| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
Schnitzel (0)
|
Yeah, I think so.
Anonymous "Yes" votes are okay, but anyone who votes "No" should be required to provide a reason why. The reasons should also be moderated.
This would allow people to view why they got a no vote and possibly improve their reviews accordingly, and would reduce the chance of someone voting "No" just because you voted "No" for them.
|
07-14-07 04:34am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
Khan (Suspended)
|
REPLY TO #1 - Schnitzel :
You say ... "The reasons should also be moderated."
Unless I'm misunderstanding, doesn't that open the door for admin to decide what is and isn't a good reason to cast a no vote?
|
07-14-07 06:30am
Reply To Message
|
3
|
SnowDude (0)
|
I agree that having moderators decide what is and is not a good reason for casting a no vote would be a very slippery slope. The farthest I might go there is that comments be removed that are inflammatory, but really I wouldn't ask anyone to determine such things. I do think no votes should be required to give a reason, so maybe they could have to be viewed by a moderator just be sure they actually said something rather than typing a single letter. Regardless, it's not an easy thing.
|
07-14-07 06:38am
Reply To Message
|
4
|
apoctom (0)
|
In my opinion, there shouldn't be any anonymous trust ratings.
First off, the trust ratings help to create community. You create trust networks where two people trust each other and find that they also trust people in common. Anonymous reviews prevent (or at least slow) that from happening.
Second, a no-trust vote with an explanation can lead to dialog, especially if it something that can be fixed. Plus, trust votes can be changed if the issue is addressed.
Third, a no-trust vote with no comment is really indicative of a lazy person. If they can't take the time to explain why they are bad-mouthing someone, they probably deserve a no-trust vote themselves. Even yes-trust votes should have a comment, if only so that the person being reviewed knows what they are doing well.
Finally, I feel that a number of reviewers have been hit with anonymous no trust votes with no comments and that has caused them to stop being active members of PU. That, too, is killing the community of users that is trying to survive here.
I agree with SnowDude: this is not an easy thing to administer. I guess you can tell that my choice would be to do away with anonymous trust ratings entirely.
|
07-14-07 08:33am
Reply To Message
|
5
|
Jay G (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #4 - apoctom :
I agree with you. To me anonymous trust ratings without explanation are useless. If I don't like your review, I owe it to you to explain why I disagree with you. I like a community that shares and could have a wide range of opinions.
If someone is trying to place fake reviews to push a web-site, replies and comments on the review itself would be far more appropriate than an anonymous "no trust." If I don't like a site I'm happy to explain why. And I can disagree with you without "distrusting" you.
|
07-14-07 09:55am
Reply To Message
|
6
|
Schnitzel (0)
|
REPLY TO #2 - Khan :
Yes I guess it does.
If I give someone a "No" vote because I feel that they've for example reviewed a site based only on the information avialable on the tour pages, and hasn't actually joined the site, they could give me a "No" vote simply because I gave them one.
Presumably this is something that should be avoided, as the "No" vote that they cast wasn't based on my reviews, but simply a response to my "No" vote for them.
By not allowing anonymous "No" votes, people have to provide a reason, but if the reasons were also approved by an admin, it could possibly avoid someone voting "No" for the reason that "You gave me a No vote!"
I'm not saying that the admin has to agree with the persons no vote, but there would probably be some completely un-called for No votes out of spite, that modering the votes could possibly avoid.
Hope that helps!
|
07-14-07 10:31am
Reply To Message
|
7
|
Monahan (0)
|
REPLY TO #4 - apoctom :
I agree 100%. An anonymous "NO" vote without explanation is like getting flipped off on the freeway but not knowing why. Negative trust ratings make no sense at all without a specific explanation. (Even eBay requires an explanation for a negative feedback for a buyer/seller. I think it's very appropriate on this forum as well.)
|
07-14-07 10:33am
Reply To Message
|
8
|
Monahan (0)
|
REPLY TO #2 - Khan :
"Moderated" merely means frivolous explanations should be poofed. Permitting an explanation to remain on the rating should never be perceived as being the opinion of management.
|
07-14-07 10:38am
Reply To Message
|
9
|
pat362 (0)
|
I'd prefer that there be no anonymous trust ratings, but at least if there were comments that I'd know why the person disagreed with my review.
As it stands right now I have 4 good and 4 bad ratings, and guess what all the bad are anonymous.
|
07-14-07 10:46am
Reply To Message
|
10
|
uscue (0)
|
REPLY TO #2 - Khan :
I don't agree that reasons should be moderated...other users can look at the reasons and judge for themselves if they think it was warranted enough of a reason or not. There should just be mandotory "no" reasons to help out the users being rated.
|
07-14-07 02:31pm
Reply To Message
|
11
|
apoctom (0)
|
Sorry to harp on this point, but a no-trust vote with a comment is less than optimal.
Not to make this too personal, but I received an anonymous no-trust vote with a comment that I had reviewed too many sites too quickly and that something was fishy with the fact that I could review 20 sites in 2 weeks.
This could be a fair criticism except for the fact that almost all of the sites that I have reviewed belong to the same network, a network which is not reviewed on TBP or PU (PervNetwork). I mentioned this in all of my reviews for the sites, so the person voting no-trust obviously did not read the actual reviews, but simply saw that I was a relative newcomer with a lot of reviews. This is reflective of the last point that I made in my earlier post: anonymous reviews like this can influence honest people to stop coming back to PornUsers or to stop contributing reviews, either of which kills the community. Is discouraging enthusiasm for this site really a good idea for helping it grow?
Furthermore, only allowing 150 characters to respond to those types of criticisms is too few. I couldn't respond fully to the anonymous comment by pointing out that, of the sites not in the network, most were reviewed after I stopped being a member, but within the 6 month window for reviews.
I don't think that the admins can or should moderate the trust comments. There are too many and trust is too personal. However, I think that it would be helpful for other users to know who was making uninformed trust comments because those comments reflect on the person who made them just as much as on the person who is being rated.
Not to put too fine a point on it but anonymity is great unless you can use that anonymity to destroy other people's reputations with impunity.
|
07-14-07 10:08pm
Reply To Message
|
12
|
nygiants03 (0)
|
i think the main reason why people don't comment on their no trust rating is because you are only allowed 150 characters. There should be more room to elaborate. Maybe 250 characters. Sometimes a no trust rating without comment isnt good, but truthfully the trust rating doesnt mean everything. Its up to the person to read the reviews and make a decision from himself regardless of a person trust rating. I judge more of points relative to reviews to tell the truth before i do trust rating. I guess I'm one of the few who thinks the system is
fine the way it is.
|
07-15-07 09:08am
Reply To Message
|
13
|
Monahan (0)
|
I agree with all the foregoing comments and I hope Khan takes them as a strong recommendation to change the current process. I've been kicking around here since shortly after it started but have been reluctant to post any reviews because I got hit with anonymous "No trust" ratings with no explanation.
I worked on each review to be as complete, helpful and honest as possible and to conform to PU's guidelines, yet I get dinged anonymously without any explanation.
I just posted my first new review since being told I can't be trusted to see how many more dings I attract. Hopefully none, but if I do get a No Trust, I sincerely hope whoever so votes will provide an explanation so I can improve how I write my reviews.
|
07-15-07 12:54pm
Reply To Message
|
14
|
exotics4me (0)
|
I don't think the anonymous part is that important, as it is that a comment is left if they vote no. I just picked up my second no vote today and no comment was left, just like the last no vote, no comment was left.
Also both no votes that I received came within a week each of giving a site a low score. I think I have gave 2 low reviews and have 2 no votes. Odd coincidence or could it be a webmaster from those sites?
The best way to make it truly fair would be to not let new members vote, until they have 5 or so experience points just like they don't get raffle tickets until then. I wonder how many of the no votes come from someone reading a review that they didn't like, sign up, click no, then never come back?
Another option would be to remove the no vote all together. For example, I have 18 yes and 2 no, are those no votes really going to effect how someone looks at my reviews? Where the no vote is a problem here is when you ask if the people even understand why they are voting no? My guess is that most do it because someone scored their favorite site low.
Continuing on removing the no vote completely. The members who have been here the longest and put up dozens of reviews. Does that alone not say that we are trustworthy and not just someone posting a review to either hype our favorite site or put down a site that we don't like? Also, I would expect that the trust vote from most members is based on the scores we give sites. In which case, this goes into everyone having an opinion, and that we are going to disagree about what content on a site is good, and what isn't. The trust should come from whether a review is factual in its content, not whether a person agrees that Site X is an 81.
Last, if a person had been a member on here for 2 months and had 0 yes votes during that time, wouldn't that be warning enough for those reading their reviews? Just a different view on this topic. The only arguments I have seen between members on here was because of no votes. Anytime people, especially Americans (I am American) are given the chance to kick someone, a few will take that oppurtunity just because they are negative. The no vote also could be seen as what may hurt the site in terms of becoming a community. Communities are rarely built when negativity is allowed in.
|
07-15-07 04:42pm
Reply To Message
|
15
|
jd1961 (0)
|
Anonymous no comment negative ratings make me want to NOT submit reviews.
|
07-15-07 04:47pm
Reply To Message
|
16
|
Khan (Suspended)
|
REPLY TO #14 - exotics4me :
If you have followed (or go back and read) the evolution of the Trust Ratings, you'll see some of what they are meant to do and why they were implemented to begin with. Because I've gone on record with a lot of that info in the past, I won't repeat it here.
However, I do want to address two items you've mentioned in your reply so there is no confusion.
You say, "Odd coincidence or could it be a webmaster from those sites?"
Webmasters do NOT get to cast Trust Ratings. Also, as we've said in the past, it's not quite as easy as you might think for a webmaster to create a fake account just to give you a bad Trust Rating.
Next, you say ... "The best way to make it truly fair would be to not let new members vote, until they have 5 or so experience points just like they don't get raffle tickets until then."
That's actually been a requirement of the system for some months now. Perhaps you missed it but back on 19-Apr-07 we posted the announcement indicating that "You must have 5+ points to submit Trust Ratings"
To see the full announcement as well as the ensuing discussion, visit:
https://www.pornusers.com/replies_view.html?id=3170
|
07-15-07 07:44pm
Reply To Message
|
17
|
Pornjackker (0)
|
Maybe there should just be no trust ratings period.
|
07-16-07 11:28am
Reply To Message
|
18
|
Pinche Kankun (Disabled)
|
Shit!! Someone at PornUsers do not like me because I act retarded!! For that reason, they gave me a bad Trust Rating!! And to put the icing on the cake, I have been on PornUsers.com for some minutes and have not gotten ONE POINT... HE HE HE :).
You know the reason why "PINCHE" is part of my USER NAME? It's because of all the dumb shit I do, or all the people I piss off!!
However, you guys can trust me on one thing...
I LOVE ME SOME WOMEN!!!
|
08-12-07 06:10pm
Reply To Message
|
19
|
Pinche Kankun (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #16 - Khan :
Hey Khan, can we post bulletins like My Space?
Let's say that I wanted to post a bulletin announcing to everyone at PornUsers.com that, "I LOVE WOMEN - PINCHE KANKUN!!!"!
Is there any way to do that?
|
08-12-07 06:15pm
Reply To Message
|
20
|
Pinche Kankun (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #17 - Pornjackker :
MMMMMMMaybe there should just be better body nutshots... HE HE HE!!
:)
|
08-12-07 06:16pm
Reply To Message
|
21
|
Pinche Kankun (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #15 - jd1961 :
Hey jd1961, don't feel bad!! If someone has to be anonymous about their Trust Rating, they are probably still locked in the closet!!
|
08-12-07 06:18pm
Reply To Message
|
22
|
Pinche Kankun (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #3 - SnowDude :
Hey SnowDude, how da PHUCK did you get 148 points, man?!!!!!!!!
Wut iz ur magic?!!!!
|
08-12-07 06:19pm
Reply To Message
|
23
|
Pinche Kankun (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #11 - apoctom :
apoctom, This reply is like a really long essay! I wonder if a review has to be this long?!!
I am not the brightess man on Earth, man!!
Did U pull a Malcolm X move and read the whole Dictionary?!
|
08-12-07 06:23pm
Reply To Message
|
24
|
Pinche Kankun (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #13 - Monahan :
Khan doesn't like me, he probably thinks I am a doophus!!
HI KHAN!!
Just as long as I can see all the internet ass I can get, I don't give a flying shit (TURD W/ WINGS) how good my reviews come out!!
I give a flying shit about how good my jizz come out all on a girlz asscheeks, man!!
|
08-12-07 06:29pm
Reply To Message
|
25
|
Khan (Suspended)
|
REPLY TO #19 - Pinche Kankun :
Pinche Asked ...
"Hey Khan, can we post bulletins like My Space?"
No, Pinche, we don't currently provide for you making announcements. We will take that suggestion under consideration for possible addition in the future.
BTW, if it helps, I think by now, everyone here is keenly aware of your likes and dislikes when it comes to women and porn sites so an announcement for that isn't really needed. ;)
|
08-13-07 09:10am
Reply To Message
|
26
|
Pinche Kankun (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #25 - Khan :
Aw, so you have been paying attention. It's just women are doing us perverts a favor by showing us their ass. The least we can do is not insult them by having to beat off our cocks after having sex with them because p---y is supposed to be good.
Feel me?!
|
08-13-07 11:09pm
Reply To Message
|
27
|
SnowDude (0)
|
REPLY TO #22 - Pinche Kankun :
I just visit a lot of sites is all. :) Plus, I really enjoy writing the reviews! I've been doing them since January, but sometimes it surprises me I've done so many. I really want that last badge, so that keeps me going.
Thanks for the comments! Make sure to check out my reviews!
-SD
|
08-14-07 07:24pm
Reply To Message
|
28
|
cblodg (0)
|
Emphatically YES!
Come on people have the courage of your convictions and not hide behind the "secrecy" of the internet! Put up or shut up! If you write a letter to the editor of a paper and want it printed, you HAVE to sign your name; and I think that SN should appear on these as well.
Comments (constructive) can be very usefull.
|
09-23-07 06:52pm
Reply To Message
|
