Stars and post ratings

Re: Stars and post ratings

Anthony Todd — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 16:44:57 GMT

Yeah, well someone &*&*&** has reduced my only 5 stars [self awarded] to 3 and a bit.......

You just have no idea how bad it makes me feel [sound of fat body hitting the ground from a great height.....]

Re: Stars and post ratings

Bob Russell — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 09:26:53 GMT

Sadly you need to 'star' yourself to see how many people have starred you!

Re: Stars and post ratings

Anthony Todd — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 11:44:33 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

I seem rarely to get any stars of any colour [deep sigh]

[/quote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JutZEoi8OeU

[/quote]

Now that I've just realised I'll have to learn the banjo and sing, might I say that I'd rather get a red star, if what I've said is total bollards, and up to 5 stars if 1,2,3,or 4 people agree with me because that way I'll know if people think pre-op bloods in blocked cats are good, bad or indifferent, to take a current example.

I suppose 5 red stars would be a nice addition and I'm sure I would be a recipient many times but, again, on any given subject it would be an instant way of seeing the views that others thought were wrong.

And you might consider 2 lines, one for gold, the people who agree and one for red the antagonists; take the cruciate thread, for example?

Anyone looking for information on the subject can just look for 5 stars, although starring your own posts, however much you think you're right, should be impossible.

Anyone who's personal just loses the argument anyway. I'm not wrong, my argument is.

No stars at all leaves me in limbo and I lie awake at night.....so I've given meself the first 5 of the year, geez, it's like the New Year's Honours List and I love the acclaim.

Makes the point of self-starring being outlawed though!

Re: Stars and post ratings

Lorna McHardy — Sun, 01 Jan 2012 11:09:27 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

There seems to be some almost malicious red stars for no reason.

[/quote]

Just found this...

I've not been here long, and it took me a week or so to work out that it's very easy to register a rating just through moving your mouse around and hovering over the stars; so I rated quite a few posts unintentionally before I got the hang of it. That may explain some of the odd ones, if I'm not the only newbie to do that!

Now that I've got it, I think it's quite fun. Like most others, I'll usually only use 5, if it makes me laugh, I agree completely, or think it's particularly well put. I'll also give one star to posts that are personal and unpleasant in tone regardless of whether I agree with the content or not. There's not much of that about, though, other than in the controversial file... one of the many good things about this site

Re: Stars and post ratings

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:43:33 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

I seem rarely to get any stars of any colour [deep sigh]

[/quote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JutZEoi8OeU

Re: Stars and post ratings

Anthony Todd — Mon, 10 Oct 2011 13:25:02 GMT

I seem rarely to get any stars of any colour [deep sigh]

Re: Stars and post ratings

Martin Jones — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:43:12 GMT

On the other hand, I've clearly upset Camilla, and that was not my intention: sometimes self-righteousness makes me a bit of an @rse, so to Camilla I apologise unreservedly, and I hope that you're not put off posting on here in future.

Martin

Re: Stars and post ratings

Michael Woodhouse — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 13:42:32 GMT

[quote user="Martin Jones"]Childish behaviour continuing - lately there have been numerous instances of poster starting argument, getting shot down in flames and then crying foul and ducking out. This is then followed by anonymous red starring of any further posts by the OP's opponents in the thread. [/quote]

That's sort of the reason I started this thread. My point was the stars shouldn't be anonymous bickering. If I agree with someone's post I would more than happy to be identified, and vice versa. Apparently that's not possible.

Re: Stars and post ratings

An On MRCVS — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 13:28:07 GMT

Thanks for posting that Camilla. I have long felt a lot of posts on here are very personal. Opinion is just that, opinion, and people should be entitled to their own without being attacked. Especially on what is supposed to be a professional forum. I very very rarely write any posts for that very reason and as you can see I am now using Anon!

Re: Stars and post ratings

Martin Jones — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 11:01:54 GMT

Camilla.

Sorry if you're having a bad time at the moment - genuinely, if you have any issues relating to stress, depression and practice - or indeed anything else - then I'd be more than happy to offer you whatever support I could in private. Like many in the profession, I've been there and wouldn't wish it on anybody else.

But your comments are tosh and self-contradictory. I think JGW would be the first to admit that he and I often don't see eye to eye, and I haven't got involved in the dog bite thread entirely because of the personal nature of some of the comment; but your behaviour isn't great in this, and you seem to be admitting to it without understanding why it's not acceptable. Be in the debate, or don't: but don't snipe anonymously - that's just rude and inflammatory.

As for demanding apublic apology - really, Camilla. Anything you wished to discuss in private, I think you would find me to be a considerate and caring individual, but stuff like this just beggars belief.

Re: Stars and post ratings

Camilla Edwards — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 10:42:12 GMT

Dear Martin Jones, David Mills and JGW.

I feel you, Mr Martin Jones refer to me after your comments on the thread dog on dog attack where you refer to me directly by name.

I have been on vetsurgeon.org for a long time now. Often I feel like a lurker, and occassionally if I have something really strong to add, I will make my point, but I am always wary that this is a public domain and always really think about my responses before writing them. I often if you look through my posts try to back up my arguments with evidence. I often think I'm right and others are wrong, but try to argue my point against the argument rather than the arguer, as I'm sure on other points we would agree, and you never know where you might meet people in your career, and they are people at the other end of the post. I do red star and 5 star posts (as you can see previously in this thread) if I feel I have nothing more to add than has already been said.

I'm such a huge fan of vetsurgeon.org that I have it as one of my homepages and being at home on maternity leave with my computer always on you you will see I'm online a lot! (Although where you can see that I don't know?) It has been invaluable during maternity leave for keeping me in touch with the profession! So it was not me who red star your last posts in the dog on dog attacks thread, and a public apology will be accepted for you implying that it was me.

I did star some posts after pulling out of that thread, but they had already been stared and it was to see how many people were agreeing with me.

Now with regards to that thread, for once I thought, well I know what I think might be different to what others think, but heck I'll just write it anyway, other people do. However when things were clearly hotting up, I decided (particularly suffering with a bit of baby blues) that I was just to sensitive at the moment to carry on in the thread and made it clear I was pulling out.I was happy to continue to read the thread to see what conclusions were made about the arguments made.

Instead, I have felt the threads have been targeted at me rather than at my argument. I have said I won't comment any more, so stop telling me I have to. And targeting like that doesn't mean you've won the argument. Please continue the thread but don't use me, please by all means argue against my argument, or continue your hypothesis as to where you think an argument like mine might lead. And who knows at the end of it I might agree with you!

This process has upset me a lot, and I know that I'm perhaps oversensitive at the moment, and will look back and think I should have been stronger, but please respect that I have pulled out of the thread, and will not be responding any more.

Kind Regards,

Mrs Camilla Edwards

Re: Stars and post ratings

Simon Neuhoff — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 08:51:39 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]

[quote user="Simon Neuhoff"]

Because otherwise you would have either an endless series of posts saying "I concur" or else no sense at all of how many people agree with you.

[/quote]

Doh. You still have no idea how many people have concurred or disagreed it could be 10 giving 4 stars or one giving a red and one giving 5. Take a red star for that. See thats reduced your stars to 4 from 5 but if I hadn't told you I'd red starred you you wouldn't have known.

[/quote]

You may not know exactly but the "post rating" at the bottom gives you a points total which gives you an idea. Clearly this forum is not about points scoring! That said I think the stars system gives you an idea of forumites' attitudes in general so I find it useful

PS at the risk of being NOT serious - have a red star from me ;-)

Re: Stars and post ratings

Cat Henstridge — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:22:26 GMT

Well, I like the stars and to be fair it is a pretty standard thing on a lot of forums. It is an easy way of showing your agreement/displeasure, especially when you don't have much to add to a discussion if someone has already said everything. Or a good way of venting (without being too rude!) if you really disagree!

Plus, have you noticed the more ratings you get, the more points your post gets? And points mean...... well nothing actually but it is fun seeing how many you get!

Cat

Re: Stars and post ratings

Mark Holmes — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 19:53:32 GMT

I will have to start rating my own or at least until Arlo can display the stats without having to rate it ourselves

Re: Stars and post ratings

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 19:24:24 GMT

[quote user="Niall Taylor"]

You can tell how many times you've been rated and what your average rating is by hovering the cursor over the stars but only AFTER you rate the post yourself (i.e., that is the reason I will occasionally rate my own posts as mentioned above). Still doesn't tell you who gave what though of course.

Niall

[/quote]

Doh to me then. Have another red star for that - yup the hover worked. This could be fun, but now we won't know who is just giving stars for the hell of it and who is serious. Best get serious in future I guess.

Re: Stars and post ratings

Niall Taylor — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:35:57 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]You still have no idea how many people have concurred or disagreed it could be 10 giving 4 stars or one giving a red and one giving 5[/quote]

Niall

Re: Stars and post ratings

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:24:38 GMT

[quote user="Simon Neuhoff"]

Because otherwise you would have either an endless series of posts saying "I concur" or else no sense at all of how many people agree with you.

[/quote]

Re: Stars and post ratings

Mark Holmes — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:06:48 GMT

Well I have managed to return the favour for the one star Niall..... and I wasn't really worried on the slaughter thread, more mock protest!

Re: Stars and post ratings

Niall Taylor — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 17:44:39 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]You would be a bit of a self obsessed pillock to rate your own posting.[/quote]

Actually, and speaking as a self obsessed pillock, the only way to see what ratings your own posts have been given is to rate your own post. Only then can you tell what others have given and how often, by hovering the cursor over the stars.

[quote user="Mark Holmes"] I think the stars are a bit of fun, not worried if somebody gives me a red star [/quote]

Ooooh, it wasn't like that when I red starred you on the religious slaugher thread, I believe the pillock word was employed on that occasion too

I think the most important thing in this whole, vital topic is the star : post ratio - by my back of *** packet calculations I vote myself as the worst scorer on the forum with a ratio of just over 200, while most others have in the region of 300. I blame to much raw diet and homeopathy - I've been Lonsdaled !

I vote to keep them, they are good fun.

Niall

... and I'm not bitter or anything...

Re: Stars and post ratings

James Allsop — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 16:02:47 GMT

[quote user="Simon Neuhoff"]Because otherwise you would have either an endless series of posts saying "I concur" or else no sense at all of how many people agree with you. I rarely bother to voice my opinion if someone else has it pretty much nailed - why would I? I just given them 5 stars[/quote]

i concur

Re: Stars and post ratings

Tim Cheyne — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:58:24 GMT

It has never occurred to me to take notice of, nor to award stars. Now that the system has been explained to me I find it rather pointless and slightly childish on what is a good forum for professional discussion. However, whether the stars go or stay is a matter for Arlo; in neither case will I retire to a corner and sulk.

Tim.

Re: Stars and post ratings

Simon Neuhoff — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:06:29 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]

Why have a star rating at all? Surely a reasoned discussion of why you like/dislike a post is more constructive and all you need. Rating without that is cowardly.

[/quote]

Because otherwise you would have either an endless series of posts saying "I concur" or else no sense at all of how many people agree with you. I rarely bother to voice my opinion if someone else has it pretty much nailed - why would I? I just given them 5 stars.

Re: Stars and post ratings

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:50:34 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]

[quote user="Arlo Guthrie"]I've been refreshing my mammary[/quote]

What would Sigmund Freud say? [/quote]

Just in case anyone othought otherwise, it was a deliberate malaprop!

Re: Stars and post ratings

Arlo Guthrie — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:22:03 GMT

I've just given everyone, myself included, 5 stars because it's Wednesday.

Re: Stars and post ratings

Martin Atkinson — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 13:16:52 GMT

[quote user="Ben Walton"]

I just one-starred you. Just for kicks.

[/quote]

Someone else must have agreed with me then because last time I looked there were 2.