Post rating system.

[resopalrabotnick]

How about reinstating a rating system for posts. not neccessarily rating the user just rating the post from 1 to 5 stars, the more stars the more it's worth reading.

That way one could find older posts that were noteworthy but one missed due to absenceor whatever by looking for unread posts sorted by rating.

[just-]

would be a bit like www.digg.com

ratting each thread i think that is what u mean

[tommie gorman]

When was this? I think I missed out on it. 

[resopalrabotnick]

i think it was. back then after reaching a certain number of posts you could praise or smite users for their posts. but the score was kept on a per user not per post basis.

what i am proposing is to be able to give each and every post a rating of readworthiness. that would enable you to skip longer posts that are just trollish ramblings if you want to miss most of my stuff for example.

[tommie gorman]

But some of these end up turning out completely different. And it sometimes becomes kind of interesting. That was probably when not so much was going on, since the site was still growing. But I do not think I would have much time for that now. And if someone just wanted to just be mean, well you know what I mean.

This site just gets bigger every day. 

By the way, what is the member count now anyway?

[resopalrabotnick]

you can alsways weigh votes by newer users less than those from older users, so just being mean is less effective. (i know i'm going out on a limb here. but i do expect the longer term members to be less inclined to just be mean than the newer members, as they have more time invested in the place.) anyhow, you can always ignore the rating of a post if the subject suits you.

the interesting thing is that something with a boring start turning interesting would get high readworthiness ratings for the later readworthy posts, thereby highlighting them and lifting them above an otherwise uninteresting thread.

obviously i'm going to stick by my guns and say it's a good idea no matter what you say. otherwise i wouldn't have put the damned poll up in the first place.

[tommie gorman]

Why did it get cancelled last time?

I wasn't knocking the idea really, I just did not know how it would turn out. I would say it is worth a shot. 

[rammolo]

Hi Folks, What is really important in forums is not the position you get as results of your posts, what really matters here is the quality of your posts, For Heavens Sake, dont post if you are not sure what you are posting. Read answers before making a post maybe the same thing is already posted 10 times before u.

[tommie gorman]

Guilty, and that does happen sometimes.

[resopalrabotnick]

last time it rated only the user, not the individual post.

[cholla]

I remember something when I first registered called "karma" I think .It seemed to cause problems when someone got bad karma or negative.I would vote agaist having that back.

I think that someone that got a "great post"rating would be happy but the one that got "your post sucks what the hell are you talking about" rating wouldn't be.

[resopalrabotnick]

speaking as someone that would collect quite a few bad post reviews when trolling i wouldn't really mind. the great post rating would be to mark the post as noteworthy, to highlight the cream of the crop, so to say. that way more people (if they chose to look for highly rated posts) would see the noteworthy ones.

[j3grizz]

I think it would be pretty neat to have it. But agree with cholla about the your post sucks part.