|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Another change to Trust Ratings |
| 1-19 of 19 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 02-19-09 11:38am - 5784 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
Khan (0)
Suspended  Posts: 1,737 Registered: Jan 05, '07 Location: USA |
Another change to Trust Ratings At the request/suggestion of our users, we took another look at some of the older Trust Ratings and decided to make a small change. Back in Nov of 2007 we started requiring that No Trust ratings contain a comment. This was so the ratings could be constructive. At the time, we allowed all the older No ratings to stay, even if they didn't have a reason given. Some time has passed since we made that change and we've decided that we'll drop all earlier No Trust ratings that do not carry a comment. So effective immediately, you may see a change to the total number of Trust ratings shown on your account. Note we are *only* removing NO ratings that didn't have a comment. If it was an earlier YES rating or if the early NO rating had a reason, it will remain. We decided to leave the older YES ratings so no-one would suddenly lose a (hard earned) Trust badge. If there is anyone who cast an anonymous No Trust rating earlier still wants to give a user a No Trust vote, they are welcome to recast their vote but will now be required to leave a comment with the reason. We hope our users are happy with this change. As always, thank's for your continued support of PornUsers.com Former PornUsers Senior Administrator Now at: MyPorn.com "To get your ideas across use small words, big ideas, and short sentences."-John Henry Patterson | |
|
||
| 02-19-09 02:59pm - 5784 days | #2 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Great decision Khan, and the rest of the PU Staff! These anonymous, no-comment NO ratings hurt some good members here, especially when all they wanted was a simple explanation for the rating and none was given. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 02-19-09 06:41pm - 5784 days | #3 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User  Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Great stuff. I think the decision improves the integrity of the place. It makes it more difficult to blemish someone's record because you either have a personal grudge, or are involved with a website that has been given a bad review. It is still possible to do this, but the new policy makes it harder. Edited on Feb 19, 2009, 06:55pm | |
|
||
| 02-19-09 06:55pm - 5784 days | #4 | |
|
Khan (0)
Suspended Posts: 1,737 Registered: Jan 05, '07 Location: USA |
Glad you like the decision. As a reminder (addressing the above remark) ... webmasters may not give trust ratings. Neither can brand new users give trust ratings. Former PornUsers Senior Administrator Now at: MyPorn.com "To get your ideas across use small words, big ideas, and short sentences."-John Henry Patterson | |
|
||
| 02-19-09 07:06pm - 5784 days | #5 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
I fully realise that webmasters can't give trust ratings, but I am well aware it is more than possible and likely, to get someone linked with a website (a shill), to register and then give a negative. It is still possible to do this, as all you have to do is leave a reason, but it does make it a lot more difficult. (Yes I also realise you have to have 5 points to vote, but it is still fairly easy to get 5 points for a few simple reviews - it isn't like qualification for Mensa or a university degree). I also think the policy makes it more difficult for someone who has a personal grudge or dislike of another member to leave a negative. Naturally it gets the thumbs up from me. I realise this is Rick's site with some great management from you, Khan. I am always grumbling and trying to change things (been doing that for 40 years), but I do think this helps the integrity and feel of the place. | |
|
||
| 02-20-09 10:44am - 5784 days | #6 | |
|
Khan (0)
Suspended Posts: 1,737 Registered: Jan 05, '07 Location: USA |
TheSquirrel; you are, of course, welcome to believe what you will. I have a bit of an advantage because I can see who gave the negative votes and when. While I'd never say it's *impossible* for a webmaster to sneak in a trust rating, I will say that after doing some extensive digging into the trust ratings, I see absolutely no indication that's what we were seeing. What I did find was that many (if not most) negative trust ratings could be seen to coincide (timing wise) with a user giving an excessively high (or very low) score on a review. I mention all this not to be argumentive, but rather to let you (and other PU's) know we take integrity serious here. We dropped the older anon ratings ... not because we suspected the system had been abused, but rather because it was consistent with the change we made last November. If the recent change also gives you a warm-n-fuzzy that it'll now be harder for webmasters to sneak in a no trust rating, so much the better. :) Former PornUsers Senior Administrator Now at: MyPorn.com "To get your ideas across use small words, big ideas, and short sentences."-John Henry Patterson | |
|
||
| 02-20-09 02:19pm - 5783 days | #7 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
Although I personally don't like the trust ratings thing, I not only believe you, I think the system you now have in place is excellent, if you are going to have trust ratings. If webmasters really did want to get a negative in they would be able to, in the same way anyone who has a personal grudge against another member would be able to. No system is perfect. I do think what you have done though, is vastly improve things over the months I have been observing you. | |
|
||
| 02-21-09 10:12am - 5783 days | #8 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Great decision, thanks, Khan! | |
|
||
| 02-21-09 10:21am - 5783 days | #9 | |
|
exotics4me (0)
Active User  Posts: 664 Registered: Jan 12, '07 Location: USA |
I had just noticed it. Thanks for this, seems like I got my no vote way back when the site first started. I always figured that it would be there because we had some members that disappeared back then. My first time I jacked off, I thought I'd invented it. I looked down at my sloppy handful of junk and thought, This is going to make me rich. - Chuck Palahniuk | |
|
||
| 02-21-09 10:31am - 5783 days | #10 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
One more question, Khan. Does a comment like "not a good review" count if it is anonymous and does not even refer to the review being questioned? That one has rankled since I joined this illustrious group because it gave me no way to defend my effort. That particular "no trust" just left me with the impression that someone was being hateful for no good reason except that I had probably panned one of his favorite sites. | |
|
||
| 02-21-09 11:13am - 5782 days | #11 | |
|
Khan (0)
Suspended Posts: 1,737 Registered: Jan 05, '07 Location: USA |
Yes, if they gave a reason, then the no trust rating remains. Anon or not makes absolutely no difference. We usually encourage users to give *good* reasons when they assign a no trust rating, however, for the most part, we take a "hands off" approach here. To do otherwise would end up with us censoring trust ratings. Unfortunately, a fair number of users assign a Trust Rating based on a particular review w/out mentioning which review it was. Former PornUsers Senior Administrator Now at: MyPorn.com "To get your ideas across use small words, big ideas, and short sentences."-John Henry Patterson | |
|
||
| 02-21-09 12:11pm - 5782 days | #12 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Fair enough, thanks! | |
|
||
| 02-21-09 04:51pm - 5782 days | #13 | |
|
ramscrota (0)
Suspended  Posts: 54 Registered: Jul 04, '07 Location: Geelong Vic Australia |
I think this is a good decision. I fell foul of an annonymous trust rating, and if sometone felt that way about something I wrote, I'd like to have a reason. | |
|
||
| 02-23-09 05:59pm - 5780 days | #14 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I notice that mine have also disapeared and I just wanted to say thank you officer and I'll never do it again. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 02-23-09 09:17pm - 5780 days | #15 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
x Edited on Apr 19, 2023, 02:41pm | |
|
||
| 02-24-09 06:21am - 5780 days | #16 | |
|
Tree Rodent (0)
Active User Posts: 708 Registered: Oct 29, '08 Location: UK |
I agree Wittyguy. It's why I said the more you stick your neck out, the more likely you are to get a negative. In fact the more you care, and the more passionate you are, the more likely you are to get a negative. The management here likes them so they're staying. I don't like them at all. That's irrelevant because I have nothing to do with the place. But if they are going to keep them, I think the system is about as fine tuned as it is going to get. Following on from your post, I think the ones who care the most, are the ones most likely to get a negative. This ties back with the disagreement I was having with some members about lists of rogue sites. Once again, management do not want them. I am repeating myself once again but, everything ties in with my opinion from last year. America is too much about not offending people. Excellence is a no no. Incisive, intelligent conversation and criticism is a no no, because people could get offended, and that could harm profits. America has evolved a system where you make the most out of offending the least number of people, by appealing to the lowest common denominator. My country is going along those lines too, although I don't think it's as bad yet. Having said all that, I still think this is possibly the most intelligent porn site. They have to run a fine line where they can make a profit, not offend too many people, run the place efficiently, and still keep it entertaining. | |
|
||
| 02-24-09 12:18pm - 5779 days | #17 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
x Edited on Apr 19, 2023, 02:41pm | |
|
||
| 02-24-09 06:59pm - 5779 days | #18 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
You might be right that someone could take offense at your giving them a bad trust rating, and retaliate by giving you one as well. I don't have an issue with someone giving me a bad rating. I have issue with the anonymous no comment ones. There have been a few reviews recently that smelled like piles of poo. That last one for Sapphic Erotica falls under that category. I don't care if you are the biggest fan of lesbians sex. There is no way that site could get 100% where nothing was wrong except a comment about the danger of getting infected with HIV...Say What??? I gave the guy a break but I better see another review from him in the future with a more reasonable score and actual info. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 02-25-09 08:23am - 5779 days | #19 | |
|
jd1961 (0)
Active User  Posts: 296 Registered: Jun 07, '07 |
I got one of those "blank check" negative marks when I first joined, and it bothered me because I had no idea why someone did that. So thanks for removing it! | |
|
||
| 1-19 of 19 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
