Uncyclopedia:Rating System/Archive 2

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Anonymous or not

Should anon users be able to vote? --Chronarion 23:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a tough one. There are certain anon users who do alot for Uncyclopedia, but they all get a bad name from the vandalism. I think it should be fine if anon users vote, because the chances of vandals somehow ruining a page by giving it an extremely high/low rating is very low. Tompkinssig Smallturtle t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 23:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

We'll get lots more votes if we let anon-users vote. We'll get higher quality votes if we only let registered users vote. I'm not sure which is more important. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 01:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Its a bit more work but it is certainly possible to make anonymous votes carry less weight than registered user votes. Say, for example That an article whose first voter voted 100% (5 stars). If the next user to vote votes 0%: if the user is registered, the average is now 50% (2.5 stars?), if its anonymous, the average is now 75%, (3.5 stars?) -- Village IdiotKUN Free Speech 22:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

With the Wikipedia rating system, we determined that (a) we didn't know what the numbers were actually going to look like, so we'd just gather numbers and see how the data came out. I strongly suggest the same here. We also determined that (b) we would make all ratings visible to everyone at all time (they're encyclopedia work, just like every edit) and (c) we really did want anon ratings, since there are presumably readers this is being produced for.

I strongly recommend: 1. Pick a simple system. 2. Make all ratings readable. 3. Let anons rate. 4. See how the numbers come out. 5. Tweak when we actually know what the hell we're tweaking, which we don't yet - David Gerard 16:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Dangerous. Uncyc lets anyone make articles, and simply NRVs/QVFDs crap. The effect of this is that our database and site is flooded with it. Just hit random page a few times and you are garunteed to come up with some bizarre crap. -- Village IdiotKUN Free Speech 23:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Scoring system

One to five stars? One to five potatoes? One to ten? Negative one to aleph null?

Sophia (*****) > Oscar Wilde > Jesus > Hitler > Steve Ballmer (*) --—rc (t) 23:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
What? "This article has been found by common consensus to be worthy of: (see above)" -- Village IdiotKUN Free Speech 22:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Ninjastars. -- Tinymooose.gif » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 03:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Where to put the buttons? How to show the user that we've clicked?

See the mockups. --Chronarion 23:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that the stars are silver when the user has not voted, and are gold when they have. Alternativly putting "Rate this page" or "Change your rating" in subscript under the stars might work. --Bloodrage 01:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Eh, empty shells that light up on mouseover should be enough to indicate what to do. If users can't figure that out, they need to find somewhere else to browse. As for the location, the top mockup looks great. Not as keen on the in-title stars. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 01:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Seriously. If a user needs a popup when every they put their mouse over a star saying "Congratulations! You found the rating system! Click this star (With your left mouse button, depress it then release it in sequence) to give this article a rating of : (Rating)" then they are a danger to society. light up stars will work great. -- Village IdiotKUN Free Speech 22:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The only concern I have about mouseover ratings is its effect on users without Javascript enabled. There needs to be some alternative method (a Special page, perhaps) for those users and for users with accessibility issues. --Algorithm (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
use css a:hover then. -- Village IdiotKUN Free Speech 23:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I occasionally need to use Links. Can you make sure that it's still accessable to me? I also need a snail-mail way to get my vote to American Idol (no phone) and a way to pick up TV signals. (no electricity) Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 01:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the stars inside the title of the page. Also, forget all the fancy stuff, just allow the stars to be clicked to change the rating. If we use AJAX, it should have something to indicate success, and if it doesn't, it should still have some method of advising the user of success. If the user has voted, they should still be able to change their vote by clicking a star, since it doesn't take much to attempt to change the record for the page/rev/user. We'll still need a good/easy way to view the votes on a page so we can invalidate them or to invalidate all votes for a revision under extreme circumstances.

Beyond that, a method for seeing dramatic changes in scores should be available... Some type of special page that shows the last X pages with votes and how they compare to the last valid version for administrative purposes (so we can see when a version decreases the quality of an article). Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 05:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Database Cont.

Algo: Yeah I know that. I didn't explain it all the way, sorry... the vote table has a timestamp. all we would have to do is, when a user submits a new vote, select WHERE vote_userid=WhateverUser ORDER BY vote_timestamp(or whatever the timestamp field is) DESC;, subtract that vote value from the score_sum field, and add the new vote value to the score_sum field. or you could use the order by for something else. But overall its not that difficult. -- Village IdiotKUN Free Speech 00:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Ratings style

How plausible is a 1-10 sliding a la TV.com? I think that would be the most effective scale statistically speaking. A good four-star article has little to deliniate it from a low-level three star article in a 1-5 system, whereas on the 1-10 scale the 4-star article might be an eight, while the mediocre-at-best 3-star article will get a five, and in-between articles fit easier in between the two. The reader benifits more in determining the relative qualities of articles. -- Tinymooose.gif » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 03:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

One big problem with this is interface based. How do we make an interface for 10 stars? Can you provide a mockup? --Chronarion 07:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I can provide you nothing. This techno mumbo-jumbo is too much for me. But if a 1.0-10.0 system is plausible, that's what I would go with. -- Tinymooose.gif » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 17:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not technical, it's just uh, how is it supposed to look...? --Chronarion 23:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Ten half-stars? --Carlb 00:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


Moved to: Uncyclopedia:Rating System/Code --Chronarion 23:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Do we have a timetable on this now? Or are we just going to cut-and-run? -- Tinymooose.gif » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 17:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Ajax update

It is indeed possible to use Ajax with Mediawiki. See the example on my wiki. It may not look like much, big deal, a button that when clicked updates the time in the div. But heres the thing: the function to return the time is a php function, and its doing this without refreshing. Which means when a user rates a page, the new rating can be displayed without refreshing. It may also be worth looking into other extension projects, for example a realtime updating recent changes page. -- Village IdiotKUN Free Speech 00:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal tools