What criteria do YOU use to rate a thread?

[LeftCoast]

I'm still formulating my philosophy on this one. I'm interested in how others have resolved this. Feedback is appreciated. Thanks!

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

1. If the post is by me,

then OBVIOUSLY it will be worth a rating of 5.

If it's by anyone else, well, I don't really have much of a comment about THOSE people...

:evilgrin:

[Amaya]

2. Umm

I think rating a thread is absurd. :eyes:

[oneighty]

3. Maybe just me,

but the fact that there are few ratings suggests to me, that DUers. do not intend to rate posts. A true and wonderful reflection of Du character.

IMHO

180

[bearfartinthewoods]

13. why is that a wonderful thing?

there is some crappy stuff posted here everyday. what;s wrong with warning people that a thread isn't worth the time it takes to download it?

there are also some magnificent writing that goes un-noticed because of an unknown poster oe the time of day or whatever. why not alert others that they may be missing something great?

[oneighty]

14. I was not

aware one could make a negative rating. Speaking for myself. It is not my place to be the judge of post quality. I will not be doing any rating. I do not mind if you or anyone else does. I am not seeing much rating. I wonder why.

180

[Dudley_DUright]

4. I only rate threads low

that ask me about my criteria on rating threads. :evilgrin: Otherwise I don't bother.

[LeftCoast]

5. Well, instead of getting snippy

Why don't you explain why you don't like ratings then? As I said in the original post, I'm still formulating my rating philosophy. That could easily include whether I rate a thread or not. I assume, since the ability to rate a thread is there, that SOMEONE feels there is some value to rating a thread. From the responses this thread has gotten, there are apparently others who do not like ratings.

[Dudley_DUright]

6. I guess my lame attempt at humor did not translate too well

clearly I did not rate this thread low since last time I checked it has no rating at all, which is the case for the vast majority of threads here. In response to your serious question, here is a serious answer. Unless the rating shows how many votes there have been, it is not a good indicator of anything at all. For example, you could see a 5 on a thread, but it might be one person (even the author) rating it, where another thread might have a 4.3, but with hundreds of people rating it. Unless you have a display like 4.3 (4 votes), I don't think it has much value. Actually, even then, I probably would not bother with it too much since number of responses and views are of much more value to me.

[LeftCoast]

7. Sorry 'bout that!

There I go being too sensitive! :)

You make a good point regarding shifting rating scale (4.3 out of 500 rates) v. (4.3 ot of 5 rates). I guess I assumed that everyone would use it all the time, but then >>I<< haven't been rating anything either so there goes that theory. :)

Thanks for the reply!

[Wonk]

8. I think the thread rating feature may have been turned off.

I just tried rating a thread in GD a 5 as a suggestion to other DUers to read it but when I looked again at the GD forum the thread remains unrated. Oh well, I'm sure it'll get tons of attention anyway since Pitt started it.

[DUreader]

10. There is a minimum # of ratings before it shows

[bearfartinthewoods]

11. the rating for a thread doesn't show until 5 people have rated it.

it was changed to prevent people from rating their enemies a one out of spite.

[Darranar]

9. If the subject is stupid,

the source is biased, and the posts in response are idiotic it is a one. If the subject is great, the source is excellent, and the posts in response are enlightening, it gets a five.

[bearfartinthewoods]

12. if i feel the thread was worth reading

i rate it a three. if i'd recommend it to a friend, it's a five.

if i feel like i want my click back, it's a one.