and purpose

[examplens]

Quite an active topic lately, many are confused by this add-on, and there is very little information explaining this feature. Several threads are already going off-topic discussing this, so I'm opening this topic to combine everything into one discussion.


So, for example
Obviously, starting this rating and voting is only possible for the privileged, admin, mods, president, and vice (I'm not sure how many other similar titles there are). But
How is it decided which thread gets the star rating?
Why is it partially and unclearly established who can vote? I voted once or twice by accident, while later in some other threads when I consciously tried, it was not possible. So it's not always only the rank that matters to be voted.

What exactly does this rating represent? Is it the quality of the discussion, the design, or the popularity? This is twisted to me, because for example threads from the signature campaign have this rating, and honestly there is no discussion there. I imagine that someone from the outside comes and sees the 5-star rating, and inside there are only applications for the campaign and announcements by the manager that the payment has been sent.

If voting is limited to specific members (admin, mods, pres, vice etc...), I will call them senat, I assume there are a few of them. Then why do all the other users need to see the rating that was decided by a very narrow circle of people? The impression is that a rather centralized opinion is imposed on all users of the forum.

OK, it's possible that I don't see all the details about this, but that's only because it's quite undefined and leaves a lot of room for free interpretation. I think it would be useful to publish the rules and conditions for the star rating feature somewhere to avoid misinterpretations.

[admin]

rating done by:
admin + president + global mods + mods
monarch + vip
 + expert rank
+ jedi + mythical

might be expanded later to upper ranks

why have a rating .... debatable

[admin]

most sections have no ratings, some key sections have
and other varied sections have for testing purposes.

[examplens]

rating done by:
admin + president + global mods + mods
monarch + vip
 + expert rank
+ jedi + mythical

might be expanded later to upper ranks

why have a rating .... debatable

But as I said, I received a notification once or twice that I voted (it was completely accidental). That confused me even more

Can any of the mentioned rank users start this vote for any topic?

[bee]

why have a rating .... debatable

Well, I found two topics with near perfect ratings from a member labeled as a scammer^[1]. Will the account label status not affect previous topic ratings in the future (if votes can't be changed)? especially if the label becomes negative. However, the account label should not be in conflict with the topic ratings if it is about sustainable business.

1. https://www.altcoinstalks.com/index.php?action=rating

[Agbe]

most sections have no ratings, some key sections have
and other varied sections have for testing purposes.

If the rating is for quality threads then it should be cut across to all the boards because restricting it in a particular board doesn't make sense. And the rating in the signature campaign Board does not make sense as well because there no quality threads there but it is only campaigns so I don't know why the rating is in that board. There rating should be in the boards where discussion is ongoing study. And that is where we know quality threads. Boards like Bitcoin Board, Ethereum and other altcoins boards and Local Boards etc. those are boards discussion is going on smoothly. And in the Signature Campaign Board there is no campaign is superior to the other and all the campaigns are equal. Or are you rating base weekly payment? If it is payment is the measure then it might make other lower paying campaigns to increase their pay rate to be rated high with the 5 Stars. But other boards need it more.

And as for membership to vote, those who interested apply to the admin or there should be a system of inclusion of members to the voting system and there should be a procedure to join. And from the sound of Examplens he is interested to vote so admin should make a provision for those who are interested vote

[Zed0X]

~
And in the Signature Campaign Board there is no campaign is superior to the other and all the campaigns are equal. Or are you rating base weekly payment? If it is payment is the measure then it might make other lower paying campaigns to increase their pay rate to be rated high with the 5 Stars. But other boards need it more.

We don't know the basis used exactly but I doubt it's on the weekly payment. If I were to guess, it's on the post quality of participants of each campaign.

And as for membership to vote, those who interested apply to the admin or there should be a system of inclusion of members to the voting system and there should be a procedure to join.

It's already mentioned in the admin's comment. For a non-officer, you donate and get a special membership or rank up the normal way.

[yhiaali3]

If voting is limited to specific members (admin, mods, pres, vice etc...), I will call them senat, I assume there are a few of them. Then why do all the other users need to see the rating that was decided by a very narrow circle of people? The impression is that a rather centralized opinion is imposed on all users of the forum.

Thank you for opening this topic, I have seen such ratings but I did not know where they came from and how they got the rating so I think I understand now.

I also agree with you that the evaluation must include a wider circle in order for it to be fair, because imposing an evaluation by a group of people will not give the right impression. At the very least, the evaluation must include the opinion of good, high-ranking members so that it is somewhat fair.

[Agbe]

We don't know the basis used exactly but I doubt it's on the weekly payment. If I were to guess, it's on the post quality of participants of each campaign.

I don't know if it is the quality of each participant in each campaign but time will tell. Many people are still questioning the method used. But the rating should be giving to individual topics and not not campaigns because they is no discussion going on the signature campaigns and only the weekly update as Examplens said and that is the truth about the whole matter. And I also said it should be inclusive of local boards.

[notblox1]

I want to vote for posts and more power to normal members but who is making decision what posts are going to be rated and not?
One member could pay to receive higher rank, and than he could vote 1 star for business that is his competition, that can be abused.
There should be more transparency for voting.

[PX-Z]

why have a rating .... debatable

I truly cannot understand why there is a rating system on a thread especially for signature campaign threads. Especially for low rating paying sigcamp threads.

I cannot comprehend its purpose, if its purpose is to evaluate the post how quality the topic is, who the author is, the information of the topic, it should be done with karma with visible numbers instead of rating where only few can do that — this feels like a way for censorship where a crypto-related forum should promote decentralization especially for a voting and rating system.

[bee]

If the rating is for quality threads then it should be cut across to all the boards

If you check the ratings page, it's all about bounties, sig campaigns. and matters related thereto. I think the rating is not an indicator of the weight of the post/topic in the thread, but rather the weight of the "business" it carries so that it can be a reference for whether you want to be involved or not.
For example, if the bounty A gets 4 stars, it means that participants will most likely be paid a decent amount because they see the quality of the project or who is handling the campaign.

[NotATether]

I think that the stars are quite meaningless since only a small number of users can vote on them (i.e. staff), there's probably only about 10-20 staff in total so that's not a large amount to base a vote on. And that's not to mention that most of them are not voting on all of the campaigns, so the rating does not really mean much.

More people need to have the ability to vote on it or else the function is meaningless and should be disabled.

[examplens]

I think that the stars are quite meaningless since only a small number of users can vote on them (i.e. staff), there's probably only about 10-20 staff in total so that's not a large amount to base a vote on. And that's not to mention that most of them are not voting on all of the campaigns, so the rating does not really mean much.

More people need to have the ability to vote on it or else the function is meaningless and should be disabled.

If we want to have some kind of rating for certain threads, then it could be conceived differently. For example, the rating would be affected by the number of karma points shared in this thread (logically, if karma is given for quality and useful posts) and the ratio of thread views or the number of replies inside.

Thus, all members would have influence, those with a lower rank would influence with their visits/posts to the thread, sr. member+ could additionally influence by giving +- karma points and the elite has more influence because they can give 10 karma points at once.

[bitmover]

Imo, showing karma votes on a topic would be much better than the rating. Maybe nothvan coexist.

Like metacritic  there are official scores and  community score. (Karma)

Additionally,  reddit also shows the votes +- in a  thread , and it works well.