X-Message-Number: 24093
Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 02:12:57 -0400
From: "Kevin Q. Brown" <>
Subject: Re: Inappropriate rating practices

In Message #24090 James Swayze said:
> The last time I posted a health warning, about Mad Cow disease
> showing up in New Jersey, I got an Off Topic rating from someone.
> I would have thought that health issues that directly impinge upon
> the suspension quality or the question of a timely one, as an
> identity robbing disease advances making suspension moot, would
> be On Topic, ..."

James,
I agree with your reasoning, especially since I live in New Jersey.
But perhaps it wasn't clear to the rater that diseases such as this
are particularly important to people who are signed up with a cryonics
organization.  I just reread your message #24014, which started
with a news article and then included your commentary at the end.
Someone quickly scanning your message might have seen only a news
article that did not interest him.

FYI: The rating system lets one rate a message as many times as one wants,
but it saves only the latest rating.  It thus is easy for a person
to change a previous rating which, in retrospect, he/she has decided
to be in error.

This example also points out that the "signal" generated by
the rating system includes some noise.  Consistent quality
is not a virtue of forums that lack strong moderation.
Also bear in mind that one person's high-quality message
is another person's junk message.  We can't please everyone.

> When I noticed that
> someone else sharing the same level and type of information did not get
> an Off Topic rating it caused my support of the rating system to fall to
> zero. It seems to have become a a little too much of a 'popularity of
> the poster according to the individual giving the rating', system for
> rating poster popularity, rather than a 'rate the message' rating system.

I think that several people have feared that.  But consider the recent
controversy about proposals to attend and support cryonics at the next
Frozen Dead Guy Days.  Even though several people vehemently objected to
Kennita Watson's FDGD plans, her recent postings have been rated highly.

     Kevin Q. Brown
     

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=24093