« hide the crayons | Main | about teaching writing »

October 22, 2005

not playing nice

filed under weblogs

I thought the rating system for individual posts was worth a try, but I was wrong. Within five minutes of putting up a new post, somebody (and it's one person, given the IP address) voted three times, each time with a one (=worst). Whether that's out of general dislike of me, the weblog, the rating system, or just plain bad manners, I have no idea. In any case, it makes it clear that I have to bag the whole experiment.

October 22, 2005 11:08 PM

Comments

Oh dear, oh dear! I did a serious amount of weeding, composing a note to you on my opinion of a rating system (You go to Starbucks with your PC, I go to the garden with my weed digger). That is to say, I'm against them except under an extremely controlled environment. But did you read my mind and wait on my 2 cents? Noooo.... So I didn't post anything at all once I saw you had gone and done it. None of this is to say I told you so, but to say, been there and done that and been burned more than once with questionnaires that I thought were self-explanatory so that any fool could fill them out and provide me with good data that I could use statistically to decide on next steps. More fool me! Sorry it didn't work out.

Posted by: asdfg at October 23, 2005 04:17 PM

I knew I should have just asked you first, before I even got started. You're absolutely right, it wasn't worth the trouble. But hey. Live and learn.

Posted by: sara at October 23, 2005 10:31 PM

I think that the ratings system appeals to the most lazy of judgemental of readers--the folks who won't take the time to let you know why they feel how they do about what you have written in a comment.

Also, the ratings system reminds me of grading which I've done enough in my life never to want to have to do again. I remember a brief stint in a college where grades weren't given--just written evaluations of the work without the summary judgement of a grade--and how liberating that experience was, both for the grader and the gradee.

Posted by: Kathryn Remen-Wait at October 24, 2005 06:01 AM

It wasn't me! Really, check my ip adddress.

I didn't vote, I am not a person who rates things normally. I have four ratings I guess: it really sucks, I f**king hate it; I don't like it; I like it; I LOVE IT, give me more, I want to immerse myself in it.

That was weird. Anyway, I didn't say anything because my husband rates EVERYTHING, like beers he drinks, speeches, movies. Okay, it doesn't sound too strange when I write it out, so an example: We are at a restaurant and he gets a beer sampler. He then tastes each beer and writes his rating, and discusses the good and bad qualities of each beer - along with similarities to other beers he has tasted. I try one and say, "that's good" or "that's bad."

Posted by: Lanna Lee Maheux-Quinn at October 24, 2005 04:48 PM

Lanna Lee, were you raised Catholic? Because you've got that Catholic guilt thing down, no matter how far you were from the scene of the crime, you expect to be put up against the wall.

Personally, I'm somewhere between you and your husband in my willingness to rate things.

Otherwise I suspect Kathryn is right, certain kinds of people radiate towards this kind of thing, and others stay away, and that's not the idea to start with.

Posted by: sara at October 24, 2005 04:54 PM

Post a comment






(you may use HTML tags for style)