Post ratings

[imamartian]

Discussions about ratings in threads will therefore be removed when seen.

this is getting like big brother (the tv show, not the political euphomism)... where we can't talk about nominations... or .. now there's an idea (thinking on the hoof), we should all nominate once a week and someone gets booted... hmmm... food for thought !

 

[Agile]

Most of the rating will only be by regular advisors as new OPs will not notice it. Same applies with the thanks system.

Whilst DIYnot does not view posts here in detail anyone following individual subjects will see all the cross abuse for example in the plumbing against Dangermouse by all the pro-BG contigent.

DM does give very good advice on Vaillants but he will be smothered by the negative posters. If you need further evidence of that just look at the 14 pages of rubbish about me without any posts from myself as I ignore those who ask for personal information whilst keeping their own identity hidden!

Tony

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BAS, I think the more fuss you make in a thread about a rating you've received the more negative attention you'll attract. Discussions about ratings in threads will therefore be removed when seen.

I can see your POV on that. The problem is that unlike trolling posts it takes so little effort to click a button that I don't think the abusers will just stop if they are ignored - they want their -ve votes to look justifiable so letting them get away with it actually plays into their hands.

And there's another problem with posts being marked negatively with no explanation given. If a poster is asking for advice here it's probably because of, or involves, lack of knowledge of the subject area. So if he sees a reply get a -ve mark, but with no justification for what is, in effect, him being told "take no notice of this, it's bad advice", then how is he to judge?

I had thought that an overwhelming collection of -ves might be enough for him to correctly decide to discount the advice, but from what Agile says there's a bunch of idiots on the Plumbing forum too who will give vent to their personal animosity by unjustifiably voting down posts.

Detecting abuse is going to be slow-ish, and there will be a threshold below which it won't be classed as abuse but will nevertheless be completely unjustifiable.

There will be, I can assure you, posts which are 100% correct, valid and relevant containing advice which is important for safety or legal reasons which pick up -ve marks and there has to be a way to challenge that.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

And there's another problem with posts being marked negatively with no explanation given. If a poster is asking for advice here it's probably because of, or involves, lack of knowledge of the subject area. So if he sees a reply get a -ve mark, but with no justification for what is, in effect, him being told "take no notice of this, it's bad advice", then how is he to judge?

or maybe "take no notice of this, its a bad attitude"?

There will be, I can assure you, posts which are 100% correct, valid and relevant containing advice which is important for safety or legal reasons which pick up -ve marks and there has to be a way to challenge that.

maybe the rating system will reflect the way people view not only the factual accuracy of the content of the post, but the manner and/or attitude of the poster. Whether they feel that the poster has the interests of the OP in mind, or whether the poster is using the forum as a vehicle to vent their frustrations for whatever reason may also be a reason for a +/- rating

 

[Agile]

There will be, I can assure you, posts which are 100% correct, valid and relevant containing advice which is important for safety or legal reasons which pick up -ve marks and there has to be a way to challenge that.

A typical example of that is those why ask how to do gas work.

Common sence and forum rules dictate that we dont give DIY gas advice so we explain this and advise they call a registered engineer.

But that does not please to OP who will get annoyed and give a negative rating, not because its bad advice but because it does not suit his purpose.

Tony

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And then there's this:

In this topic: //www.diynot.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=237246 holmslaw was criticising ricicle for writing nonsense, and that nobody would know what he was talking about.

Ricicle asked who had said they didn't know what he was talking about.

I wrote:

I knew what you were talking about....

and that picked up a - vote. (now gone - either removed by the site or cancelled by a + from someone else)

Whoever gave it a thumbs down cannot possibly have thought it was actually wrong - clearly they would have no way of determining whether I did or didn't know what Ricicle meant.

They gave it a thumbs down because they didn't think I should have posted it at all, because it refuted holmslaw's assertion that nobody knew what Ricicle was talking about.

That wasn't a rating of the contents of the post - it was the expression of a mindset that wanted to censor and to prevent people disagreeing with holmslaw.

I fear that as long as we have petty and vindictive children on this forum who refuse to deal with posts as written and insist on dragging their pathetic dislikes from topic to topic and giving vent to them by behaving irrationally the rating system will be abused, and therefore of little value.

 

[kevplumb]

do you ever shut up piggin whingin

jeez your worse than a kid

who cares

and don't bother replying

i don't want to have to read 2 pages of welsh whinging

get a life

your the first to criticise the mods/admin

and your also the first to shout for them when something aint going your way

now rate this -6

 

[holmslaw]

They gave it a thumbs down because they didn't think I should have posted it at all, because it refuted holmslaw's assertion that nobody knew what Ricicle was talking about.

As usual, you resort to lies, this is what I said

Sorry, did you mean when ricicle said "Who said they didn't know what I was talking about ?"

I meant to say 'banal' but mistakenly said 'nobody', I did'nt think anyone would pick up on the difference.

I apologise for any confusion.

I think the thumbs up system was brought in to see if you would spontaeneously combust. You get so many thumbs downs because ****

Why don't you set your limit at minus 500 and see what happens.

 

[mikhailfaradayski]

oh, are you not allowed to use the words 'obnoxious' or 'arrogant' on this forum anymore?

 

[ajstoneservices]

oh, are you not allowed to use the words 'obnoxious' or 'arrogant' on this forum anymore?

As was said earlier before the mod's got to it. Not when it's aimed at bas

 

[ban-all-sheds]

They gave it a thumbs down because they didn't think I should have posted it at all, because it refuted holmslaw's assertion that nobody knew what Ricicle was talking about.

As usual, you resort to lies, this is what I said

Sorry, did you mean when ricicle said "Who said they didn't know what I was talking about ?"

I meant to say 'banal' but mistakenly said 'nobody', I did'nt think anyone would pick up on the difference.

I apologise for any confusion.

Shall we look at what you said? (with my emphasis to help those who find it hard to see the truth)

No - if the heating load was rated at 32A per phase (3 phase) then to make it work at the same power single phase it would be 96A (excluding any fan or control loads)

Because when you work with 3 phase power it is basically 3 lots of single phase power. If you had a 3 phase oven rated at 13A you can safely assume its 3kW per phase/9kW total (approx)
Now for an equivalent single phase oven it would still be 9kW but single phase so 39A (approx)

Because of the star point each phase current is flowing through a load connected across a voltage of VL/1.73 ie 400/1.73V = 230V

No wonder nobody knows what you're talking about, You're describing three phase and neutral circuits but by missing out the word neutral means you're talking nonsense.

So will you now please explain how "holmslaw's assertion that nobody knew what Ricicle was talking about" is a lie?

I think the thumbs up system was brought in to see if you would spontaeneously combust. You get so many thumbs downs because ****

I get thumbs down because people are unwilling to behave rationally and without malice.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

do you ever shut up piggin whingin

I don't see why I should refrain from legitimate criticism.

That you can only deal with it by attempting to dismiss it as whingin (sic) only goes to show that you know you're unable to mount any rational argument against it.

jeez your worse than a kid

who cares

You clearly do, or you wouldn't join in.

and don't bother replying

I don't believe you have the power to prevent me.

i don't want to have to read 2 pages of welsh whinging

You won't have to.

Unless somebody Welsh comes and writes 2 pages of whinging.

get a life

I have one, thanks.

your the first to criticise the mods/admin

Usually because of their destructive and unjustifiable actions which they will never even attempt to defend.

and your also the first to shout for them when something aint going your way

Usually because of peoples destructive and unjustifiable posts which they will never even attempt to defend.

now rate this -6

Sorry - I think you may have me confused with one of the petty idiots here who can only deal with posts they wish to criticise by clicking buttons, so limited is their ability or willingness to engage in rational debate.

 

[kevplumb]

oh dear how sad never mind

more carp

tell yer what bin

don't get a life

GET A TRADE SADDO

FWIW it was me thumbing down your posts
the right has been removed by your mate ADMIN
it wasnt because they where not factually incorrect
it was because i think you talk c rap
yer a bully a bigmouth and worse of all a hypocrite

so bring it on sonny ive broke better than you in my time

oh do i feel a bar coming on DO IT have a word with your mate ADMIN

LIKE I AM BOTHERED