http://www.staredit.net/?p=voting

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on May 22 2008, 8:52 pm by Mini Moose 2707.

Thats a cool idea.

I like it a lot. Seems like a much more mature way to gauge how the community feels about the Staff as opposed to the massive amount of "OMG HE SUCKS BALLZ"-esque comments.

I also think it's a good idea.

On a side note, can we please get images fixed on Classic skin? I just realized they work on other skins..

Thats because classic sux lolol

Instead of moderators going "WARN LEVEL UP" its gonna be members going "MODERATOR RATING DOWN".

I like it because even though nothing will hapen if they drop below 50% (which would be more then likely to happen in all cases, for the simple reason most wont be bothered to change, and then it leaves a few determined fans versus a large angry mob) I feel like im being an asshole to those in charge ;D

Perhaps incorporate a member's warn level (or the amount of warns given by the moderator he/she is rating) into the rating calculation? - Higher warn levels result in lower vote weight.

If you think it is needed then I think it's a good idea, but I wouldn't use it when it wouldn't be needed.

One thing I really think you should not do is make the rating percentage visable to all members! People get influenced when they see numbers like that, everyone wants to be on the 'winning team'.

Another tip: enable or force people to add a comment explaining their vote. Neutral votes wouldn't need a comment (though it should be possible) but when you vote 'yay' or 'nay' you'll have to add a comment as to why. That way moderators will know why people actually hate or love them, which I think is a lot more useful then just the fact that you're hated/beloved. You could even remove votes with bad explanations like "he sux", "he warned me" or "i dont lik3 hs p1cture", but that would take some time and you should be able to sort the good from the bad explanations perfectly ("he warned me for no good reason" would be a good explanations in my opinion, even if you don't agree with him).


But to be honest, I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't know wether you (or members) have had problems with moderators before but I'm not sure if this is going to help you more then it can cause trouble.

I'd ask, why are we doing this?

The best reason I can think of is that we need to make sure that the moderators are doing their job properly. But I don't think letting people "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" moderators is really the way to go. People are way too lazy to investigate properly to have a well-informed opinion of how well a moderator is doing - and really, moderation when done well should almost be an 'invisible' job - people just take it for granted. The major times when people actually bring their attention to moderation actions is when people get annoyed, or major grudges break out into a great drama. So this kind of rating will almost always have an in-built negative bias to it.

You can fight this in two ways:
(1) by making only two options, yea/nay, with default being yea; it would be a bit silly to talk about percentages in this case - but I think it's silly do talk about percentages even in the current set up.
(2) by changing the way the 'meta-moderation' works - give a list of recent/random moderation actions, rather than a list of moderators. People can say whether they think the moderation action was sensible or an overreaction; Moderator 'ratings' are based on whether their moderation actions have been sensible or unreasonable. There's still a bias here too, since there are many cases where the most sensible thing is not to do an 'official' moderation action, but to decide to let something slide, or to just give a verbal warning by post or PM, etc, which would be sensible moderation, but wouldn't come into the meta moderation as actions to be rated.

To be honest, I'd say scrap the idea of letting the community judge the moderators; just keep good logs of moderators' posts and actions, and the senior moderators/administrators can be the ones to judge their fitness as moderators.

Yeah, obviously the moderator who warns someone will get a thumbs-down from the warned person. (Mainly because most people who have to be warned are typically babies who can't handle minor slaps on the wrists.)
Yet for the most part this action would have little effect on the rest of the community. Because nobody sees most moderator actions.

Basically I see this becoming simply a show of how popular the person is, not reflected by how they are as a mod.
Although by all means, continue. I'd like to see what actually happens.

People who are moderated often should have less weight, or none at all.

I think the idea of being able to rate the moderators is nice, but I'm not sure how seriously you can actually take the ratings, especially with the way its proposed now where there's no criteria for judging the moderators and no need for an explanation and very little requirements for being able to give ratings.

There's already a per-user reputation field. Just make it work for every user and it'll also work for moderators

I like the idea, although if it takes much extra time on your part, I think adding the more necessary features should be done first.

Some of you read the text from the image as if it cannot be changed.

http://www.staredit.net/?p=evaluation
Go nuts.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 19 2008, 10:38 pm by Mini Moose 2707.

Secksy Much.

Why didn't you include yourself in the list?

What will stop somebody from posting a negative for every moderator? How about you have to pay for each vote (max 1) I don't know why I say this.

Wow, we barely have a working site and we are worrying about rating moderators?

Nothing, and not happening.

If I were IP, I would go and improve the DLDB or something instead. Unfortunately, I am not. So, yes. I apologize for trying a new method of ensuring that there are good people in charge.