No more stars?

Re: No more stars?

Bob Russell — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 17:16:14 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

ot sure the anon account should be changed. It is possible that someone in difficulties might be put off posting if anyone (including Arlo) had details.

It also might open a can of worms if Arlo knew someone was in real trouble and failed to act to stop it.

[/quote] I was thinking the opposite: that someone who is desperate and genuinely needed help could be identified, after all these are usually cries for help. I don't think Arlo could be held responsible in any way if they really are going to do something silly nothing is going to stop them like my daughter's friend who posted on Facebook that she was going to commit suicide and did. My daughter has been racked with guilt ever since for failing to tell anyone out of loyalty to her friend but this girl was going to do it one way or another. I try to tell my daughter that she should feel anger for being made to feel this way not guilt but it is easier said than done and its made her suffer from mental illness since. Did I just contradict my own post?

[/quote]

I was not thinking particularly that Arlo would be held accountable more that he could feel a sense of responsibility. Not an easy call.

In a way you did contradict your own post but it sums up the sense of helplessness and guilt people feel after someone attempts or commits suicide.

Re: No more stars?

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 16:35:25 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

ot sure the anon account should be changed. It is possible that someone in difficulties might be put off posting if anyone (including Arlo) had details.

It also might open a can of worms if Arlo knew someone was in real trouble and failed to act to stop it.

Re: No more stars?

james herriot lied — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 13:34:49 GMT

I'd agree with leaving the anon feature alone - it needs to be as easy as possible to access, and completely anonymous, given the nature of some of the threads commenced under its banner. Those idiots who have a pop anonymously are worth putting up with - we're all big and ugly enough to cope with that.

Is it not just possible to disable ratings on the anon log-in?

Re: No more stars?

Bob Russell — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 13:26:58 GMT

Not sure the anon account should be changed. It is possible that someone in difficulties might be put off posting if anyone (including Arlo) had details.

It also might open a can of worms if Arlo knew someone was in real trouble and failed to act to stop it. Unlikely I know but not impossible. I genuinely like to believe there have been occasions the anon account has helped and supported individuals

Keep the account. You can always note later the red star was posted anon! Possibly try to find a way to block anon leaving feedback.

Re: No more stars?

Malcolm Ness — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 11:21:20 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]For the moment, I think it is more appropriate to just warn everyone that we can see who has rated what, and I will investigate future weird ratings.[/quote]

George Orwell might write a book about it!

Re: No more stars?

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 11:21:01 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"] I really am tempted to remove the anon account and insist that anyone who wants to post anonymously sets up a new anonymous account in which they give their details on registration (which cannot be seen by anyone other than me, so that I can be reassured that the poster is bona fide).[/quote] I think this is the only way anonymous posts should be made - make the change forthwith.

Re: No more stars?

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 11:09:11 GMT

[quote user="james herriot lied"] I suspect a certain Anon1 will be in the frame for some explanations, then.

Does this mean that you've been able to identify red star man/woman, Arlo? [/quote]

The anon account has been used to rate people's posts, but not particularly to single anyone out, and not on a large scale. However, I don't think it is right for anyone to use the anon account to rate posts, and I really am tempted to remove the anon account and insist that anyone who wants to post anonymously sets up a new anonymous account in which they give their details on registration (which cannot be seen by anyone other than me, so that I can be reassured that the poster is bona fide).

I only looked at the database concerning how one member had been rated, and yes, found a pattern. Whether or not the pattern was justifiable is harder to tell without yet further time-consuming analysis, though for various reasons, I believe that it was.

For the moment, I think it is more appropriate to just warn everyone that we can see who has rated what, and I will investigate future weird ratings.

[quote user="Anthony Dennison"]The other night, whilst scrolling through topics on my smart phone, I may have accidentally put a red star on a post - just remember scrolling down quickly then seeing a red star at the top of the screen.[/quote]

You're not the first person to say this. If you think you may have red starred accidentally, read the post which has a red star, and rate it again after reading it. If you red starred it by accident, when you rate it again it will cancel your original rating and replace with your new one.

Re: No more stars?

Anthony Dennison — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 09:58:22 GMT

Better confess...

The other night, whilst scrolling through topics on my smart phone, I may have accidentally put a red star on a post - just remember scrolling down quickly then seeing a red star at the top of the screen. Don't know whether it was me that gave it by accident or whether it was already there...

Though it may give an explanation as to how some random red stars seem to appear?

Re: No more stars?

Bob Russell — Wed, 07 Nov 2012 09:03:32 GMT

We are all curious and waiting with baited breath!

Unless I have been hacked 'not guilty mi'lord!'

Re: No more stars?

james herriot lied — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 18:47:09 GMT

I suspect a certain Anon1 will be in the frame for some explanations, then.

Does this mean that you've been able to identify red star man/woman, Arlo?

Re: No more stars?

James Laidlaw — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 18:24:26 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

For what is it worth, I'm already missing the star system myself. When it works, it is a nice quick and easy way of homing in on posts that are particularly good or bad.

The problem is accountability. There needs to be a way that we can see who awarded the stars, or at least a way that I can see who is awarding the stars, so I can ensure fair play. For example, at one point, someone seemed to be giving all of Mark Rowland's posts a one star. His posts didn't deserve one star (they more normally deserve 5), so there must have been something else going on there. A competitor of Mark's? A competitor of this site's? An ex-mistress? A disgruntled tortoise? Who knows.

Anyway, this is just a trial, and I am looking into other solutions.[/quote]

So, an update.

My main problem with the star system has been its lack of accountability, and that someone or some people might use them to unfairly mark down someone's contributions to these forums.

I have investigated this further, and it seems that we ARE able to interrogate our database to discover who has rated other people's posts, and how.

We have always worked on the basis that star ratings are anonymous, so I do not propose to reveal anyone's past starring habits.

What I will say is that from now on, anyone who singles out any other member for large numbers of red stars may be asked to justify themselves in the forum.

I don't want to discourage anyone from red-starring. Just be prepared to justify yourself (publicly) if you do it often, to the same person!

[/quote]

So tempted to red star this just for a laugh, but resisting the urge to push the red button for now...

Nice to know some accountability may be brought in for the anonymous red star attacks!

Re: No more stars?

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 18:23:13 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]What I will say is that from now on, anyone who singles out any other member for large numbers of red stars may be asked to justify themselves in the forum.[/quote] Hooray!

Re: No more stars?

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 06 Nov 2012 18:21:36 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

For what is it worth, I'm already missing the star system myself. When it works, it is a nice quick and easy way of homing in on posts that are particularly good or bad.

Anyway, this is just a trial, and I am looking into other solutions.[/quote]

So, an update.

My main problem with the star system has been its lack of accountability, and that someone or some people might use them to unfairly mark down someone's contributions to these forums.

I have investigated this further, and it seems that we ARE able to interrogate our database to discover who has rated other people's posts, and how.

We have always worked on the basis that star ratings are anonymous, so I do not propose to reveal anyone's past starring habits.

What I will say is that from now on, anyone who singles out any other member for large numbers of red stars may be asked to justify themselves in the forum.

I don't want to discourage anyone from red-starring. Just be prepared to justify yourself (publicly) if you do it often, to the same person!

Re: No more stars?

Cat Henstridge — Fri, 12 Oct 2012 13:28:48 GMT

I miss the stars! Especially at the moment with all the good debates going!

Could we have 'Like' buttons a la FaceBook?

Re: No more stars?

Tim Cheyne — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:44:25 GMT

I don't miss the stars but is there anywhere that explains the other symbols on the Forum Index; the question mark apparently dripping blood, for example?

Tim.

Re: No more stars?

Jo Cobbett — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:34:47 GMT

I use the stars for any really useful clinical posts, but more often for anything that makes me chuckle. The majority of my starrings are 5*, occasionally I might give a four, but don't think I've ever given any less than that. If it's only interesting/amusing enough for 2 or 3 stars then it's not interesting/amusing enough to prompt me to star it at all! And if I disagree with something strongly enough to give it a 1*, then I'm more likely to post a reply than just post an anonymous star.

Re: No more stars?

Rob Reid — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:29:10 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]For what is it worth, I'm already missing the star system myself. When it works, it is a nice quick and easy way of homing in on posts that are particularly good or bad.[/quote]

I like the star system personally for this reason, but I actually like to read the posts that are 1 starred as much as the ones that are 5 starred - they are often more controversial and certainly as entertaining. Another possibility would be to replace star system with a 'thumbs up, thumbs down' system like You Tube has.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]A disgruntled tortoise?[/quote]

That's no way to talk about Martin!!

Re: No more stars?

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:18:36 GMT

[quote user="Neil Wheadon"]I like Martin Atkinsons comments, I might disagree with some but at least he has the bottle to use his own name[/quote] I take that as a compliment. You may also add that I don't troll (play Devil's Advocate maybe) or throw my toys out of the cot if someone criticises me.

Re: No more stars?

Bob Russell — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 12:13:07 GMT

Arlo has said previously that he cannot tell the identity of An0n's. With some of the delicate subjects being brought up (particularly vets struggling) this anonymity is quite important.

It is sad when people hide behind this unnecessarily.

Red star man is a bit of an oddity!

Ex-mistress? That would drive me off this site overnight!

Re: No more stars?

Neil Wheadon — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:46:58 GMT

I miss it too, I skip over the red stars as agree that most are unreasonably placed. Mark Rowlands contributions are great. I used the search function last night to find a guinea pig metacam dose. They add a certain something to this site.

Anon postings - Far too many of these, I've never used it, but in certain cases such as the recent post on 'coping' it offered a valuable opening

Pseudonyms - If you can't say it to someones face, don't write it on a forum. I like Martin Atkinsons comments, I might disagree with some but at least he has the bottle to use his own name (Having said that James Herriott Lied, yours are always pretty good, where in Cornwall are you??)

Neil

Re: No more stars?

Lorna McHardy — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 09:59:11 GMT

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

Take your point about there being many more people reading the forum than contributing.

[/quote]

Name an internet forum where that is not the case! It's completely normal for the medium.

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

The problem is accountability. There needs to be a way that we can see who awarded the stars, or at least a way that I can see who is awarding the stars, so I can ensure fair play.

[/quote]

Five stars

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]

For example, at one point, someone seemed to be giving all of Mark Rowland's posts a one star. His posts didn't deserve one star (they more normally deserve 5), so there must have been something else going on there. A competitor of Mark's? A competitor of this site's? An ex-mistress? A disgruntled tortoise? Who knows.

[/quote]

LOL

As an aside and just out of interest, do you know the real identities of those posting here under anonymous pseudonyms, Arlo?

Re: No more stars?

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 10 Oct 2012 09:12:07 GMT

[quote user="An On MRCVS"]Arlo, you seem to have succumbed to the outspoken minority in doing this. [/quote]

If I have, it wasn't intentionally. Take your point about there being many more people reading the forum than contributing. And maybe you are right, removing the stars removes their ability to express an opinion (limited though it is).

But I think that equally Rob has a point:

[quote user="robloxley"]My 2p: the star system was broken and unhelpful as 'ratings' were rarely backed up by explanation/comment, and getting rid of it should hopefully encourage more lurkers to post and contribute, which is surely what it's about?[/quote]

For what is it worth, I'm already missing the star system myself. When it works, it is a nice quick and easy way of homing in on posts that are particularly good or bad.

Anyway, this is just a trial, and I am looking into other solutions.

Re: No more stars?

Rob Loxley — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 23:57:35 GMT

[quote user="An On MRCVS"]The reason I am speaking up is the star system gave the silent MAJORITY a way of anonymously marking posts[/quote]

It's a discussion forum, maybe come here to discuss not to pass judgement?

[quote user="An On MRCVS"]Without the star system you have increased the voice of the silent majority and allowed the outspoken minority to dominate[/quote]

I assume you meant decreased?
My 2p: the star system was broken and unhelpful as 'ratings' were rarely backed up by explanation/comment, and getting rid of it should hopefully encourage more lurkers to post and contribute, which is surely what it's about?

Re: No more stars?

Gillian Mostyn — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 22:14:50 GMT

Why post this anonymously? That is not what the facility is for!

Re: No more stars?

An On MRCVS — Tue, 09 Oct 2012 21:32:10 GMT

Arlo, you seem to have succumbed to the outspoken minority in doing this. There are LOts of users on this forum yet easily less than 1% contribute to the threads. I NEVER contribute, mainly due to some of the comments other contributors have experienced when adding their opinions (new local veterinary practice being one such example), though I accept this is beyond the control of any moderator. The reason I am speaking up is the star system gave the silent MAJORITY a way of anonymously marking posts. If some useful clinical info was given it was my way of showing appreciation. No, I did jog red star but as far as this goes, is it so bad to mark high as well as low. I seem to remember people describing the system as a "bit of fun" to which I whole heartfedly agree. Without the star system you have increased the voice of the silent majority and allowed the outspoken minority to dominate. A democracy? Of course not. Perhaps you should ask the users what they want before scrapping the scheme. Other posters here have also given this argument, please listen to us! Exits silently ...