A new feature of the Fray is the ability to rate posts. When we turned this feature on, ratings were "transparent." You could click on a post's rating and see who had rated it, and how high. Then, we turned this feature off. Now you only know the raw score.

There's been a lot of debate about which is preferable. I prefer "transparent," but I'm not married to it. Which do you prefer, and why?

Slate is an unusual environment where the posters do take pride in their posting names. By adding the hidden feature those posters who act out take complete advantage of that anonymity to give negative ratings to those they don't like or the bearer of bad news impacting content. It is much like the pre-MBTU days when posters took advantage of that anonymity and created havoc. In an already anonymous environment acting out is less a problem with transparancy.

Immediately to the right of this editing box, I can click a link to find out "how the human network inspires learning by connecting people."

That sounds good. Transparent ratings connect people:

• It is a source of positive reinforcement/acknowledgement when a post gets a "thumbs up." You feel connected with that person and the human network grows. That connection is far deeper when there is a "person" (in the form of a screenname) associated with the positive acknowledgement.
• Conversely, a thumbs-down discourages further participation, at least without improvement. It reduces the connection. Sometimes that might be a good thing, but if a poster is going to weaken someone's affiliation with the Fray, that person ought have to own up to it by having a screenname associated with it.

I recognize that the system can be manipulated. People can invent nicknames to give thumbs up/down ratings. But let's not manage to the childish few.

The ability to see who is doing the rating influences my reading of posts. The ratings, issued anonymously, do nothing for me one way or the other; I find myself ignoring them if I can't see who did the rating.

There's also the "accountability" issue. Who does the rating is as telling as the rating itself, and plays a part as to whether or not the post gets read.

Thanks for asking.

You should not be allowed to rate your own post. Also, can you verify that someone cannot rate it twice? This is not all-star voting.

would be nice, I tried doing this and the rating went only to the top post.

then I vote for transparency. If someone's going to vote negatively on someone's posts, then he/she should be forced to own up.

I've seen a couple of posts where I am certain...certain...that the thumbs-down votes had nothing to do with the content of the posts, but with its author.

If such an abuser of the system realizes a light will be shining on her, she might think twice before abusing the sytem.

...and, also... transparency might also help reades to decide whose votes are worth considering (e.g. dorkleflitz likes this post...and i've noticed that we seem to like the same posts, so i bet this is worth reading...)

You should not be able to do this, once the BBers figure this out, all hell will break loose with your ratings plan.

Users with integrity will not behave differently regardless of whether the feature is transparent or anonymous, while users who lack integrity are more likely to rate posts for specious reasons if their rating is anonymous. The anonymous rating therefore lacks some validity that the transparent rating possesses.

It just good manners to let people know who you are if you are going to be giving input about their posts.

There seems to be a theme to the responses. I want to throw out two questions - not because they reflect my beliefs... but because I'd like to hear your responses:

1) Cantankerous Down-rankers: I've noticed an odd pattern. Most complaints about vindictive recommendation have been coming from boards that are also famous for being ongoing flame-wars. Even if the cream isn't necessarily rising to the top, why shouldn't I believe the crap is falling to the bottom?

2) Who will use: In this thread, Dawn says that "users with integrity" (whoever that might be) don't change their behaviors whether the rankings are anonymous or transparent. Another recent post argued that "good posters" are afraid to use the recommend feature if their name is attached. My own experience teaches that certain people will be vicious little shits no matter who is or isn't watching. Others argue that the anonymity of rankings is enabling vindictive behavior that people wouldn't otherwise indulge in. Which is it?

If I thought more people would use the feature "properly" (as in, actually try to exercise some good sense about what is or isn't interesting reading) under one way or the other, that would strongly influence my opinion. I'd rather see the ranking feature bringing great posts into view, rather than spotlighting this place's narcissistic tendencies. Do you think one system encourages responsible usage more than another? Are our only options "responsible refusal to use" or "irresponsible use"?

---------------

I lean towards "transparent" because I believe that each of us has different levels of respect for one another - and that knowing who likes a thread and who doesn't adds valuable qualititative information to the raw score. If someone you admire likes a post, that's a good reason to open it. If someone with terrible taste likes it, that might be a reason not to. In that sense, I think it could be very useful.

I'm also somewhat against on the grounds that anonymous rankings seem absurd - you all already have pseudonyms. Now we're giving your fake names privacy so that you don't sully your anonymous identities? Why don't we just give your nicknames their own nicknames?

However, the process is less important to me than the outcome - what do you think of the current "Highest Rated" posts? I'm grateful that the rating system brought Bubbuh to my attention - he's a good poster I didn't notice before. But many of the posts getting uprated strike me as the sort of trite insider gossip that earned this place its terrible reputation in the first place. What are your thoughts?

Freditor_G:

I'm also somewhat against on the grounds that anonymous rankings seem absurd - you all already have pseudonyms. Now we're giving your fake names privacy so that you don't sully your anonymous identities? Why don't we just give your nicknames their own nicknames?

Whatever else happens in this discussion, I want you to know that I found this paragraph really funny.

My nickname already has a nickname (and a bit of a reputation), so if it's up to any funny business with the ratings system I would really like to know about it.

I think once everyone gets the whole rating thing out of their system, it will probably be used a bit more responsibly. So many people just got such a kick out of it, that they went a bit overboard...new toys, ya know.

But, yes, with the ability to see who is rating up or down, it is easier to guage if I am interested in reading a post or not. e.g. If everybody I disagree with has given a post a hearty thumbs down, I gotta figure it's worth reading, eh?

period. If someone wants to 'recommend' that a post be read, 'bump it' to the top. There are very few people (at least at Ballot Box) who will use this feature with integrity to recommend a well-written and relevant topic post. As opposed to many who will be vindictive and create yet more flaming. I say drop it - leave it to the editors to appraise and recommend those posts that he thinks merit attention. As I said - I don't rely on the Freditor's checkmark or star - or another poster's recommended/not recommended before I open a post. If you took a poll, I'm guessing MOST other posters don't either.

Most people know what they like to read - and it ISN'T yet more flame wars due to who is abusing the 'thumbs down' feature. I'm sure this won't mean anything to you - but that's how I feel about this silly feature.

That’s what I’ve been saying all along since you first mentioned the goddamn rating shit way back when, i.e., it matters who’s doing the rating precisely because, and I’ll say it yet again, for christ’s sake, some posters are more equal than others.

Transparency. I understand completely bright’s refusal to use it, but it doesn’t mean she’s not going to post a note in Fraywatch or, for that matter, actually respond to a post. For some posters, simply responding to a post is an endorsement of it and, depending on the poster, a powerful endorsement at that.

I’m really starting to feel like a broken record again. Thanks for that.

And would you please fix the fucking tag box thing. It took me 10 minutes of fudging to get it to say just “Richard Rorty” in the tags for my Culturebox post. It’s lame-inducingly annoying. Seriously.