Someone in one of the main forums suggested that there be a means of rating the various ET personas for the quality of their contributions. I think this idea has considerable merit. It certainly would give people a method to evaluate others without actually obtaining any verifiable info. I suggest that every ET user be able to rate any other person only once, on a scale from one to five stars, and then allow modification whenever they wish. This would then provide a real time approximation of everyone's opinion of everyone else. Also, the total number of individual ratings contributing to the total rating should be available in order to quantify the sample size. Or, maybe I just have too much time on my hands at the moment.
Slashcode has this feature built into it (it's the software that runs Slashdot). They've got a pretty good little system there, where a certain number of random members in good standing get to rate a few posts each day, moderating them up or down based on quality. The better your posts are rated overall, the better your ranking is. And readers can adjust their "Threshold", and read at standard level (+1), or perhaps only the best posts (+5), or all the Trolls as well (-1) depending on the time and irritation constraints of the reader. But to accomplish this here ET would have some major restructuring to do, which pretty much isn't efficient or possible with the current system. What we could do instead is have a ranking under their name of how many people have that certain poster on "Ignore", giving us a gauge of their overall usefulness to the group. Or possibly the number of people who have them as a "Buddy". And while they're at it, the powers that be should start posting at least partial IP addresses, if only to put an end to the people who think certain forex-scalpzing posters are actually Baron or other ET celebrities.
I think it's a great idea. But, I know it's been suggested before and not acted upon. Implementation of this suggestion would make ET more useful, as well as possibly reduce some of the occasional nastiness that we see here.
I too was arguing it could be a great idea yesterday, but on second thought it may not work as we expect it should; this because many posters who show maturity, skills, etc. may also be rude and view by the majority as bad posters. On top of that many other posters who are bragging and unrealistic might impress and get more positive attentions than they truly deserve. Also alliances can prevent fair results. To avoid these problems it must be thought out well, not blandly copied by other sites.
This is a free forum and your adding cost. Are you willing to pay for that software? I think if you want a forum like that you should start your own site. Itâs not a bad idea but I think it would be foolish for elite to waste time on it. I can only imagine how many people will bitch about there ratings or have different names for different topics to keep there ratings. Itâs easy overtime to see who knows there shit and who donât. Here is a name to watch EricP he is no big monster player but has very nice solid consistent numbers. They are others out there to but I gave you one to start with.
This seems a bit conservative to me. Perhaps by adding functionality, the site will gain users and thereby increase ad revenues, which would overwhelm the development and administrative costs. No risk -- no gain.
Using a popularity contest as a substitute for professional moderation is not a good exchange for a maturing web site. At some point it makes sense to expect moderators to assume leadership roles within their forums. This means an active participation from the moderators in the style of content that is desired from the masses. The competition instinct from participants would propel the style. Perhaps a "moderator of the month" type contest, with some sort of reward associated with the winners would go a long ways to keep a tight ship. This could be extended to a "forum of the month", giving the moderators an excuse to publicly blow smoke up the ass's of their favorite contributors.
No one has suggested that a rating system be used as a substitute for professional moderators. However, on that point, I see little evidence of any expectation of "professional" conduct on ET. Rather, people all just say whatever they like, and as long as they don't do anything that seriously threatens ET's business existence, every post is permitted, no matter how objectively unreasonable its content may be.
Just in case I'm being misunderstood, I'll clarify a couple of points. I said professional moderation, not professional moderators. One does not need to be a professional to conduct themselves professionally. I agree we have not seen a lot of professional content, which was my point. I made my suggestions with the idea that the wild wild west type style can only take a trading site so far, as far as getting new eyes or returning eyes to the site. (I'm assuming that is the end goal for this site?) Also, my views are toward bringing in new business opposed to "not threatening existing business too much." Anyway it don't matter what I think, I don't have a personal attachment to the success of the site. I just think it's a shame to see so much time and effort wasted on jocularity and not enough time and effort spent on promoting professionalism.