X-Message-Number: 32444
From: David Stodolsky <>
Subject: Re: Rating system
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 10:49:59 +0100
References: <>

On 2 Mar 2010, at 11:00 AM, CryoNet wrote:

> David Stodolsky says:
>
> " . . . There was only 1 rating contributed in response to the  
> remaining 8
> messages. We can conclude from this that the Rating System is not
> being used significantly at this time, except by those who wish to
> censor. This explains why we are seeing censorship."
>
> David, by "censorship," do you mean "Some people are prevented from  
> posting because their previous posts have been rated low?"
>
> If you will recall, the whole purpose of the rating system was to  
> make it possible for users to report what they considered abuse in  
> order to develop a community consensus which would tend to filter  
> out the ranters and loons. So what you're actually reporting is that  
> the system is working.


Unfortunately, it only works if people are honest in their rating or  
if there are enough people giving ratings, that dishonest ratings  
can't overwhelm the honestly given ratings. My conclusion is based on  
the almost total lack of routine ratings, making it easy for dishonest  
ratings to be used to censor.

It is clear in this case, that the person is making reasonable  
statements and that they are getting low ratings, because they are  
taking a position that is unpopular. This person's statements are  
often critical of someone who has a reputation for mendacity and who  
has engaged in a range of activities including character  
assassination, sending mails from others' accounts, and generally  
engaging in wide range of activities to prevent the disclosure of  
incompetence, overpayment in relationship to job qualifications,  
sending unqualified persons to perform perfusion, construction of  
equipment that doesn't work, or which is much more expensive than  
proven readily available equipment, etc. Of course, I am in no  
position to judge the truth of all of these claims, however, the rated  
'abusive' messages clearly are not abusive by any standard I am aware  
of.

This isn't the first time was have seen the Rating System used to  
censor an unpopular view.


>
> An expected consequence of any rating system is that the ranters and  
> loons will change pseudonyms, get others to post for them, and  
> holler that they're being "censored."

I am not aware of the person in question saying that they are being  
censored. This complain has come from others.


>
> If there are not a lot of comments on most posts, it does not  
> indicate "censorship" - I can't even see how you reach that opinion.  
> A low number of comments probably indicates that
>
> (1) most users don't find most of the posts here to be toxic; this  
> is a good thing.
>
> (2) more users are more inclined to give a wrist-slap when offended  
> than an Attaboy when pleased, and - of course! - no one is likely to  
> log in and vote "Neutral" on the posts that they don't care about.  
> Therefore, there more negative votes than positive and neutral.

It appears that the only messages that get a high number of ratings  
are those that are excluded from the Digest. Exclusion seems to  
encourage people to give positive ratings, when they discover that the  
message in question is not abusive. It also is much less trouble to  
give ratings, if one is reading the message from the website than from  
the Digest. However, this is just guesswork without more data.

I pointed out, on theoretical grounds, when the Rating System was  
introduced that it could easily be abused. If I am sent the data  
accumulated since the Rating System was started, a better supported  
conclusion may be reached.


dss


David Stodolsky
  Skype: davidstodolsky

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32444