A Brief Explanation of the Adequacy Comment Ratings System

First, I would like to correct a mistaken but all-too common assumption. Unlike other sites, we at Adequacy do not use the Comment Ratings System to enforce our strict no-trolling policy. The fact that there are no trolls to be found at Adequacy is a result of painstaking editorial effort, not some cockamamie numerological recipe. Any trolling or troll-like behavior that rears its ugly head vanishes not because the mercurial masses have "rated it" out of sight or under some "threshold," but because it has been deleted outright by the ever-vigilant editors.

Now, you may have noticed that Adequacy does not, at present, have a pompous page of detailed instructions and solemn reminders of the Responsibility of the Public Trust which is embodied in the Comment Ratings System. There is a very good reason for this.

You see, here at Adequacy, you are free to use the Comment Ratings System in any manner which you see fit. Unlike other sites that sternly admonish you to use their supposedly precious and powerful ratings-systems solely for causes that have been deemed "good," and never for reasons deemed "evil," we allow and even encourage you to devise your own use for the Adequacy Comment Ratings System, and employ it to further your political agenda, your personal taste, your petty grievances, your romantic fantasies, or whatever else is spinning and spinning and spinning about in your hot, fevered brain when you start pecking away at the shiny numbers-boxes.

With this in mind, a brief explanation of the mundane workings of the Adequacy Comment Rating System is in order. Though the system is cosmetically similar to that deployed at Rusty's Golden Ant Farm, it is in fact quite different.

If you have no particular fascination with mathematical minutia, and if you prefer respond to comments via the written word rather than numbers-box peckings, the rest of this article will be of little interest, and your time would most likely be better spent flying a kite or petting a nice doggie or something. If, on the other hand, you have an axe to grind, or a love of dull systems detail, or a generous impulse to contribute to certain of the Adequacy Editors' scientific pursuits, read on.

To a new user, a "rating," a number between one and five, may be assigned to a comment. This number may be changed at any time, but may not be "unassigned," i.e., removed. If recent comments posted by the user bear an average above a certain mark, that user is presented with a new option in the number-pecking box, and may choose "0" in addition to 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. Users with this option are referred to as "trusted users" elsewhere on the inter-worldly web-net, but that label would be grossly misleading if used in reference to the Adequacy Comment Ratings System. Here, we refer to such users as Zero Status Users, and any such user may be described as having Zero Status. Zero Status Users may rate a comment "0," and comments with an aggregate rating of "0" are not visible to users that do not have Zero Status.

Similarly, if a user's recent comments bear an average score far below the average for the entire site, that user is presented with a new number-pecking box option, and so may rate a comment "6" in addition to 1,2,3,4, or 5. Such users are referred to as Low Average Users, and may be described as Far Below Average. Comments with an aggregate rating of "6" can only be seen by users who are Far Below Average.

Users who are classified as Far Below Average or Zero Status do not retain those states permanently, as comment rating and user-state assignment is a continual process.

Astute observers will note that I have not provided the precise formulæ for determining Zero Status Users or Far Below Average users. The only reason for this, at present, is to avoid compromising the results of the current experimental phase of certain Adequacy Editors' scientific endeavors. Once sufficient data has been collected, the veil may be lifted a bit, and you will of course enjoy full disclosure if the decision is made to seek publication in the peer-reviewed journals.

	You Linked To Adequacy.... (none / 0) (#4)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jun 24th, 2002 at 10:46:59 AM PST

	8 times. Why? You think it will help with Google or something?

	Believe me, it does. (3.50 / 2) (#5)
	by because it isnt on Mon Jun 24th, 2002 at 12:48:01 PM PST

	Being second on the list when you search for "adequacy.org" is purely down to all my pages linking to themselves. However, there are nearly 30000 results for "is your son a computer hacker" (no quotes), but none of them are the original article. It may just be that because fetching robots.txt returns the front page instead of robots.txt, Google gracefully ignores the site. All that good linkage gone to waste - tch. Come on adequacy.org, if you can do it for favicon.ico, you can do it for robots.txt. Please, for the children. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	You see, (none / 0) (#40)
	by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 7th, 2002 at 11:26:41 PM PST

	WHENEVER THEY MENTION ADEQUACY ON THE SITE THEY LINK BACK TO IT, IT'S FUNNY BECAUSE YOU ARE ALREADY READING TEH ADEKWECY LOL COMEDY GOLD

	You are so very clever, aren't you? (3.00 / 2) (#41)
	by RobotSlave on Sun Jul 7th, 2002 at 11:46:14 PM PST

	This particular bit of the Adequacy House Style really does seem to annoy some people, particulary people with delicate senses of humor, who mistake it for a failed joke. It is not, however, meant to be humorous. There is humor to be had in watching people criticise things which they don't understand, though, especially when they get snotty about it, so you just keep right on truckin' there, tiger. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	Indeed. (3.00 / 2) (#42)
	by because it isnt on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 12:50:51 AM PST

	The AQ self-referencial link is only there to make AQ parodies simpler. As is linking to Kur0shin under the text "Slashdot" and vice versa in the same paragraph. Refutation, in particular, likes to incorrectly hyphenate words and to refer to them in the definite article, e.g. "the Micro-Soft". 'Slave turns to condescention once he's sure he'll either win an argument or bluff his way out, as admirably demonstrated in the parent post. But that's enough of the Me-ta for today, Skippy. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Speling falmes are an option here. [n/t] (none / 0) (#43)
	by because it isnt on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 12:52:58 AM PST

	adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	rated 1 for 'AQ' (nt) (1.00 / 2) (#44)
	by nathan on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 07:06:09 PM PST

	-- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Thank you. (none / 0) (#45)
	by because it isnt on Mon Jul 8th, 2002 at 07:57:42 PM PST

	Your comment rating preferences and enjoyment of the "AQ" contraction are duly noted. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Yes, with minor corrections. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
	by RobotSlave on Tue Jul 9th, 2002 at 03:07:12 AM PST

	I dare say your bit about bluffing was something of a feint in itself, as I'm quite certain you would jump at the chance to call a bluff. So what we're left with, then, is the assertion that I'm condescending when I've already won an argument. I think I can live with that. Condescention, after all, has its place. The problem with the idea that "Meta is Stupid," of course, it that it damns itself. Your inflated opinion of your own sense of irony would never allow you to admit that you'd missed that fact, would it? You will agree, then, that your steady complaint about the bit of Adequacy house style that addresses the issue is, in fact, a façade, constructed with the sole intent of embellishing the ediface it rests upon. Pretty much everything else you mention is spot-on, though. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	I missed it? (none / 0) (#47)
	by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 9th, 2002 at 03:36:55 AM PST

	Ok, you caught me. My vanity and pomposity demand that I rebut you, old-skool point-by-point fashion. When I see raw talent whipping your shiny metal ass, I stand back rather than boorishly crash into the conversation for easy pickings. You won the backpeddler of the month award not long ago, so quit yer whinin'. You already know (or should know) that meta-irony cannot escape my stare. The AQ's self-referential links would make them the most popular site on the internet by Google rank, if they'd just fix their `robots.txt` file. Surely, a person like yourself would know all about that. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	So you're waving, not drowning. (none / 0) (#49)
	by because it isnt on Wed Jul 10th, 2002 at 01:01:03 AM PST

	"You are a hypocrite" is not an insult to someone who freely admits to being a hypocrite. Anyway, the server gods/monkeys have fixed said robots.txt issue, since my last complaint, so all is good. And, as you may have noticed, my signature is not for changing. It's a signature, damnit, not some flavour-of-the-month display for gullible fashionistas to tweak and crimp. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	It's a new game, everybody! (5.00 / 1) (#51)
	by because it isnt on Wed Jul 10th, 2002 at 04:00:27 PM PST

	Come and play RobotSlave's "find the invisible insult" game. RobotSlave has cleverly hidden an invisible insult in his comment, nestling amongst all the blatantly obvious ones. Free cake and biscuits to the first person who finds it. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Go back and finish (none / 0) (#53)
	by because it isnt on Sat Jul 20th, 2002 at 04:06:14 AM PST

	that Rhetoric 101 course. There's more to it than just questions, you know. And, obviously, if nobody plays then I just eat the biscuits and cake myself. It's a win-win situation. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Oooh! Oooh! (5.00 / 1) (#54)
	by jvance on Tue Jul 30th, 2002 at 07:25:32 PM PST

	It's "goodbye," isn't it? ISN'T IT!? I DEMAND that you confirm I'm right!!! -- Adequacy has turned into a cesspool consisting of ... blubbering, superstitious fools arguing with smug, pseudointellectual assholes. -AR

	So glad you agree. (none / 0) (#48)
	by RobotSlave on Tue Jul 9th, 2002 at 05:13:15 AM PST

	I think I've wasted a good insult. I appreciate your substantiating it for the peanut gallery, though. Someone may get around to looking into this "robots.txt" issue, and eventually report back, but in the meantime, do you think you could remind us about it every so often? Perhaps in every comment? If it wouldn't be too much trouble, do you think you could add it to your "signature" until the matter is resolved? If the little technical gizmo thingamabob turns out to be useful in keeping the rabble away from Adequacy, then you will have done us all a great service, indeed. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	I was right. (none / 0) (#50)
	by RobotSlave on Wed Jul 10th, 2002 at 03:04:27 PM PST

	I did waste that insult. I guess I'll just have to settle for watching it sail over your head. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	Oh, dear. (none / 0) (#52)
	by RobotSlave on Fri Jul 19th, 2002 at 03:49:34 AM PST

	Nobody seems to be playing your new game, Mr. Isn't. What will you do? What do you do if you have a game, but nobody plays? © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	My dearest RobotSlave, (none / 0) (#6)
	by because it isnt on Mon Jun 24th, 2002 at 01:07:16 PM PST

	congratulations on posting your first meta-article to the front page of Adequacy.org. May there be many more. Obsessive types may want to trawl through their back comments and work out what their Mojo would be if they were actually on Kur0shin, and not, say, here. I don't know. It's probably more fun than sorting your stamp collection again. I have rated this article a "7", because I really like it. As you know, "7"s are very lucky. adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	i want all you guys to take a look at this: (none / 0) (#7)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jun 24th, 2002 at 01:29:02 PM PST

	does this mean that adequacy runs on unix AND apache? enlighten me pls

	No. (none / 0) (#9)
	by RobotSlave on Mon Jun 24th, 2002 at 01:41:05 PM PST

	It means that Adequacy's proprietary web-service software returns a string in response to an "http request" that is identical to that returned by a particular "Apache" web-server. There are many reasons for this, one of which is to throw dirty malicious hackers such as your anonymous self off the track. Another is to preserve certain elements of backwards-compatibility, much in the manner cleverly achieved by Microsoft Internet Explorer when it identifies itself as "Mozilla/4.0" © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	That's dumb. (none / 0) (#11)
	by tkatchev on Mon Jun 24th, 2002 at 02:06:41 PM PST

	You should do like the big boys and return something stupid like "VMS" or "VxWorks" for your server name. -- Peace and much love...

	We have our reasons. (none / 0) (#13)
	by RobotSlave on Mon Jun 24th, 2002 at 02:41:37 PM PST

	n/t © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	I guess it also means... (none / 0) (#16)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jun 24th, 2002 at 03:50:34 PM PST

	that your 403 error page looks exactly like that of a particular "Apache" web server. Adequacy.org And do you really believe that forging a header string will throw determined hackers?

	Yes. (none / 0) (#20)
	by RobotSlave on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 02:22:45 AM PST

	And yes. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	Yes, (none / 0) (#10)
	by because it isnt on Mon Jun 24th, 2002 at 01:46:11 PM PST

	you are utterly correct. Your l33t sk1llz have outsmarted the AQ kr3w. They ph33r you, d00d. Satisfied? adequacy.org -- because it isn't

	Congratulations, by the way (5.00 / 1) (#18)
	by T Reginald Gibbons on Mon Jun 24th, 2002 at 07:48:55 PM PST

	You are only the five billionth person to hack into adequacy's servers to discover and report that useless piece of less-than-trivia. Do you guys think there's some sort of lucky door prize for the last person on Earth to tell us about what Adequacy's servers claim to run?

	There is an easy way to answer that question (none / 0) (#25)
	by Narcissus on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 09:35:09 AM PST

	If you really think you're a hacker then you should do a better job of footprinting. Obviously you're a script kiddie, since you used programs that you don't even understand. Besides if you click the Scoop link at the bottom of the page they will explain to you that Scoop is designed and implemented on Apache using mod_perl on a Unix type box, and unless the editors really butchered the code themselves I would venture to guess that it still is on a Unix type box. God I hate stupid people! -------------------------------- Ok, who picked the flower???

	Well... (5.00 / 2) (#26)
	by zikzak on Tue Jun 25th, 2002 at 06:41:13 PM PST

	Actually we really did butcher the code. Or at least elby did while the rest of us cheered him on from the sidelines, demanding imposible features and offering useless advice.

	What do Adequacy and Kuro5hin run on? (5.00 / 1) (#8)
	by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jun 24th, 2002 at 01:32:13 PM PST

	It appears these two sites are running on the same software. Did Kuro5hin ripoff Adequacy's proprietary comment moderation system, or what?

	You've got it backwards. (none / 0) (#28)
	by RobotSlave on Thu Jun 27th, 2002 at 03:38:58 PM PST

	Adequacy's proprietary third-generation web-logging software is loosely based on Scoop." The Adequacy Comment Rating System, however, is an original and innovative new technology, with several patents pending. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	That would make Adequacy a leech? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 5th, 2002 at 10:51:21 AM PST

	Adequacy's proprietary third-generation web-logging software is loosely based on Scoop." The Adequacy Comment Rating System, however, is an original and innovative new technology, with several patents pending. So let me get this straight - Adequacy takes someone else's hard work, hacks on yet another moderation system, and then thinks that this is original and innovative enough to patent? Just out of curiosity, seeing as how Scoop is GPL'd, is there any chance that Adequacy is going to release their changes?

	No. (none / 0) (#38)
	by RobotSlave on Fri Jul 5th, 2002 at 03:07:43 PM PST

	Those portions of the Adequacy which still contain small amounts of the original "Scoop" code are being used internally, and Adequacy has no intention of distributing any portion of its soft-ware. According to the GPL, Adequacy is therefore under no obligation to release any portion of its source-code. We intend to keep our valuable technology secret, of that you can be sure. There will be no source-code release. © 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

	5, 'leech' spelled correctly (nt) (none / 0) (#39)
	by nathan on Sat Jul 6th, 2002 at 01:23:26 AM PST

	-- Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

	Thank you (none / 0) (#12)
	by Amitabh Bachan on Mon Jun 24th, 2002 at 02:26:14 PM PST

	RobotSlave for your informative article. I am new here and it was very helpful. I look forward to the day when I can be a Zero Status or Far Below Average user. There is one question I still have though. Certain other user moderated discussion boards recommend that you are addled on crack before attempting to moderate. Is there any similar requirement at adequacy - a stiff drink perhaps?