# Rate this post! Really. **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [September 4, 2000, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rate-this-post-really/32005 "2000-09-04T21:10:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![MysteryFellow63427](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e4f/32.png) [@MysteryFellow63427](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MysteryFellow63427)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2000, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rate-this-post-really/32005/1 "2000-09-04T21:10:24Z")
Has any though ever been given to implementing a post-rating system on SDMB? Something along the lines of what occurs on [Slashdot](http://www.slashdot.org). (Certain select) users get a certain number of points they can use to “score” the posts of other people. You give a point for an “insightful” or “funny”, etc. post, or subtract a point for “no original content”, “trolling”, etc. Obviously, scoring posts might not be good for all forums. But I think a post-scoring system could work for everything but **The Pit** and **ATMB**. It could be especially useful for **MPSIMS** and **IMHO** , which tend to contain a whole lot of drivel mixed in with some very interesting posts. So, the two main issues with this are: 1. Is it technically possible with the vB software to implement post-scoring across the whole SDMB? If so, is it possible to implement scoring only in certain forums? 2. Is it a good idea? (Yes, obviously ;)) ---
**Author:** ![MysteryFellow63427](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e4f/32.png) [@MysteryFellow63427](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MysteryFellow63427)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2000, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rate-this-post-really/32005/2 "2000-09-04T21:12:02Z")
:rolleyes: _thought_. Has any _thought_ been given. ---
**Author:** ![oot\_and\_aboot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e19adc/32.png) [@oot\_and\_aboot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/oot_and_aboot)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2000, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rate-this-post-really/32005/3 "2000-09-04T21:26:16Z")
Sounds awful ---
**Author:** ![MysteryFellow63427](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e4f/32.png) [@MysteryFellow63427](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MysteryFellow63427)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2000, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rate-this-post-really/32005/4 "2000-09-04T22:29:45Z")
The point, **oot** , is to help filter out some of the crap. E.G., you could select only to view posts above -1, (so posts that have been knocked down by a net of two or more people aren’t viewed.) Of course, viewing posts by score is _always_ optional, and one can choose to view all posts in a thread. ---
**Author:** ![MysterEcks](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f475e1/32.png) [@MysterEcks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MysterEcks)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2000, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rate-this-post-really/32005/5 "2000-09-04T22:41:07Z")
**neuroman** said: > [@](#): > > (Certain select) users get a certain number of points they can use to “score” the posts of other people. Ok…so who gets to be these “certain select users?” Who elects/appoints them? Why am I supposed to think your judgment of what’s interesting will agree with mine? Or vice-versa–why should you rely on what I find interesting? Seems to me we’re all best off making our own judgments about individual posts. ---
**Author:** ![Pyrex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9d8465/32.png) [@Pyrex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pyrex)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2000, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rate-this-post-really/32005/6 "2000-09-04T22:50:12Z")
This one sounds worse than the filtering one, "If you could filter User names then you… " ---
**Author:** ![MysteryFellow63427](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e4f/32.png) [@MysteryFellow63427](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MysteryFellow63427)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2000, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rate-this-post-really/32005/7 "2000-09-04T22:53:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MysterEcks \* > \*\* > Ok…so who gets to be these “certain select users?” Who elects/appoints them? Why am I supposed to think your judgment of what’s interesting will agree with mine? Or vice-versa–why should you rely on what I find interesting? > > Seems to me we’re all best off making our own judgments about individual posts. \*\* **MysterEcks** , the (certain select) users could merely be randomly chosen on a weekly basis. Or, mods could pick people. I prefer the first system. Your points are valid- certainly my interests will not jibe completely (or even at all) with yours. But the average interests of the board should at least loosely reflect (some of) mine. Hmm, I think this is starting to develop into a debate of convenience versus unadulteration. Ick. But remember, viewing posts based on “score” would be _entirely optional_. ---
**Author:** ![Ringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Ringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ringo)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2000, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rate-this-post-really/32005/8 "2000-09-05T01:12:01Z")
1.) Technically possible with vB? I don’t know. 2.) Good idea? It doesn’t really sound to me like it would add much to the board, particularly for the fora ( **MPSIMS** and **IMHO** ) to which you refer. We certainly don’t want any semi-permanent select group of users (the emergence of which has been the bane of many a board) and a randomly selected group done on a, say, weekly basis might draw a few with their own agendas, several non participants and whatever else. You want to rate threads in MPSIMS? Some ‘select user of the week’ (such as _moi_) might give big negative numbers to a thread like Perse’s thread inquiring as to the current (and past) colors of members’ nails. Well, that thread drew a bit of response; there were people seeking discourse on that subject and I, as the mighty reviewer, might have given it short shrift. I think, and I’ve discussed the subject with several from this board, you just have to develop your own filter. > [@](#): > > Hmm, I think this is starting to develop into a debate of convenience versus unadulteration. Ick. But remember, viewing posts based on “score” would be _entirely optional_. And I think it would get little use by the membership and would primarily represent another brick in the load for the mods and admins who, lest we forget, are not bagging big paychecks for their efforts here. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2000, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rate-this-post-really/32005/9 "2000-09-05T15:54:32Z")
You are correct, beatle. We’re certainly not pulling down the big bucks, but then I’m doin’ this for the groupies anyway. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2000, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rate-this-post-really/32005/10 "2000-09-05T15:57:42Z")
Which reminds me, Beer . . . I haven’t done laundry yet, and I’m out of underwear. Remember that pair I threw at you last week? Any chance I could get those back? ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2000, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rate-this-post-really/32005/11 "2000-09-05T17:04:41Z")
Are you kidding, andros? I burned those nasty things immediately. I’m surprised your mother lets you out of the house wearing rags like that. What’s that? They’re supposed to be “crotchless”?